That would be quite an achievement for Boris; after months and months of attacking TM's deal, he now comes up with a deal that's worse. From an Irish perspective, I'm quite satisfied with it. The deal is very much in Ireland's interests (and by Ireland's, I mean the whole island - including NI); it reinforces the concept of an all-Ireland economy. The DUP will oppose it, as of course they would, but the reality is that it's very good for the people and economy of NI. One can see why the DUP is opposing it, because it crossed their red line of NI being treated differently from the rest of the UK, BUT this was really unavoidable if there were to be no border on the island of Ireland, to which which both governments and the EU committed themselves.They are, of course, looking at it in doctrinaire terms, not in the context of the best interests of NI - as they have been right through this whole process. The upcoming election will show how well this went down among the people of NI.

It wouldnt surprise me in the least if it were voted down, given the history of Brexit to date, but where would that leave us? Presumably with Boris having to follow the Benn Act and request a further extension - which the EU has pretty much ruled out? Another week of political horse trading? It would be a nervous time for NI, while their biggest group of representatives in the UK parliament fights tooth and nail to make sure it (NI) doesn't benefit under the new deal. You couldn't make this stuff up!

The Tories will try (as they are already) to put a positive spin on this deal and probably attack and blame remainers, but as the media analyses this over the coming days, surely more will question openly whether this deal (worse than TM's roundly vilified deal) is really in Britain's long term interests. This is not something the EU has done to Britain; it was quite happy to go with TM's deal, but no, they decided to argue for something less beneficial. This is Britain's - and Boris's - deal. The sad reality is that given the state of the UK Labour Party and Corbyn's leadership, Boris could quite easily win the next election!

It was Jean-Claude Juncker that ruled out an extension, though when you consider the fact that any extension request is not for Jean-Claude Juncker to agree to (it’s Tusk and the EU27) it’s safe to assume he is just speaking for himself.

I agree with what you’re saying about the DUP. Although they may raise some valid points, what’s annoyed me is that they’ve been quick to criticise and reject the May WA and the Johnson WA, but have failed to come forward with their own workable proposals or give a steer on what they could agree to. That said, given that Boris kicked out numerous MP’s a few weeks ago I’d argue the DUP is no longer the difference between a key vote passing or not.

I can’t say for sure how Parliament will vote on Saturday. Part of me thinks Boris will just get it over the line, part of me thinks he still hasn’t got the numbers, though part of me also thinks some MP’s voted the way they did to (successfully) try and get rid of May.

As for Labour, as it stands I can’t see them improving on their 2017 GE results and it will realistically be the end for Corbyn if they go backwards even if he pledges not to quit.

I am waiting saturday. I hope I got enough pop-corn for the week-end

sabenapilot wrote:

If you call that OK....I call that devastating.
People will feel this in their wallets, for sure as we're talking thousands of pounds a year, individually!!!

But why would Boris care? From his perspective this is the perfect deal. He concluded a deal and if it isn't accepted by Parliament, he'll go for option B, which is a no deal Brexit. Either way, he wins. The fact that many people will feel this in their wallet is irrelevant for him (and his friends). Let's put it this way, this deal is his way out from not neeeding to send the extension letter. If you take a negative perspective, he concluded the deal knowing that it won't be accepted and thus the result will be no deal Brexit (his plan all along). Needless to say, Labour and DUP help him to achieve this goal.

LJ wrote:

If Parliament rejects, he gets his hard - Brexit (as he doesn't need to send the letter to the EU as there is a deal).

My understanding is that Parliament still has to approve this “new deal” or agree to a no-deal Brexit on 19th, otherwise Johnson still has to request an extension.

scbriml wrote:

LJ wrote:

If Parliament rejects, he gets his hard - Brexit (as he doesn't need to send the letter to the EU as there is a deal).

My understanding is that Parliament still has to approve this “new deal” or agree to a no-deal Brexit on 19th, otherwise Johnson still has to request an extension.

Yes that's correct, but I doubt that Boris has the same interpretation of the Benn Act. In his view he can use this to get a hard Brexit, and I'm not so sure he won't succeed in doing so.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Note that the EU takes a risk with this deal as it has a big chance of not getting it through Parliament (and thus resulting in a no deal Brexit). The EU couldn't say no. One may argue that the EU has fallen into a trap designed to get a no deal Brexit by Boris agreeing to a deal of which he knows may not succeed in Parliament. However, I doubt that the EU would not enter this agreement without exploring this option.

