UKH

Apparently, a deal has been agreed...although DUP not on board. So still seems like obstacles ahead!

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

It'll be done until the details of what it entails start to emerge. If it's palatable to the ERG, it should almost by default be unacceptable to Labour MPs.

Two days is not nearly enough time to scrutinise it properly.

The fairest and most logical way forwards is to attach a confirmatory referendum to it. Accept the deal or remain in the EU.

In reply to Trevers:

...and that's why I will be marching in London on Saturday.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Me too

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

It looks like it's going to court due to a Rees-Smug amendment to a taxation bill that was passed last year:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/22/section/55

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Going to try and railroad it through, without support of DUP

Also now questions of whether Benn rule will apply as Juncker advises no further prolongation

Potential for Deal or No Deal Saturday looming - oh dear.

In reply to subtle:

Juncker has no say in extension. He's trying to sell the deal hard, just as Johnson is on this side.

In reply to subtle:

Juncker is not the arbiter on whether an extension will be granted.

In reply to Removed User:

No, but his words do carry weight. Still scary times for a remainer.

In reply to subtle:

Remainer MPs need to hold their nerve. We must have a referendum.

In reply to subtle:

It would also be scary times for Brexiteers if they had any clue about what they are letting themselves in for.

In reply to subtle:

I bet Brexiters must now wish the President of the Commission was the all powerful god they painted him as!

In reply to subtle:

Hard to see how, the more obviously they're dissatisfied the more doubt that'll sow among those Johnson can't turn the screws on. Seems unless a clear path opens up to back out of brexit (and a referendum probably isn't clear enough) the DUP will ultimately play along for another huge bung, they won't risk no-deal hastening reunification.

Anyway, what an absolute clusterfu*k of a customs arrangement they're proposing for NI: a maybe it'll get taxed, maybe it won't, maybe I'll get a refund maybe I won't border in the Irish sea.

Johnson's plan has to be to avoid getting that extension. Ramp up pressure, minimise the time available for scrutiny and lobbying by those he's shafted intentionally or accidentally. It's quite possible Johnson has convinced one or more EU27 members to withhold extension approval at least long enough for him to batter this through the commons.

Parliament has time and again ruled out no-deal in principal, now we get to see if they mean it and if Johnson has got the timing and the diplomacy right to present them with a seemingly unavoidable deal vs revoke choice. He knows they can't agree to revoke without a referendum and probably lack the cohesion to deliver one leaving 'anything else no matter how bad' the default winner. Labour's priority shift should be changing things but the government is sounding more bullish than appears to make sense, it's going to be a nail biting weekend.

jk

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If the deal gets the vote in parliament then the next two years (I think that’s still the transition period?) will be fun; NOT.

More of the same denial and bullshit ad Infinitum.

In reply to jkarran:

My spies tell me that the "Remain Alliance" intends NOT to amend the motion on Saturday. Instead, should the deal pass, the aim will be to add a confirmatory referendum to the ensuing WA Bill by way of amendment when it is presented in the following days. Should the deal fail to pass, an SO24 will be used in an attempt to take control of the order paper for an attempt at presenting May's WA (yes, that old chestnut) with a referendum attached.

In reply to BnB:

I'm looking forward to finding out how big a bribe Boris offers the DUP.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Thanks, but I hope your thread title is an example of deliberate extreme irony - the deal is most definitely not done

In reply to John2:

I heard mention of an "Irish Development Fund" or somesuch set up under EU and UK auspices, and some NI politician saying it meant "Christmas every day" in Belfast.

In reply to profitofdoom:

But Boris is confident so it must be true. 

Just like promising no border down the Irish Sea etc. We can trust Honest Boris!

I will be marching on Saturday wearing my 'Boris...Unfit for office ' t shirt.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's a horror show, a referendum which would have been void had it been binding, due to spending irregularities, is potentially going to lead to the economic disruption of the UK following the reemergence of intolerance against minorities thanks to the tone of the official Leave campaign - what kind of mixture will this turn out to be?

A lefty friend mentioned that there 'are' left wing reasons for want to leave/drastically change the EU, and how that wasn't involved at all in the Leave campaign. It's a terrible state of affairs. 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Good one! Thanks & I can sleep soundly now!

In reply to Robert Durran:

One of my skiing chums is a Northern Irish property developer, who tells me he has made a substantial amount of money from the EU over the years. This will probably provide his retirement bonus.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Meanwhile,

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/itn-brexit-referendum-poll-october-2019/

In reply to pec:

I do believe we on the remain side have lost the battle but not the argument. Sad and desperate times await us all.

Nothing will be made better by finally leaving.

Against all better judgment the self harm will finally be done.

It will take a generation to repair.

Over to you kids.

