How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 12)

[NoNeed]

Vanden Saab said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Have MP's seen the wording of this 110 page bill and 120 page associated document before?

Bearing in mind that the labour party rejected it before it was even published does it make any difference?

Have you seen how the EU rush through votes on volumes of material that could not possibly be read

[Vanden Saab]

NoNeed said:

Vanden Saab said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Have MP's seen the wording of this 110 page bill and 120 page associated document before?

Bearing in mind that the labour party rejected it before it was even published does it make any difference?

Have you seen how the EU rush through votes on volumes of material that could not possibly be read

The benn act was passed in less than 24 hours and the Letwin amendment in under two hours. Now remainers are saying that they cannot pass a bill in four days. That is another few thousand votes for Boris...

[amusingduck]

NoNeed said:

Vanden Saab said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Have MP's seen the wording of this 110 page bill and 120 page associated document before?

Bearing in mind that the labour party rejected it before it was even published does it make any difference?

Have you seen how the EU rush through votes on volumes of material that could not possibly be read

Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmXJhGK4cr0

[Nickgnome]

Sway said:

Nickgnome said:

Nickgnome said:

Does anyone have views on the Withdrawal Act that was published last night?

It’s a bit of a dry read for those not used to legalese.

Still nobody want to discuss the content of the actual Bill?

Too difficult maybe or needing actual effort by posters?

There's nothing I can see during a read over morning coffee that worries me about it.

I'm not a fan of the Irish Sea border, and never have been. But, general consensus over the last couple of years is only one side of the knuckle draggers are at risk of going back to bombings, so it is what it is. Until people are willing to challenge the horrid non-peace that exists now, with the stepping stone to actual peace being held up as a sacred cow, then that's not going to change. Guess we'll see if breaching the spirit of the GFA for one side is OK, where it wasn't for the other side.

Full control of internal market regs, fiscal levers, and trade policy are my three core aims of leaving. This achieves all three.

The timing of the initial transition is too short, considering the appalling structure of the HoC at the moment, but again there's little that can change that. Can be managed to a degree by Johnson, depending on quite how the run into a GE (which surely must be inevitable soon! Surely...) plays out. A focus on domestic agenda and stimulus is the play I'd go with as a minority government wanting an election - Corbs will have to either support, giving confidence in Conservatives and screwing his campaign, or reject because Tories which screws his campaign.

Impressive. Your comments however are rather general.

It would have taken me at least a day to annotate particular clauses and send off to the relevant parties. In word of course for version control.

[Tankrizzo]

Vanden Saab said:

The benn act was passed in less than 24 hours and the Letwin amendment in under two hours. Now remainers are saying that they cannot pass a bill in four days. That is another few thousand votes for Boris...

To be fair the Benn Bill was just two sides of paper - this is a pretty complex document.

[Nickgnome]

Vanden Saab said:

NoNeed said:

Vanden Saab said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Have MP's seen the wording of this 110 page bill and 120 page associated document before?

Bearing in mind that the labour party rejected it before it was even published does it make any difference?

Have you seen how the EU rush through votes on volumes of material that could not possibly be read

The benn act was passed in less than 24 hours and the Letwin amendment in under two hours. Now remainers are saying that they cannot pass a bill in four days. That is another few thousand votes for Boris...

Have you read both in detail then, or just making a layman’s uninformed judgement?

I’ll be impressed if you’ve studied the Bill in detail as it was only published last evening.

There are a few city legal firms that could benefit from your skill set.

[Ridgemont]

Tankrizzo said:

All I've heard from Labour this morning is Boris Johnson this, Boris Johnson that. They are still so caught up in electioneering that they aren't looking at what's in front of them.

Edit: there are a few on their side like Thornberry who are protesting that three days is nowhere near enough time to go through the detail - as much as I detest Lady Nugee, I happen to agree with her here. This is the real issue that should be discussed at the moment, not "how much do we hate Boris Johnson".

Edited by Tankrizzo on Tuesday 22 October 09:12

The problem is a total breakdown in trust on all sides. The gov wants to ram this through because they do not trust Pannick to utilise a useful sock puppet and some how lever in wrecking amendments.
The opposition? Well they’re just convinced that Johnson is an utter liar.
Not a good place.
I’m on annual leave so intend to spend a spare hour or so later today reviewing the text. It’s either that or spend it doing something useful like redecorating the spare room.