From the EU27's perspective no deal has always been an unpleasant, but still perfectly survivable option and the insane demands from Westminster would have been much worse than no deal, which is why Westminster never had any leverage that way.

No deal would be absolutely devastating to the UK itself, contrary to the distorted misrepresentation perpetrated by the Tories (and of course by the Brexit Party), but for the EU27 it is actually just one of the expected outcomes for which there is extensive preparation (much more robust than the UK's).

Not sure who you are quoting but it’s not me, can you make sure you quote the correct person in the future please.

scbriml wrote:

LJ wrote:

If Parliament rejects, he gets his hard - Brexit (as he doesn't need to send the letter to the EU as there is a deal).

My understanding is that Parliament still has to approve this “new deal” or agree to a no-deal Brexit on 19th, otherwise Johnson still has to request an extension.

If parliament rejects I can’t see the EU granting the extension can you?

Has anyone found a copy of the agreement yet can’t find it at UKGov yet


Edit

I found this on the EU link

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... reland.pdf

A101 wrote:

Not sure who you are quoting but it’s not me, can you make sure you quote the correct person in the future please.

Your quote is misattributing my quotes and inconsistent with my actual post:

Klaus wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Er... actually, majority decisions are the core of democracy, really!

Majority yes. But require the parliament to vote. We have the situation in the UK where a majority of members oppose a no-deal Brexit, but two minority blocs (on in each party) desire a Brexit. So which 'majority' are you talking about.

A majority in Stormont across unionists and republicans, as discussed above!

Actually I suspect I know. You may be a foe of true democracy, loyal only the small majority of the party you prefer.

Your own reading incomprehension is the issue here, but that based on that you're going off on a wild imaginary tangent with zero connection to reality is telling in itself.

I have no idea how you ended up with my quotes being misattributed the way you have quoted them.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Not sure who you are quoting but it’s not me, can you make sure you quote the correct person in the future please.

Your quote is misattributing my quotes and inconsistent with my actual post:

Klaus wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Majority yes. But require the parliament to vote. We have the situation in the UK where a majority of members oppose a no-deal Brexit, but two minority blocs (on in each party) desire a Brexit. So which 'majority' are you talking about.

A majority in Stormont across unionists and republicans, as discussed above!

Actually I suspect I know. You may be a foe of true democracy, loyal only the small majority of the party you prefer.

Your own reading incomprehension is the issue here, but that based on that you're going off on a wild imaginary tangent with zero connection to reality is telling in itself.

I have no idea how you ended up with my quotes being misattributed the way you have quoted them.

Well first up please show were I said this as per your previous post suggested and then you will find the correct person you are quoting,I have not said anything of the sort. All I am asking if you quote someone just quote the correct person, am not even sure who you are talking to now.

“Note that the EU takes a risk with this deal as it has a big chance of not getting it through Parliament (and thus resulting in a no deal Brexit). The EU couldn't say no. One may argue that the EU has fallen into a trap designed to get a no deal Brexit by Boris agreeing to a deal of which he knows may not succeed in Parliament. However, I doubt that the EU would not enter this agreement without exploring this option.”

A101 wrote:

Well first up please show were I said this as per your previous post suggested and then you will find the correct person you are quoting,I have not said anything of the sort. All I am asking if you quote someone just quote the correct person, am not even sure who you are talking to now.

The problem with your quote is that it claims that I was attributing that quote to you which just isn't the case as the quote in my post above proves, which is consistent with my post on the previous page.

I just noticed that we're apparently talking about two different posts of mine and that one of my older post indeed contains a misattributed quote.

I just re-checked and it apparently originated from LJ (whose text I actually quoted) having some botched tags which I cleaned up the wrong way in my quote so LJ quoting you in that post ended up in my post attributing his text to you even though I had meant to completely remove his quote of yours:

LJ wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

A101 wrote:

Well a deal has supposedly been reached, but dosnt look like it will pass, wondercwhen they will release it in full

Brexit: Boris Johnson says he has secured deal with EU but DUP says position remains same – live news

You can bet that the EU will make it a "take it or leave it" offer, which will signal to Labour that it can't get anything better (though it's indeed a worse agreement for the UK). This means, reject the deal, and it's no-deal Brexit. Boris will congratulate himself of getting a deal done (though it's probably worse than what May negotiated) and how well he is as a PM. He doesn't have much too loose. If Parliament rejects, he gets his hard - Brexit (as he doesn't need to send the letter to the EU as there is a deal). If Parliament approves he sees himself as the savior of the UK. Thus in both situations he's the King dealmaker (at least in his view).