In reply to pec:

Then you've nothing to worry about have you. I don't think remain will win but I do think it's essential to ask if we're to live through the consequences of your choice together. Frankly we all need the ambiguity a second referendum provides. 

Jk

In reply to pasbury:

We have lost the argument, because it was never held on honest terms.

In reply to pec:

The poll shows remain as the most popular single option by quite some margin. 42%, versus 50% for combined deal and no deal. It doesn't take many dealers/no dealers to prefer remain to the other leave option for remain to be the outright winner in a three way STV poll. So gloating might be a bit premature.

In reply to Trevers:

I voted Remain and find this attitude ridiculous.  It's just clutching at straws to justify a 'bad' result.
The main reason why the majority voted Leave wasn't down to the dodgy antics of the Leave campaign, it was instead purely and simply down to the absolutely pathetic Remain one. 

In reply to FactorXXX:

I do agree with that.

My problem is more with the fallout since the referendum. I'm absolutely certain that if we'd had a serious, respectful public dialogue backed up by decent journalism, we'd either have rejected the referendum result out of hand, or committed to a final confirmatory referendum, as a mature democracy would.

Instead it's been almost impossible to get any nuanced discussion of democracy into the public domain over the crowing of "but 17.4 million" from people who knowingly and deliberately attacked democracy in 2016. The fact that the People's Vote movement has got this far is a bloody miracle.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I'm not convinced on that. It's been expressed a few times on these pages that the reasons for leave were more nuanced, and more emotional, and that possibly the remain campaign could have run the best campaign ever and would likely still have lost. I feel that remain ran on logic and leave ran on emotion, and emotion won.

My mother, for instance, who lived through the London blitz and whose home was destroyed (almost with her in it), voted leave because she "didn't trust the Germans". Someone at work said they voted leave because "we've been in the EU for a few decades, maybe its time to try something new", and someone in this parish was gloating over the result because "we gave the establishment a bloody nose".

I think its a combination of thirty years of the EU being used as a convienient fall-guy by politicians of every flavour, disenfranchisement of large areas of the country, arrogance of westminster, London-centric polices, austerity, etc. Add in the "little Englander" syndrome, and of course my barmy mother and her hatred of anything German, which according to her is common in her generation. If remain were to win then they had to overturn all of that. A tall order.

You can quote figures till the cows come home but that only works if the person you are quoting them to cares about figures. Its much like arguing about contraception with a staunch catholic. You can parrot all you like about the case for contraception, but you are arguing in human terms. The counter argument is "god doesn't like it and I'm going to hell for eternity if I support it". Its a mistake to assume that the other person is even interested in your frame of reference.

In reply to John_Hat:

I agree with you - it's becoming abundantly clear that facts are only one element in how we develop opinions and attitudes and make choices. That applies in all kinds of areas, not just politics, but it's very obvious in the Brexit debates.

If anyone's interested, there's a good article in Psychology Today about this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-igno...

In reply to John_Hat:

So maybe the remain campaign could have in fact been better (and have won) if it had run on emotion as well as facts. I hope the lesson has been learnt and that, if we get a second referendum, the remain campaign is a lot better, really celebrating the prosperity, stability and peace that nations working together within the EU have brought us for many decades.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

So apparently, according to Dominic Raab on the Today programme this morning, the new deal is "...a cracking deal for Northern Ireland businesses." Great, so why can't it apply to other parts of the UK, with the whole country getting "frictionless access to the single market"?

This is the whole quote: "And, overall, what Northern Ireland businesses get is remaining part of the UK customs territory, no infrastructure at the border with the Republic and frictionless access to the single market. It is a cracking deal for Northern Ireland businesses."

In reply to Bob Kemp:

They don't do irony, do they?

In reply to Bob Kemp:

It's all going to be alright! I saw Raab on BBC Breakfast and regarding the deal overall, he said "It's a win win win situation".

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Raab doesn't even do thinking... irony would be a step too far.

In reply to John_Hat:

I also don't think we should underestimate the calamity of one JC leading the labour party at this critical point.

JC was always an ardent brexiter, basically on the same premise as a lot of working class brexiters - 'if it's good for business, then I'm agin it' (despite, of course, workers rights, environmental protection etc etc which JC has only just woken up to.)

I'm firmly of the view that if the LP had clearly and consistently campaigned to remain Garage could have been put back in his box for another 20 years.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

They have no choice but to lie and the lies do seem to be working for now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/17/boris-johnson-leads-weary-...

In reply to Bob Kemp:

One thing I was thinking (if this deal goes through)-will British business now move their headquarters to NI so they can access the single market?

In reply to haworthjim:

No. Because any deal is only the pathway to full Brexit. It’s a withdrawal process. It’s never going to be the final ‘deal’. That’s why Remain are dead set against any deal whatsoever. 

