• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
What does "amend plan B" mean exactly?
Click to expand...
That rejecting this deal means no deal


Under the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act, the government will have 21 days to come back to parliament with a motion, setting out what it plans to do.

Grieve’s amendment, which is backed by the shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, is aimed at ensuring any such motion can be amended by MPs.

They hope this will allow parliament to express its support for alternative approaches – and prevent the government either hurtling towards a no-deal Brexit without the backing of MPs, or imposing a plan B of its own devising.
 
Also Scara, the EU already have an appreciation of what Britain's bottom line would be. Why should Britain settle for a brick deal, that fails to meet the basic expectations of the people and why can't these expectations be worked out BEFORE any vote? Cart before the horse methinks. With a limited time frame, no agreed course and a bemused Euro bureaucracy, what could possibly go wrong?
 
Then if/when the deal gets voted down, Parliament starts taking the Norway (or Norway-esque) route. Is my guess.
 
But whatever they vote for wouldn't be binding, there was a debate on this a week or 2 back where whoever decides on the matter stated it wouldn't be so but might of course be reputationally bad to ignore it.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Easy the vote would be subject to certain conditions being met, if not no exit.
Click to expand...
:D There's no way in a million years we'd be able to specify what we wanted without giving away our position to the opposition in negotiations.

There's also no way we'd be able to specify such things in advance and get any kind of Brexit. You're simply dressing up ignoring the referendum result in some kind of faux democracy with the result already determined.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Also Scara, the EU already have an appreciation of what Britain's bottom line would be. Why should Britain settle for a brick deal, that fails to meet the basic expectations of the people and why can't these expectations be worked out BEFORE any vote? Cart before the horse methinks. With a limited time frame, no agreed course and a bemused Euro bureaucracy, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...
In which case the EU simply refuses to meet the conditions we've set and they halt Brexit.
 
scaramanga said:
:D There's no way in a million years we'd be able to specify what we wanted without giving away our position to the opposition in negotiations.

There's also no way we'd be able to specify such things in advance and get any kind of Brexit. You're simply dressing up ignoring the referendum result in some kind of faux democracy with the result already determined.
Click to expand...

Don't be naive. Do you really think for a second that the EU negotiators did not already know exactly what Britain's preferred positions were? It would all have been war gamed as matter of course. They are not as incompetent as this government.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
So you support the view that a brick deal is better than no deal?
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with what I said.

My point was that if we set out results that must be achieved before parliament will pass a vote, then all the EU has to do is refuse on one of those lines and we're in the EU forever. Which they obviously would.
 
scaramanga said:
That has nothing to do with what I said.

My point was that if we set out results that must be achieved before parliament will pass a vote, then all the EU has to do is refuse on one of those lines and we're in the EU forever. Which they obviously would.
Click to expand...

Glad to see that you put so much store in the Tory negotiation skills... me not so much.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Glad to see that you put so much store in the Tory negotiation skills... me not so much.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with ability in negotiations (although May has thoroughly fudged these ones).

Step through the logic of it. Why would the EU give us a concession they don't want to give, in order to enable a Brexit they don't want to happen? If they know refusing on a single item will mean that Brexit will fail to get through parliament, then they will obviously refuse.
 
scaramanga said:
I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with ability in negotiations (although May has thoroughly fudged these ones).

Step through the logic of it. Why would the EU give us a concession they don't want to give, in order to enable a Brexit they don't want to happen? If they know refusing on a single item will mean that Brexit will fail to get through parliament, then they will obviously refuse.
Click to expand...


Well that would not be a bruise free act on their part. There would be repercussions on them, if they attempt that level of bastardy. Plus, I am not so sure that that the EU is solidly behind the view that they do no twant us to leave.
 
@milo ,@r-u-s-x - cheers - pretty well what I thought. It was the plan B bit that threw me, thought Id missed something.

Still, IMO, likely to go to referendum to have a mandate to continue one way or the other. Represent the people and that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back