Note that the EU takes a risk with this deal as it has a big chance of not getting it through Parliament (and thus resulting in a no deal Brexit). The EU couldn't say no. One may argue that the EU has fallen into a trap designed to get a no deal Brexit by Boris agreeing to a deal of which he knows may not succeed in Parliament. However, I doubt that the EU would not enter this agreement without exploring this option. Moreover, we've come to a point that decisions in Brexit have to be taken. It's now up to the UK Parliament to decide what's the worst, this deal or a no deal Brexit.

BTW well played by the UK government (and the EU).

I apologize for my mistake!

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well first up please show were I said this as per your previous post suggested and then you will find the correct person you are quoting,I have not said anything of the sort. All I am asking if you quote someone just quote the correct person, am not even sure who you are talking to now.

The problem with your quote is that it claims that I was attributing that quote to you which just isn't the case as the quote in my post above proves, which is consistent with my post on the previous page.

For god sake man this is the post where you incorrectly attribute the quote to me, but you cannot show where I have said it, I have no idea what all the other quotes related to whom. Please show my post where I have said the below in bold, just admit you made a mistake and quote the correct person is all I’m asking

Klaus wrote:

[quote="A101"]Note that the EU takes a risk with this deal as it has a big chance of not getting it through Parliament (and thus resulting in a no deal Brexit). The EU couldn't say no. One may argue that the EU has fallen into a trap designed to get a no deal Brexit by Boris agreeing to a deal of which he knows may not succeed in Parliament. However, I doubt that the EU would not enter this agreement without exploring this option.[/quote]

From the EU27's perspective no deal has always been an unpleasant, but still perfectly survivable option and the insane demands from Westminster would have been much worse than no deal, which is why Westminster never had any leverage that way.

No deal would be absolutely devastating to the UK itself, contrary to the distorted misrepresentation perpetrated by the Tories (and of course by the Brexit Party), but for the EU27 it is actually just one of the expected outcomes for which there is extensive preparation (much more robust than the UK's).[/quote]

Klaus wrote:

I just noticed that we're apparently talking about two different posts of mine and that one of my older post indeed contains a misattributed quote.

I just re-checked and it apparently originated from LJ (whose text I actually quoted) having some botched tags which I cleaned up the wrong way in my quote so LJ quoting you in that post ended up in my post attributing his text to you even though I had meant to completely remove his quote of yours:

LJ wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

A101 wrote:

Well a deal has supposedly been reached, but dosnt look like it will pass, wondercwhen they will release it in full

Brexit: Boris Johnson says he has secured deal with EU but DUP says position remains same – live news

You can bet that the EU will make it a "take it or leave it" offer, which will signal to Labour that it can't get anything better (though it's indeed a worse agreement for the UK). This means, reject the deal, and it's no-deal Brexit. Boris will congratulate himself of getting a deal done (though it's probably worse than what May negotiated) and how well he is as a PM. He doesn't have much too loose. If Parliament rejects, he gets his hard - Brexit (as he doesn't need to send the letter to the EU as there is a deal). If Parliament approves he sees himself as the savior of the UK. Thus in both situations he's the King dealmaker (at least in his view).

Note that the EU takes a risk with this deal as it has a big chance of not getting it through Parliament (and thus resulting in a no deal Brexit). The EU couldn't say no. One may argue that the EU has fallen into a trap designed to get a no deal Brexit by Boris agreeing to a deal of which he knows may not succeed in Parliament. However, I doubt that the EU would not enter this agreement without exploring this option. Moreover, we've come to a point that decisions in Brexit have to be taken. It's now up to the UK Parliament to decide what's the worst, this deal or a no deal Brexit.

BTW well played by the UK government (and the EU).

I apologize for my mistake!