There are only two options revoke or withdraw from Europe. Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, no deal Brexit, they’re just putting off the inevitable. The longer the procrastination by the MPs the more damage is being done in the long run. 

In reply to haworthjim:

An interesting idea. There is also the ironic case of a previous Rees Mogg amendment apparently being contradicted in law by the deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/18/pm-boris-johnsons-new-brex...

In reply to haworthjim:

Dublin would presumably make more sense as an anglophone base. NI can be out of this limbo in 8 years, whether it will or not or whether any of this will yet happen, who knows but Dublin looks the more stable option. Or mainland Europe which should remain free of loyalist bombs and long ferry crossings.

jk

In reply to haworthjim:

Dont think so; its the movement of goods thats important, so where your registered office is located is not important. That type of shenanigans was stopped a while ago with the play.com / Jersey offshoring rulings. However, if you moved your manufacturing base to NI, you might be onto something.......

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm in two minds on this. I said I think there are historical reasons for people being "against europe" and I also think that both Labour and Tory have a near 50/50 split of remain/leave.

I think that JC had a difficult hand to play. How do you keep the voters who hate europe and want brexit (dislike anything good for business) and keep those who like europe and don't want Brexit (for workers rights, etc). The tories had the same problem in the opposite direction. Brexit, I think, has upended the political spectrum.

The tories solved the problem by heading all-out for Brexit, hoping to clean up the UKIP vote and hoping that would outweigh the pro-EU vote they would lose. There's a long history of working-class tories. Labour didn't have a good choice in opposition as pretty much every choice they made would result in losing votes. Either to Libdems one way, or UKIP in the other. So they sat on the fence and tried to remain the adults in the room and concentrate on the issues that affect people every day - austerity, etc, working on the basis that realistically, to most people, Brexit isn't much relevance if you don't know where your next meal is coming from.

I'm absolutely sure on a weekly basis people are calculating how many votes Labour would win/lose based on taking a strong remain/leave stance, and the fact that they haven't would indicate its finely balanced.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Interesting, thanks!

In reply to Ian W:

If this goes through my guess is that organised crime in NI is going to have a field day.  

All the new subsidy money is up for grabs with dodgy schemes like the 'cash for ash' thing the DUP were involved to bound to proliferate.

The whole in the single market and the UK and different VAT regimes thing is going create so many opportunities for fraud and smuggling.  It makes no sense, its just 'we don't care because NI is relatively small and Ireland is far enough away from continental Europe that transport costs will keep it under control'.

For starters, if you are manufacturing something from a bunch of different components which you import and you keep stocks of components how do you even know whether a particular component will end up in a product sold in the EU or sold in the UK at the point you import the component.   At some point in the future, maybe weeks or months away someone will place an order and you will take the component from stock, assemble it into your product and sell it.  You don't know what order the component will be used in at the point you import the component.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm a firm believer in this - Labours dithering (to use a quote form someone) has caused this, JC's reticence to calling for another referendum, or for a general election, or to stand aside if vote of no confidence meant that chance upon chance was lost leading us to where we are today.

If only there was a Labour politician able to oust him - and now we will get a general election where the choice is Boris or JC, the expectation being that JC will lose and walk away, thus handing Boris another chance at Brexit - please please please JC walk away now, let someone else lead the Labour Party and stop Brexit.

(ok, a lot of assumptions in there but you get my gist, and it is politics anyway)  

In reply to John_Hat:

That doesn't appear to be borne out by the data https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britai... . Brexit preference in 2016 was roughly 2/3 among Conservative voters and 1/3 for Labour voters. Arguably the members are slightly more important than the voters since you can't reach voters without members to campaign and among the members the preferences are much stronger.

Realistically he can't keep them all but he could look to attract some new voters by taking a sensible principled stand.

Refusing to choose wasn't cost free either, look at where they are in the polls and consider that's while notionally opposing the absolute worst government of zealots, the disgraced and the incompetent from a party fighting like cats in a sack.

Not relevant until it is because the vestiges of the welfare state can no longer be supported and those sporadic meals stop coming all together.

I'm sure they are but I don't think that's the driving force behind the advice Corbyn takes.

jk

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Oh yes, without a doubt. The IRA have said in an interview with the Irish Times that they regard any form of UK / border infrastructure on the Island of Ireland as a legitimate target. They'll be back in business before the end of the transition period. Christ only knows what the DUP / UVF will do now that Boris has thrown them under the bus, and there isnt the calming influence of the power sharing agreement at Stormont to hold them in check.

Financially, the trough is being enlarged to accommodate ever greedier snouts, and the opportunities to self-enrich amongst those with a dislike of official paperwork will be significant. The proposals are all very nice sounding, but operating in real life is going to get very messy. HMRC will be really looking forward to this if it gets through (I have severe doubts; this isnt so far from mays' WA, but it might appeal to more ERG types than they lose DUP votes......).

