Paphos Life

Parliament to get binding vote on final Brexit deal

Parliament is to be given a take-it-or leave-it vote on the final Brexit deal before the UK leaves the EU.
Brexit Secretary David Davis said the terms of the UK's exit, such as money, citizen rights and any transition must become law via a new Act of Parliament.
While any deal would "only hold" if MPs approved it, he said it would not alter the fact the UK was leaving the EU.
Labour welcomed a "climbdown" but some MPs warned of a "sham" if ministers could not be asked to renegotiate.
The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said the announcement was significant because it represented a big concession to potential Tory rebels and Labour MPs at a highly important moment in the Brexit process.

For those who like to know the source and the rest of the article, it's right here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41975277

I'm not sure what it means. Part of it read like it was saying that if parliament rejected it we would stay in, but I think that would have been bigger news.

May has to appease the Tory rebels. She is struggling with Johnson and Gove snapping at her heels and Tory remainers threatening dropping support. She either caves in to the two idiots, or builds a strong backing in her own party. Labours remainers mean nothing in this.

Much ado about nothing.

We are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019.

If there is a deal struck (effectively a new treaty between the UK and EU27) then each country in EU27 is required to ratify the deal in their own Parliaments. This is confirmation that the UK will do the same.

As Hudswell has said though, the deal struck will be take it or leave it. Parliament will not have the ability to tell the government to renegotiate for different terms. Rejecting the bill by either the UK Parliament or any one of the EU27 countries will mean ‘No Deal’ unless all 28 agree an extension of time for more talks. I can’t see that happening on the UK side.

We are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019.

Royal, by continually saying we are leaving on the 29/3/19, you are doing what you always accuse others of, repeating ad nauseum the same point. We all accept we are leaving then. The entire point of this thread has been ignored by you, in terms of what the new vote means. It means essentially a deal ratified by parliament, or rejected and leaving with no deal. As to the member states.... you really believe if 27 vote to ratify and Malta doesn’t, that it shall falls down? Come on.....

on ... and ... on ... and ... on ...

Why don't you guys save some useful time by canning it? You never know, you might start a useful thread ...

Devil wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:01 pm on ... and ... on ... and ... on ...

Why don't you guys save some useful time by canning it? You never know, you might start a useful thread ...

Devil,

There are many, many threads on this Forum which I do not even bother to look at because the subject matter doesn’t really engage me.

I wouldn’t dream of posting, as you have here, such a pointless statement on one of those threads.

Maybe you should read the thread titles first and just respond to those that interest you, like the rest of us?

Jimgward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:25 am Royal, by continually saying we are leaving on the 29/3/19, you are doing what you always accuse others of, repeating ad nauseum the same point. We all accept we are leaving then.

Really, Jim? Do you speak for all Remainers? Why even this morning HIC wrote on another thread “Brexit - if it goes through”. The Lib Dems want another Referendum, the SNP want to Remain and I’m not sure what the Labour Party stance is this particular week. It doesn’t therefore seem like a ringing endorsement to me that you all accept we are leaving. That’s why we have to keep reminding you.

Jimgward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:25 am The entire point of this thread has been ignored by you, in terms of what the new vote means. It means essentially a deal ratified by parliament, or rejected and leaving with no deal.

What I said was exactly what you just said, using different words. How, pray, have I ignored the point of the thread?

Jimgward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:25 am As to the member states.... you really believe if 27 vote to ratify and Malta doesn’t, that it shall falls down? Come on.....

Remind me what stopped the Canada Trade Deal being passed? It wasn’t even a country. It was a province of Belgium - Walloon- a place very few people in the EU had even heard of. But, let’s take your example of Malta failing to ratify - if it “doesn’t all fall down” then my argument that Germany and France really pulls the strings in the EU is clearly justified, isn’t it?

Royal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:54 pm

Devil wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:01 pm on ... and ... on ... and ... on ...

Why don't you guys save some useful time by canning it? You never know, you might start a useful thread ...

Devil,

There are many, many threads on this Forum which I do not even bother to look at because the subject matter doesn’t really engage me.

