How Will Splitting The Political Declaration From The Rest Make A Difference?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47740158
Surely the whole backstop issue remains.

[Sqad]

Whilst I am on the subject and in the mood, I cannot understand how those raucous protesters are allowed to interrupt interviews discussions on the green outside the Houses of Parliament, spoiling and interrupting TV viewing.

In my idea of a civilised society, the use of water canons in my opinion would be totally justifiable and I would even support the tactics of the South African Police in the times of Apartheid with the use of the Sjambok.

[ichkeria]

Most of them are perfectly peaceful, if noisy. While individuals who use violent or threatening behaviour should be dealt with I don’t think we should be going down that route.

[Sqad]

"Most of them are perfectly peaceful, if noisy."

Agreed Ich, but it only takes one protestor with a megaphone to totally interrupt and abolish any meaningful political TV viewing.

Can you just imagine this to be allowed in China, Russia or even the U.S.A?

[naomi24]

I don't know what they think it will achieve.

[Old_Geezer]

Just trying to prove they're there, and hoping that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

The first vote was supposed to kill the Withdrawal Agreement for good, and the second: how many lives does a cat have ?

[ludwig]

As per the first answer, it's just a ploy to get around the speaker's ruling that they can't have another vote on the same thing.

It's all a complete farce, but in line with how things tend to work regarding the EU - keep asking the same question until you get the 'right' answer.

[ichkeria]

Things are a bit ugly actually now. But shamboks and water cannon? ??

[ichkeria]

Sjamboks :-)

[youngmafbog]

Sjamboks and water canon seem good to me.

[gulliver1]

Is everyone on A/B having a nice Day Today , 29th March . I AM .

[ichkeria]

11pm wasn’t it :-)

[New Judge]

“If the general public was the parliament then you’d see the same divisions:”

But the general public is not the Parliament. Parliament agreed to implement the result of the referendum. A new Parliament then went on to trigger A50 and enacted legislation to facilitate our withdrawal. The deadlock that has occurred has happened because 80% (or thereabouts) of MPs had any intention of securing a proper Brexit (one which saw the UK free of the Single Market, the Customs Union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ as a minimum). All the various options that have been debated are ways to avoid that proper withdrawal. Whatever your interpretation of “Leave” is, it must include those three elements as a minimum. That is what people were told (and warned) that leaving the EU would entail. There simply is no point in leaving if those elements are not secured because it would mean following EU regulations, being unable to secure trade deals that are in the UK’s sole interests and being bound by rulings of a foreign court.

It was for politicians to devise a way to secure the UK’s departure and ensuring that at least those three criteria were met. They’ve failed because their hearts were never in the job and they’ve used the excuse that there was a need to satisfy the requirements of those who voted to Remain (i.e. those whose choice came second in a binary referendum). They’ve rejected Mrs May’s deal (which was not a proper Brexit anyway), they’ve dismissed No Deal and ruled out just about any other form of departure (almost all of which were also not proper Brexit). Their (I would argue deliberate) failure means that Brexit will not be secured.