UK Politics: A Partly Political Broadcast

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, Sophelia said:

OK, I see I was being very naive in assuming it had not been written yet - it seems this must have been written previously [I guess it had to be for the EU to agree to it??], but is only now being revealed, because the government were forced to put it to Parliament before getting the deal agreed, by the Letwin amendment.  

According to the BBC, the government is going to try and insist that this is discussed in the next three days and keep the MPs at work until midnight, the price of trying to get the deal through by 31st October, somewhat inhumane for the MPs and also a danger something might be overlooked by tired eyes.  (How they can both have time to take it in *and* to argue about it I don't know!) 

But just looking at it, surely this needs people to have several days to read it and ask questions of lawyers, before then debating it.  There are things I would not trust, for example the list of workers rights to be retained included things like the maximum 48 hours/week and right for 4 weeks holidays etc., but it also says "References in this Schedule to rights being of the same kind as new EU workers’ rights are to be read as references to rights being of the same kind so far as that is consistent with the United Kingdom’s domestic legal order following its withdrawal from the EU" which to me makes it sound like the Tories could just wipe out those rights subsequently (which is what many fear, though others say that is the whole point of Brexit - probably depends if you are a worker or a business-owner...). 

Of course it was written beforehand. Remember the EU insisting on legally binding arrangements? So f course they had those stored away somewhere safely to avoid proper scrutiny.

That's why you have staffers. And I think, there will also be the first legal experts out in a few days to give a breakdown (Prof. M. Dougan comes to mind).

[Ser Hedge]

1 hour ago, Sophelia said:

it seems this must have been written previously [I guess it had to be for the EU to agree to it??]

My understanding is there are two documents: 1. a treaty between the UK and the EU, which was agreed by the EU council and Boris and is to be ratified by the EU parliament and 2. the WA bill that implements the former and which when enacted by Westminster becomes UK law. 

To what extent the WAB is a copy and paste of the treaty I don't know, but I'm guessing the measures agreed to in the treaty have to be described in terms of UK law with appropriate cross-references etc.
 

[Ser Hedge]

It seems there are two separate votes coming up tomorrow:
 

With the backing of some Labour rebels and the Tories who backed Oliver Letwin’s amendment at the weekend, Johnson is expected to win the vote on his bill known as the second reading, signalling MPs’ approval for it to proceed in principle.

But Downing Street is braced for potential defeat on the so-called programme motion setting out the timetable, as it suspects some pro-deal Labour MPs and a few Conservatives may not support plans to rush it through the Commons within days.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/21/boris-johnson-in-final-push-to-ram-through-brexit-deal

As @Sophelia said that is a lot of detail to take in and debate in 3 days, especially considering the changes happening with NI customs procedures.  

Brexit has turned into a dissertation at Uni - no progress for 3 years and a crazy scramble at the end with a few all-nighters to get it over the line 

[The Anti-Targ]

14 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

I didn't realize the wait-and-watch was confirmed.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-delay/eu-plays-for-time-as-johnson-spars-with-uk-parliament-on-brexit-idUKKBN1WZ08Q

Should push really come to shove, I would think an extension is still granted, but it looks like the EU are giving this every chance to pass through commons.
 

The optics so far around Brexit are that the mess is on the UK's side (to state the obvious). If the WAB is voted down or gets deadlocked with never ending amendments, and the EU ask for a plan around resolving the deadlock before granting an extension (GE, referendum) they would still look within their rights to do that. I don't think they're going to (want to) signal they will keep rolling it over automatically every time, partly probably for the reasons Münchau listed (ie really want to move on + current uncertainty dragging economies down).
 

You can also see this on our side of the channel in how UK business is coming around to arguing that the certainty of a deal is better than the current gridlock, though one hopes Labour can extract firm commitments that we will not crash out on WTO terms after transition. Surprising Carney, IoD et al didn't seem to highlight that particular risk much. Maybe they trust Boris more than Letwin did? LOL

Europe is walking a tightrope. It doesn't want to be seen to be forcing the UK to stay in the EU and that's fair, but it also should not be forcing the UK out of the EU. It's unconscionable IMO for the EU to refuse an extension request, because an extension request is the UK saying we are not ready to leave, and thus there is some danger to the UK if it leaves right now  / on X date.

What should be learned from this whole mess is that Art 50 is not fit for purpose. There should always be a mechanism for a country to leave the EU but the mechanism needs to have some fail-safes, including that reaching a deadline does not mean a country crashing out. In fact Art 50 should not set any deadlines to leave. It should set deadlines to rescind. If in two years a country has not left the EU then there is an option for the leaving country to extend for 1 year if it chooses. If it chooses not to extend then Art 50 is revoked and a country has a certain cool-down period before it can re-notify under Art 50. If it extends by a year then the same revoke and cool-down is triggered in a year's time if the country has still not figured out how to exit.