[Digga]

Nickgnome said:

Sway said:

Nickgnome said:

Nickgnome said:

Does anyone have views on the Withdrawal Act that was published last night?

It’s a bit of a dry read for those not used to legalese.

Still nobody want to discuss the content of the actual Bill?

Too difficult maybe or needing actual effort by posters?

There's nothing I can see during a read over morning coffee that worries me about it.

I'm not a fan of the Irish Sea border, and never have been. But, general consensus over the last couple of years is only one side of the knuckle draggers are at risk of going back to bombings, so it is what it is. Until people are willing to challenge the horrid non-peace that exists now, with the stepping stone to actual peace being held up as a sacred cow, then that's not going to change. Guess we'll see if breaching the spirit of the GFA for one side is OK, where it wasn't for the other side.

Full control of internal market regs, fiscal levers, and trade policy are my three core aims of leaving. This achieves all three.

The timing of the initial transition is too short, considering the appalling structure of the HoC at the moment, but again there's little that can change that. Can be managed to a degree by Johnson, depending on quite how the run into a GE (which surely must be inevitable soon! Surely...) plays out. A focus on domestic agenda and stimulus is the play I'd go with as a minority government wanting an election - Corbs will have to either support, giving confidence in Conservatives and screwing his campaign, or reject because Tories which screws his campaign.

Impressive. Your comments however are rather general.

It would have taken me at least a day to annotate particular clauses and send off to the relevant parties. In word of course for version control.

Comes to us all, eventually.

Perhaps a good job you stepped aside when you did?

[Tankrizzo]

Ridgemont said:

The problem is a total breakdown in trust on all sides. The gov wants to ram this through because they do not trust Pannick to utilise a useful sock puppet and some how lever in wrecking amendments.
The opposition? Well they’re just convinced that Johnson is an utter liar.
Not a good place.
I’m on annual leave so intend to spend a spare hour or so later today reviewing the text. It’s either that or spend it doing something useful like redecorating the spare room.

At this point, I'd say watching paint dry is by far the better choice!

[JNW1]

Nickgnome said:

Have you read both in detail then, or just making a layman’s uninformed judgement?

I’ll be impressed if you’ve studied the Bill in detail as it was only published last evening.

There are a few city legal firms that could benefit from your skill set.

I get the point about there's potentially not much time to analyse quite a lot of information. However, we're being told continually that in excess of 80% of the new WA is actually exactly the same as Theresa May's original; therefore, on the basis MP's had ample time to scrutinise that, don't they just need to look at what's changed rather than trawl through the detail of the whole thing all over again? That being case it cuts down the work and time needed quite considerably....

[Pan Pan Pan]

We have seen, that in both parliament, and the country, there are those who do not respect democracy, and want to ignore the result of a democratic vote.
I am not clear how another referendum will help the situation, because if the vote again goes the way of leave, the same anti democratic individuals will try to over turn that vote as well.
What would be the point in having any further general elections, or referenda, in the UK when those that don't get the result `they' wanted will either just ignore, or overturn the vote result, or worse still, try to gerrymander the vote in the direction they want it to go.
When dealing with anti democratic parties, and individuals, one has to work on the basis, they will use any undemocratic tactic they can, to steer a vote in the direction they want it to go.
Anyone who tries to proceed in an entirely democratic way, will therefore be disadvantaged when competing with those, who see no problem in cheating, or breaking democratic rules to get the result they want.
It could be that the antics of the anti democrats, have reduced the UK to the level of a banana republic, which like other banana republics, has to call in the services of outside observers to over see the conduct of any further (probably pointless) votes held in the UK.
The anti democrats have, and will have a lot to answer for in the coming years, interesting times lay ahead, and they may not be very nice.

[Mrr T]

Vanden Saab said:

The benn act was passed in less than 24 hours and the Letwin amendment in under two hours. Now remainers are saying that they cannot pass a bill in four days. That is another few thousand votes for Boris...

The WA will be one of the most complex pieces of legislation the HOC has ever considered. Its not just about the detail of the WA but about who controls the decisions during the TP.

So forget the Labour Party who will just try to block it, it still needed careful consideration with BJ still suggesting no deal is possible at the end of the TP.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/new...

Leaving by 31 Oct is now impossible unless the EU refuse an extension.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1...

