#3015

I think it’s pretty safe to assume that the EU doesn’t want a No Deal Brexit

#3016

Interested to actually know why? Surely it won’t affect them too much?

#3017

At the very least it affects Ireland a lot (hard border would just be the start it).

No idea how it would effect the big economies e.g. Germany but can’t imagine they’re looking forward to it

#3018

Half a million British pensioners on the Costa del Sol having their pensions stopped while UK contributions to the Spanish health services are simultaneously severed is not going to do a lot for the Spanish economy …to give one example. And then what happens there? Don’t think Gibraltar could cope with the mass exodus

I mean obviously a No Deal Brexit isn’t going to impact EU GDP anywhere near as catastrophically as it will impact UK

image
10E6B0C9-F6B2-4CC5-B12D-3C3B04913DE7.jpeg757×491 91.2 KB

but it will still be a negative impact and in some places pretty significant

2 Likes
#3019

Still think that the EU granting a 5 year extension would be top bants.

Alternatively, not granting one, and forcing a No Deal v Revoke showdown.

2 Likes
#3020

Want:

  • No extension. No Deal v Revoke showdown.
  • Another pissy can-kicking Brexit-enabling functional extension.
  • Extremely long grass, “You’re a joke of a country, go away, sort yourself out, and come back when you’ve got your shit together” extension.

0 voters

Will be:

  • No extension. No Deal v Revoke showdown.
  • Another pissy can-kicking Brexit-enabling functional extension.
  • Extremely long grass, “You’re a joke of a country, go away, sort yourself out, and come back when you’ve got your shit together” extension.

0 voters

#3021

It will. Certainly enough for them to want to avoid it if at all possible.

#3022

It would affect Ireland pretty badly

2 Likes
#3023

Regardless of what we want to happen with Brexit/Borris/etc do you think what Parliament did on Saturday and the speakers decision yesterday was legitimate or sneaky

  • Legitimate
  • Sneaky
  • Legitimately sneaky

0 voters

#3024

Like I’m all for it being delayed to get scrutinised properly, just the bit about it already being voted on doesn’t make sense to me, and if that happened for something I did want to happen I’d be irked, as I don’t want it to happen I’m not fussed/glad. Just fears it plays into ‘they’re trying to frustrate’ Brexit argument that will hurt at a next general election

#3025

I think it was sneaky on the part of the government, who knew what they were doing and wanted more ammunition for their people vs parliament narrative.

11 Likes
#3026

There are posts in this thread that explain how it was voted on on Saturday. Was completely legitimate.

The government are just trying to get to a this deal or no deal scenario.

#3027

But the letter has been sent, no deal is pretty much off the table which was the justification for the action on Saturday, seems weird not allowing a vote to see how many would support it

#3028

I think Saturday on its own was legit but yesterday less so

#3029

Because a) those are the rules, and b), if the deal had been approved before legislation being passed, Johnson could have withdrawn the extension request. Then, if the legislation hadn’t been passed, we could still have left with no deal.

4 Likes
#3030

Governement: Sneaky
Speaker: Not Sneaky

My understanding is that the government were afraid on Saturday that they would get similar numbers to the Letwin amendment i.e. come up short. It doesn’t feel politically correct or democratic to avoid something because you think you’ll lose. Like if on Saturday morning you decided that actually, you don’t want to play Man City in the afternoon you’ll do it on another weekend.

Good lord… I’ve fallen to football analogies. Someone break my fingers.

1 Like
#3031

I’ve lost track, I thought most predict the numbers are there

#3032

The latest seems to be that the numbers are there for the deal, but possibly not for rushing it through without proper scrutiny.

2 Likes
#3033

The letter sending isn’t relevant because the government’s stated intention and contention was to pass the bill before 31st October. If you take that out of the equation you are left with what Bercow said in terms: “You are asking us to vote on exactly the same thing the very next day.”

1 Like
#3034

I think it’s so close they didn’t want to take the risk? Assuming the voting intentions between Letwin amendment and government’s deal are similar, they would need another 10 votes for the deal to pass, from labour rebels/the handful of abstainees. They’ll be harder to convince by the hour, as more time spent scrutinising the deal will expose its faults.

The government’s repeated shouting about how there are enough numbers feels to me, like they’re putting a brave face on it. They’re trying to make it look like it’s the remoaners/parliament that are blocking the tories, and if those groups stopped playing dirty eased off this would easily go through. It’s a better narrative than “It might get through but we’re a weak government and it’s too close to call?”

That said I’m not 100% why the government even attempted to have the vote yesterday, unless they never expected to have it and wanted to drum up greater anti-parliament sentiment.

2 Likes