I wouldn’t dream of posting, as you have here, such a pointless statement on one of those threads.

Maybe you should read the thread titles first and just respond to those that interest you, like the rest of us?

OK, you are the epitomist of those that go on ... and ... on ... and ... on ... Maybe it doesn't occur to you that repetition weakens arguments. Just because I make a point once without repeating it n times does not mean I'm not interested. And who are you to judge what interests me or not?

Devil wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:26 pm
OK, you are the epitomist of those that go on ... and ... on ... and ... on ...

It’s simple really - make me a foe and you won’t have to read anything I post.

Even the MENSA top 5 percentile could surely understand such a simple concept?

It is incredibly boring. I say that as somebody who has the administerial responsibility to have to be able to view all posts. All I can say to anybody else is: Run! Save yourselves!

Also, try starting your own non Brexit related threads. That might help.

It wasn't always incredibly boring. But both sides will be stuck on auto-repeat until it is all over.

Just for Royal, so there's no need to keep repeating yourself

http://www.online-stopwatch.com/makeyou ... to-BREXIT/

Or perhaps not?

A government amendment to enshrine the Brexit date and time - 23:00 GMT on 29 March 2019 - in law, announced by Mrs May last Friday, will not be debated until the final day of the committee stage next month.
But it dominated the early skirmishes in the Commons as Labour's Sir Keir Starmer said setting a date in law was a "desperate gimmick" that was "about party management not the national interest".
"The government's amendments to their own Bill would stand in the way of an orderly transition and increase the chance of Britain crashing out of Europe without an agreement," the shadow Brexit secretary said.
"Theresa May should stop pandering to the 'no deal' enthusiasts in her own party and withdraw these amendments."

Royal, obviously Germany and France are prime partners in the EU....as is/was the UK....

In a DEMOCRACY, the majority decide... as they did on Brexit, as we were all told

Jimgward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:05 pm In a DEMOCRACY, the majority decide...

Jim,

That statement should be true, but we are talking about the EU here.

Ratification of a new Treaty (ie the Brexit Deal - if there is one) MUST to be ratified by ALL member states. Any one of them including Malta as per your example could veto the Brexit deal. Even the lowly Province of Walloon in Belgium it seems has the power to say “Non”.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-veto-brexit-deal/

What about http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 39371.html

Jimgward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:05 pm In a DEMOCRACY, the majority decide...

When it comes to issues of major importance that should actually be a qualified majority. In other countries 52 % wouldn´t be enough for such far-reaching decisions.

jeba wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:14 am

Jimgward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:05 pm In a DEMOCRACY, the majority decide...

When it comes to issues of major importance that should actually be a qualified majority. In other countries 52 % wouldn´t be enough for such far-reaching decisions.

Agreed. The first vote in Scotland for devolution;

A referendum was held in 1979 under a Labour government which stipulated that a Scottish Assembly would come into being if the referendum had been supported by 50% of votes cast plus a controversial rule whereby at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour. Although 51.6% voted in favour, this was only 32.9% of the electorate so the Assembly was not brought into being. Shortly afterwards, the predominantly anti-devolution-led Conservative Party won the United Kingdom general election, 1979.

Hudswell wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:33 am Perhaps other countries are not as democratic...

Maybe they aren´t prone to gambling as much? A 52% majority on one day might very well be a 48% minority the next day. And a 52% majority the day after that. Allowing such small differences margins to decide on fundamentally important decisions is a gamble in my view.

It may well be a gamble jeba but as long as you stipulate the basis of agreement before the vote then you have a democratic decision. If they had stipulated that Scotland for example had to have a majority too then we would not have been talking BREXIT now! But they didn't!
Some may say they made the referendum vote the way it was because they never expected the end result but it does not matter now because Democracy has prevailed and if people would just accept that and move on but they won't.Sad isn't it?

It’s not sad, its democracy itself. Freedom of speech. Ability to question, argue, to try change poeople’s minds, exert pressure. It is part of every process and the only way government is held accountable, other than an election.

Brexit is happening and the ill feeling is on all sides.....



This is a far-right nationalist group, as far as I know....