Thank you

There has been a couple of court case in regards to Brexit in the last couple of days, seems both have failed

The court of appeal in London has refused the human rights organisation Liberty permission to have heard an urgent application seeking to prevent Boris Johnson crashing out of the EU without a deal.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... tish-court

Scotland's highest civil court has dismissed a legal bid to stop the UK government from passing its proposed EU withdrawal agreement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-50088993

Apparently this one is going to appeal, remainers have a pretty good track record on appeal will be interesting

Stormont doesn't work on a simple majority, that's what is confusing :

any vote taken by the Assembly can be made dependent on cross-community support if a petition of concern is presented to the Speaker. A petition of concern may be brought by 30 or more MLAs.[28] In such cases, a vote on proposed legislation will only pass if supported by a weighted majority (60%) of members voting, including at least 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting. Effectively this means that, provided enough MLAs from a given community agree, that community (or a sufficiently large party in that community) can exercise a veto over the Assembly's decisions. The purpose is to protect each community from legislation that would favour the other community.

Best option, in my opinion, is to have a new referendum with two choices: Boris' Brexit deal or remain. Would UK parliament be willing and capable to force such a referendum?

AeroVega wrote:

Best option, in my opinion, is to have a new referendum with two choices: Boris' Brexit deal or remain. Would UK parliament be willing and capable to force such a referendum?

If some MP’s are serious about preventing a no-deal Brexit, today’s the day to act. I still fear though that their talk about trying to prevent a no-deal Brexit will lead to a no-deal Brexit by accident.

Now that a wrecking amendment has been put forth, my opinion is that the vote will be NYET. The wrecking amendment gives all MP's the cover to say they support a deal while at the same time preventing a deal.
Interesting for me would be if after the passage of the wrecking bill whether the government will still put the Bojo deal up for a vote, politically it would make no sense to have your proposed deal voted on as a protest vote, it would probably loose 400+ as the vote serves no purpose.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50104789

Aesma wrote:

Stormont doesn't work on a simple majority, that's what is confusing :

any vote taken by the Assembly can be made dependent on cross-community support if a petition of concern is presented to the Speaker. A petition of concern may be brought by 30 or more MLAs.[28] In such cases, a vote on proposed legislation will only pass if supported by a weighted majority (60%) of members voting, including at least 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting. Effectively this means that, provided enough MLAs from a given community agree, that community (or a sufficiently large party in that community) can exercise a veto over the Assembly's decisions. The purpose is to protect each community from legislation that would favour the other community.

Thanks for this clarification. What it means of course is that Stormont is not sovereign. Nor is either party. One way out is a referendum of the residents (?) of NI. Does the ROI and the UK have powers to appoint a commission to run NI in the case of an impasse? This sort of impasse is the death of democracy. 40% of a minority party can drag down the entire population.

The US is currently the victim of this given the Hastert Rule, and those taking advantage of this have even demonstrated with t-shirts saying they prefer Putin over the opposing party.

Boeing74741R wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Best option, in my opinion, is to have a new referendum with two choices: Boris' Brexit deal or remain. Would UK parliament be willing and capable to force such a referendum?

If some MP’s are serious about preventing a no-deal Brexit, today’s the day to act. I still fear though that their talk about trying to prevent a no-deal Brexit will lead to a no-deal Brexit by accident.

If I give you a choice between being healthy, having cancer, or having Alzheimer's, would you vote for cancer in order to avoid the latter, even though being healthy is still a possibility ?

Arion640 wrote:

Supreme Leader Juncker has said there will be no further delay on Brexit. We’re leaving on the 31st October whatever happens now. The no deal express is leaving the station and accelerating down the track.

Great, except it's not his decision, is it?

Are you willing to bet your house we'll be out of the EU on 1st November?

Well at least Junker himself should be out by then

Arion640 wrote:

Supreme Leader Juncker has said there will be no further delay on Brexit. We’re leaving on the 31st October whatever happens now. The no deal express is leaving the station and accelerating down the track.

It's not Juncker that makes the decision. He's just the figurehead of the executive body that implements the EU Parliament's decisions to statute. His only real power is to rubberstamp what the EU Parliament decides.
But you know, brexiteers as uninformed as ever.

His role is a rough combination of that of Mark Sedwell and our Queen. Juncker was democratically elected though whereas Mark Sedwell was merely appointed and Her Majesty inherited.