[p1stonhead]

Saw a comment on twitter which I found quite relevant. MP’s have each been paid £250k since brexit and are now only being asked to read 120 pages in 4 days.

It’s hardly beyond them is it. Meaningful scrutiny doesn’t need to take months on 120 pages.

[Nickgnome]

JNW1 said:

Nickgnome said:

Have you read both in detail then, or just making a layman’s uninformed judgement?

I’ll be impressed if you’ve studied the Bill in detail as it was only published last evening.

There are a few city legal firms that could benefit from your skill set.

I get the point about there's potentially not much time to analyse quite a lot of information. However, we're being told continually that in excess of 80% of the new WA is actually exactly the same as Theresa May's original; therefore, on the basis MP's had ample time to scrutinise that, don't they just need to look at what's changed rather than trawl through the detail of the whole thing all over again? That being case it cuts down the work and time needed quite considerably....

Just No and if you’d been anywhere near contracts you’d understand why.

[Nickgnome]

Digga said:

Comes to us all, eventually.

Perhaps a good job you stepped aside when you did?

Really. You not familiar with contracts either then or just happy to take on trust.

if you really want to know ask a friendly solicitor how long and how much it would cost to provide an annotated critique the bill.

[Escapegoat]

Nickgnome said:

Just No and if you’d been anywhere near contracts you’d understand why.

You're going to do this supercilious thing all the time?

[Nickgnome]

p1stonhead said:

Saw a comment on twitter which I found quite relevant. MP’s have each been paid £250k since brexit and are now only being asked to read 120 pages in 4 days.

It’s hardly beyond them is it. Meaningful scrutiny doesn’t need to take months on 120 pages.

You could start by reading it and trying to understand every clause. Then come back and comment.

[Sway]

Nickgnome said:

Sway said:

Nickgnome said:

Nickgnome said:

Does anyone have views on the Withdrawal Act that was published last night?

It’s a bit of a dry read for those not used to legalese.

Still nobody want to discuss the content of the actual Bill?

Too difficult maybe or needing actual effort by posters?

There's nothing I can see during a read over morning coffee that worries me about it.

I'm not a fan of the Irish Sea border, and never have been. But, general consensus over the last couple of years is only one side of the knuckle draggers are at risk of going back to bombings, so it is what it is. Until people are willing to challenge the horrid non-peace that exists now, with the stepping stone to actual peace being held up as a sacred cow, then that's not going to change. Guess we'll see if breaching the spirit of the GFA for one side is OK, where it wasn't for the other side.

Full control of internal market regs, fiscal levers, and trade policy are my three core aims of leaving. This achieves all three.

The timing of the initial transition is too short, considering the appalling structure of the HoC at the moment, but again there's little that can change that. Can be managed to a degree by Johnson, depending on quite how the run into a GE (which surely must be inevitable soon! Surely...) plays out. A focus on domestic agenda and stimulus is the play I'd go with as a minority government wanting an election - Corbs will have to either support, giving confidence in Conservatives and screwing his campaign, or reject because Tories which screws his campaign.

Impressive. Your comments however are rather general.

It would have taken me at least a day to annotate particular clauses and send off to the relevant parties. In word of course for version control.

You're not paying me. General is all you get.

I'm staggered you think I'd perform a professional analysis during my annual leave coffee morning, gratis.

Never heard of never underselling yourself?

[p1stonhead]

Nickgnome said:

p1stonhead said:

Saw a comment on twitter which I found quite relevant. MP’s have each been paid £250k since brexit and are now only being asked to read 120 pages in 4 days.

It’s hardly beyond them is it. Meaningful scrutiny doesn’t need to take months on 120 pages.

You could start by reading it and trying to understand every clause. Then come back and comment.

Not my job nor do we get a vote on it. Got better things to do. MP’s don’t.

They don’t each have to read and analysis each page. They can share.

Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 22 October 10:07

[230TE]

I'm with those who say four days isn't enough time to properly examine and consider a piece of legislation of this magnitude and complexity. If it hadn't been for Oliver Letwin the useful idiot, we could very possibly have had an agreement in principle to accept the revised WA, and everyone could relax, extend the deadline by a month or two and just get on with making sure the legislation will do what it is supposed to do (i.e. incorporate the WA into UK law). But since we don't have an agreement in principle MPs can go ahead and wreck the legislation line by line, clause by clause without even the tiniest twinge of conscience. The EU might as well put us out of our misery now: it will save time later.