People might oppose this approach on the basis that the EU won't negotiate in good faith. But that could be negated by putting a pro forma withdrawal arrangement in place that is pre-agreed by the EU so that there are two options if agreement can't be reached: no deal and the pro forma arrangement. The arrangement could include penalties for the EU if the ECJ rules that the EU negotiated in bad faith to try to prevent the country from leaving.

[ants]

Thought this was worth posting:

https://discourse.bomberblitz.com/uploads/default/original/3X/a/9/a97f202ec1df72b4fb4d3e9e41103a5b15fceea4.jpeg

 

Why oh why do pictures appear in the edit bit, but not the actual post???

[Ser Hedge]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/21/what-does-boris-johnsons-withdrawal-bill-actually-say

[mormont]

Random thought: it's going to be entertaining when, if Johnson delivers Brexit (late or not), Gove et al step up and stab him in the back. 

[Which Tyler]

14 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

 Some of this just get Brexit done stuff is quite shallow and the voters could be tempted away with something decisive.

Unfortunately, "shallow but shoutable" always seems to beat "in your best interests, but nuanced"

 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Random thought: it's going to be entertaining when, if Johnson delivers Brexit (late or not), Gove et al step up and stab him in the back. 

Did boris leave Gove's previous knife in? in which case, he might be provided some small protection by its guard

[mormont]

So there we have it: the latest Clever Wheeze is to threaten to pull the Withdrawal Agreement Bill altogether unless it gets passed in three days flat, with no adequate scrutiny. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50142367

The government line appears to be that since we've been talking about Brexit for three and a half years, no detailed scrutiny is needed, which implies profound ignorance of how the process of making laws actually works. Whether that ignorance is on the part of the government or whether they're assuming that ignorance on the part of the public, I leave to you to conclude.

ETA - the threat appears to be specifically that the government will attempt to force a general election before Christmas unless they get Brexit by 31 October, which seems to me to be unwise. I'm not sure what the UK public really wants is to be plagued by canvassers while they're doing their Christmas shopping. 

[Which Tyler]

He will consistantly do anything to avoid scrutiny / accountability. It's his most consistent feature

[mormont]

54 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

He will consistantly do anything to avoid scrutiny / accountability. It's his most consistent feature

That, and empty bluffs. Which this is.

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

That, and empty bluffs. Which this is.

And rampant self interest...

 

 

 

I'm starting to feel like I'm in a Monty Python skit...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Prof. Dougan has offered his first impression on the Johnson Deal. This is from yesterday, and he was not too impressed with HMG attempt to ram it thru without scrutiny.

https://twitter.com/mdouganlpool/status/1186451592230383617

 

[Chaircat Meow]

6 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Unfortunately, "shallow but shoutable" always seems to beat "in your best interests, but nuanced"

I didn't say nuanced, I said decisive. I think you need to fight fire with fire here. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

How can the possibly discuss and debate Boris deal in three days if it takes all day to debate if 3 days is enough.  (Which is one issue and simple)  That's proof they need more time.

[Werthead]

The DUP have said they don't want to stay in the EU, but they will reject anything that results in NI being treated differently to the rest of the UK. So they seem to be saying that they will vote in favour of remaining in the EU over any version of the deal that results in any differentiation between NI and the rest of the UK.

Unfortunately it looks like that, thanks to JC's incredible lack of enthusiasm for another referendum and the Labour rebels not really keen on it either, even the DUP supporting a referendum amendment might be shot down. The customs union idea may have more legs.

The first bill has passed by 30 votes, which I believe is Boris's first victory in the Commons.

[Werthead]

Boris defeated on the timetable legislation. And "pauses" the legislation.

Okay.

[williamjm]

19 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Boris defeated on the timetable legislation. And "pauses" the legislation.

Okay.

He seemed to change very quickly from wanting it done as soon as possible to wanting to complete halt its progress.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

12 minutes ago, williamjm said:

He seemed to change very quickly from wanting it done as soon as possible to wanting to complete halt its progress.

Yep, it's almost as if he doesn't want the full facts known in advance.  What is he hiding?

[Maltaran]

20 minutes ago, williamjm said:

He seemed to change very quickly from wanting it done as soon as possible to wanting to complete halt its progress.

 

I believe the idea is if he can't get it done by the end of the month, then he wants an election so he can pass the bill with a majority government and avoid any amendments that Labour might put down about staying in the customs union or having a second referendum.