Considering that parliament will never be happy with any type of Brexit, nor with Remain, parliament will vote "Delay" for the rest of eternity? Will we talk about Brexit until the next century? "Brexit part 666" and such?

[photoid]o[/photoid]

Aesma wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Best option, in my opinion, is to have a new referendum with two choices: Boris' Brexit deal or remain. Would UK parliament be willing and capable to force such a referendum?

If some MP’s are serious about preventing a no-deal Brexit, today’s the day to act. I still fear though that their talk about trying to prevent a no-deal Brexit will lead to a no-deal Brexit by accident.

If I give you a choice between being healthy, having cancer, or having Alzheimer's, would you vote for cancer in order to avoid the latter, even though being healthy is still a possibility ?

Healthy of course, but my point is borne out of fear that Parliament is incapable of clearly saying what it wants despite most knowing what it doesn’t want (no-deal).

Mind you, I see the vote on the Johnson deal didn’t happen as the Letwin amendment has passed which rules out a Brexit until Parliament has passed all relevant legislation. Over to Boris now to send that letter which he is legally obliged to do.

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Supreme Leader Juncker has said there will be no further delay on Brexit. We’re leaving on the 31st October whatever happens now. The no deal express is leaving the station and accelerating down the track.

Great, except it's not his decision, is it?

Indeed - it’s the European Council that will decide whether to grant an extension if/when requested, not Juncker in his capacity as European Commission President. Juncker also said he sees no reason to grant another extension, which is different to saying definitively there will be no extension. Like I said the other day, Juncker was speaking for himself.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Mind you, I see the vote on the Johnson deal didn’t happen as the Letwin amendment has passed which rules out a Brexit until Parliament has passed all relevant legislation. Over to Boris now to send that letter which he is legally obliged to do.

Unfortunately or fortunately, the parliament does not have any deadline to pass the required legislation, so Brexit should be done and consigned to the graveyard.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Indeed - it’s the European Council that will decide whether to grant an extension if/when requested, not Juncker in his capacity as European Commission President. Juncker also said he sees no reason to grant another extension, which is different to saying definitively there will be no extension. Like I said the other day, Juncker was speaking for himself.

Well the UK parliament has been acting as if they control the process, so one can understand if that feeling is infectious.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Indeed - it’s the European Council that will decide whether to grant an extension if/when requested, not Juncker in his capacity as European Commission President. Juncker also said he sees no reason to grant another extension, which is different to saying definitively there will be no extension. Like I said the other day, Juncker was speaking for himself.

You forget that the EU members are getting fed up with the porcess in the UK. I can imagine that they'll not grant any extension till these is a vote on the deal. No vote on the deal = no extension. This is not good PR for UK Parliament. I fear that the UK Parliament doesn't seem to realise that it takes two to tango.

Moreover, you're right about the fact that Juncker has nothing to say. However, he won't say such things without any knowledge on how the EU members think about this subject.

And there we go again:

British PM Johnson has just called European Council President Tusk to inform him the British ambassador to the EU will bring in a letter tonight asking for yet another extension of the article 50 proceedings....

https://twitter.com/eucopresident

"waiting for the letter"

Dutchy wrote:

There we go again. Another few months before we know what will happen.

Brexit saga continues.

That’s up to the EU now, could be a blessing in disguise for the EU if they say no.


One way or another if they say no the deal will get passed or parliament will revoke, power is in the hands of the EU here

I can see Gina Miller going off her head and the courts going to be busy on Monday

Boris is sending the Parliamentary letter unsigned, along with a second letter its going to be interesting to see how the courts interpret it. but from my point of view he has compiled with the law and the second letter is his personal view which he is entitled to make as PM and head of government


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50112924

I personally think the EU should say no deals on the table it up to parliament to do one of three things sign off current deal, no deal or revoke there's ample time after all the got the Benn deal done in four days, EU should be saying times up, time for the EU to do the

Olddog wrote:

Well at least Junker himself should be out by then

Actually, no, he won't be!
Due to the Parliament rejecting three of the proposed commissioners the new Commission will not start at November 1st as planned but there will be some delay, so Juncker will stay on for a few more days yet until that is sorted out.

ChrisKen wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Supreme Leader Juncker has said there will be no further delay on Brexit. We’re leaving on the 31st October whatever happens now. The no deal express is leaving the station and accelerating down the track.

It's not Juncker that makes the decision. He's just the figurehead of the executive body that implements the EU Parliament's decisions to statute. His only real power is to rubberstamp what the EU Parliament decides.
But you know, brexiteers as uninformed as ever.

On the main point you're right, but his position is actually a bit different:

You can think of the democratically elected heads of government/state of the member countries together as the European Council as basically the collective head of EU government.

The European Commission is mostly like the appointed and parliament-confirmed cabinet of that head of EU government, and the President of the Commission is basically an appointed and parliament-confirmed chief of cabinet who is executing the policies set by the Council as his boss and with certain confirmation and ratification requirements by the European Parliament.

One of the reasons why Juncker's job exists is that the national heads of government of course have regular day jobs and don't have the time to sit in with the Commission about the detailed execution of the policies which they have collectively set in their Council meetings, so the President of the Commission effectively stands in for them.

This is a little similar to the french system where the President calls the shots and sets the political agenda and he/she delegates the execution to a Prime Minister who is doing the actual legwork of coordinating cabinet and executing the President's policies.

There are of course a number of differences, but a rough(!) analogy is this:
• European Council <–> french President
• President of the European Commission <–> french Prime Minister
• European Commission <–> french cabinet
• European Parliament <–> french National Assembly

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

There we go again. Another few months before we know what will happen.

Brexit saga continues.

That’s up to the EU now, could be a blessing in disguise for the EU if they say no.

One way or another if they say no the deal will get passed or parliament will revoke, power is in the hands of the EU here

That is the result of Brexit in any case, just in different ways according to UK decisions. It's a cold place out there.

A101 wrote:

I can see Gina Miller going off her head and the courts going to be busy on Monday

So far she has primarily tried to protect Parliament's sovereignty against an overreaching government, but the whole point of the Letwin Amendment was already to preserve Parliament's right of proper scrutiny, so that is already taken care of this time.

Boris is sending the Parliamentary letter unsigned, along with a second letter its going to be interesting to see how the courts interpret it. but from my point of view he has compiled with the law and the second letter is his personal view which he is entitled to make as PM and head of government

Since he has stopped short of outright sabotaging an extension I also don't see it as a violation of his obligations – that he is in favour of his deal being closed and ratified is a valid preference and doesn't contradict the official extension request as mandated.

I personally think the EU should say no deals on the table it up to parliament to do one of three things sign off current deal, no deal or revoke there's ample time after all the got the Benn deal done in four days, EU should be saying times up, time for the EU to do the

The thing is that Boris had dawdled with his negotiations to the point where he now tried to abuse his own tardiness the same way he had tried to abuse his request for a general election, namely as a crow bar to force the UK crashing out without a deal.

The combination of the Benn Act and the Letwin Amendment is designed to take that crow bar away from him and to conduct the proper democratic scrutiny to ensure at least a controlled Brexit (if any), which is very much to the preference of the EU27 as well.

And with the new Commission delayed anyway, there's even less immediate pressure right now (although it is unlikely to be delayed until the entire process has run its course in the UK).

Dutchy wrote:

There we go again. Another few months before we know what will happen.

Brexit saga continues.

Nah, I wouldn't bet on multiple months. 31 October was chosen because due to EP election and new Commission much EU work was at idle anyway. From November we have new parliament and Commission eager to get to work.

If chaos continues in the UK, then EU talk will change away from "UK withdrawal from EU" into more like "EU withdrawal from UK". It just cannot continue this way.

My bet would be: The EU will grant another postponement, but days or weeks rather than months. And it will be the last postponement. The only thing that can make EU knees shaky would be UK deciding on new referendum or general election within a few days, which doesn't seem likely.

There won't be the same patience with the new parliament and Commission.

prebennorholm wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

There we go again. Another few months before we know what will happen.

Brexit saga continues.

Nah, I wouldn't bet on multiple months. 31 October was chosen because due to EP election and new Commission much EU work was at idle anyway. From November we have new parliament and Commission eager to get to work.

If chaos continues in the UK, then EU talk will change away from "UK withdrawal from EU" into more like "EU withdrawal from UK". It just cannot continue this way.

My bet would be: The EU will grant another postponement, but days or weeks rather than months. And it will be the last postponement. The only thing that can make EU knees shaky would be UK deciding on new referendum or general election within a few days, which doesn't seem likely.

There won't be the same patience with the new parliament and Commission.

Well technically the EU can hold off until the last minute of the 31st they might let parliament squirm which makes them actully vote for something.

A101 wrote:

Boris is sending the Parliamentary letter unsigned, along with a second letter its going to be interesting to see how the courts interpret it. but from my point of view he has compiled with the law and the second letter is his personal view which he is entitled to make as PM and head of government

The UK ambassador to the EU has send a letter as well explaining the first letter. To be honest, an unsigned letter is not a legal document and thus doesnt bind the UK government. I hope for Boris that the Benn Act didn't require him to sign the letter. If so, I wonder what the UK lawyers and judges will think.

A101 wrote:

Well technically the EU can hold off until the last minute of the 31st they might let parliament squirm which makes them actully vote for something.

I think we'll have to wait untill at least the end of this week. Europe is in no hurry and probably wait to see if the letter is even a legal request for an extension. However, if they wait too long and demand an extension beyond January 31st, the UK Parliament has to vote again on Eus proposal. Given that the EU already indicated that it will request a longer extension, the EU does not have too much time to react (if they want to).

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

There we go again. Another few months before we know what will happen.

Brexit saga continues.

That’s up to the EU now, could be a blessing in disguise for the EU if they say no.

One way or another if they say no the deal will get passed or parliament will revoke, power is in the hands of the EU here

I don't think they'll say no, but the yes won't be coming until the last minute if needed.

Whatever you think of BoJo's deal, all necessary legislation should be passed ASAP, then a final vote on the deal before the 31st. If that fails, the EU will probably grant an extension in exchange for elections/referendum.

Aesma wrote:

Whatever you think of BoJo's deal, all necessary legislation should be passed ASAP, then a final vote on the deal before the 31st. If that fails, the EU will probably grant an extension in exchange for elections/referendum.

I am still trying to get details on what those are and how is it that a lawyer was able to come up with them in such a short space of time, I guess they will say they always knew about them but could not say anything until they saw the new proposed deal. Hmmm......

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Whatever you think of BoJo's deal, all necessary legislation should be passed ASAP, then a final vote on the deal before the 31st. If that fails, the EU will probably grant an extension in exchange for elections/referendum.

I am still trying to get details on what those are and how is it that a lawyer was able to come up with them in such a short space of time, I guess they will say they always knew about them but could not say anything until they saw the new proposed deal. Hmmm......

I’ve been in two minds over boris deal while it’s better in some regards to Mays deal but no deal is ever going to satisfy both parties, but reading this seems to put a bit of doubt in me that even if parliament pass Boris deal, will remain ever let go of the possibility of remaining and cause all sorts of strife

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/why-i-ca ... riss-deal/

If EU declines to extend the UK membership it will probably be based on the fact that the req uest is not legally signed.

As I understand it there is no legal request for extension from UK applied so how shall EU accept it? I would never consider a document not signed as a legal binding request and if EU accepts it UK can probably interprete it as they like in the future.

I do believe that UK brexiteers will get what they whished for - a no deal.

Then on november 1 they will be back to start FTA negotiations from a very weak positions.

Brexiteers should now recognize that Germany exports more to Poland then to UK.

A101 wrote:

Boris is sending the Parliamentary letter unsigned, along with a second letter its going to be interesting to see how the courts interpret it.

Yes, acting like a spoiled child just like his hero Trump.

IIRC, there was plenty of legal opinion when it was first suggested, that such an action could be interpreted as contempt of court because it is against the spirit of the Benn law. We shall see.

Had the EU not already previously stated if Boris failed to comply with the UK's law, the application for extension would be assumed on their part by default based on the UK law mandating that it must be made?

As tedious as the process is, the EU aren't daft enough to allow Boris and his ilk to pin the blame on them.

Quite frankly they'll (EU) be rubbing their hands with glee if Parliament pass this turd of a deal. It leaves the UK even weaker than it already is....and then Boris or whomever is in charge actually has to start the real negoiations, on the global stage.
What a mess.
"Easiest deal ever!", Utter cockwombles.