On the component issue you mention, it only matters when you ship out the finished product. If you sell 50 units to RoI each containing 10 widgets, you know that 500 widgets have gone to RoI and duty / VAT or whatever will be payable at that point. 

In reply to Ian W:

'The IRA have said in an interview with the Irish Times that they regard any form of UK / border infrastructure on the Island of Ireland as a legitimate target. They'll be back in business before the end of the transition period'

But the agreement states that there will be no border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. The only customs border will be in the Irish sea (realistically, at the Northern Irish ports of entry).

In reply to subtle:

I agree...I attach as much blame for the whole debacle to Corbyn as I do to Cameron, Bojo, Smogg, ERG and DUP.

In reply to John2:

Surely there will have to be customs at the western British ports of entry, because people will be trying to smuggle cheap (EU) goods into Britain from Ireland?

PS. Actually, all our ports are going to become an absolute nightmare post-Brexit. But the Brexiters don't seem to mind or worry about this. They've got their Blue (but it was never that Blue) Passport and a mythical idea of 'sovereignty' as we get trampled all over by America and the WTO.

In reply to Ian W:

Still a nightmare.  You've been buying components and putting them in stock and the prices are moving about over time with currency fluctuations as well as normal commercial things like multiple sources for each part.   Then you ship something out to the EU which has some of the parts you took from stock and you've got to calculate how much duty is owed.  But every component in stock was bought on different days from different suppliers at potentially different prices so some would have more of a duty liability than others.  People are going to need software to track all this and they're going to be tempted to always say the lowest price components with the lowest duty are the ones that went to the EU export.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What the person I was responding to was saying was that the IRA would be trying to destroy customs infrastructure on the Eire / NI border. Of course there will be infrastructure at the British ports (as there is at the moment).

In reply to John2:

OK, get your point. But the infrastructure at our ports is not there at the moment. (Have you been to Holyhead recently?)

And what about Harwich? Last time I went through there it was zilcho (thanks to EU).

In reply to Bob Kemp:

This isn't new. Socrates could have told you that.

In reply to XXXX:

What, he forecast Dominic Raab's stupidity?

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Priti Patel made the same case on PM. These f*ckers beggar belief.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Sure, all UK ports which receive goods from the EU will have to apply customs tariffs. As I understand it, if something is imported from the EU to England any applicable UK tariff will be paid when it enters England. If it is then moved to Northern Ireland the relevant EU tariff will be paid when it enters Northern Ireland. If it is then transported to Eire then the company which exports it from Northern Ireland can apply for a rebate of the EU tariff it paid when it was moved from England to Northern Ireland.

Simple. 🙂

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tracking software already exists. For eg, if you buy quorn from any outlet, they can tell you the name of the operator that produced it. 20years ago, if you had a problem with your mondeo, we could trace any component we provided for that car back to the shift that produced it.

For duty calculation, you would almost certainly use average cost.

All of which is fine and dandy; use or otherwise of JIT manufacturing doesn't stop the whole idea from being a cl*st*rf*ck of epic proportions in the making........

In reply to Ian W:

Software that tracks stuff exists.  Software that implements whatever sh*t this deal requires does not, somebody is going to have to write it/update existing software to support it.   There's not even a spec for what the software should do yet.   

Tracking big bits of cars in a large factory is different from tracking electronic components in a small business.   Its small companies that are going to get screwed by this if they are honest and have huge opportunities to profit from it if they aren't.

Why?  If I was tracking everything I'd assign the lowest cost units in store to the things which would have duty applied and the highest cost ones to the UK so there was less duty paid.    Overall, I'd pay less duty under a system where I can select after the fact than a system where I paid duty when things entered the store.

In reply to John2:

Sorry I got that wrong. When an item is shipped from England to Northern Ireland any applicable EU tariff is paid even though Northern Ireland is not in the EU. If it is not subsequently transported over the border to Eire then the company that imported it to Northern Ireland applies for a rebate of the EU tariff.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Yes and no. I bet the software does exist, or does with only light modification required. But as you imply, sorting out whatever the software needs to do is the unknown.......

No it isnt. I owned a small-ish (£5m t/o) electronic manufacturing company, and we had full traceability of any components used in safety critical applications (in our case, this was fire alarms, and steering sensors for vehicle electronic power steering).

You need to tighten up your supply contracts. We used, both in the car industry, and the electronics company, supply agreements that gave us a fixed price for the duration of the contract, plus or minus a commodities / raw material escalator. The issue isnt as bad as you make out, but i dont want to make out it is in any way a proper, workable solution.

Imagine the scenario where a component comes from Taiwan via a mainland uk distributor to a manufacturer in RoI, who supplies a tier 1 in the uk, who supplies a manufacturer in NI ,who sells to the end user in RoI. Assuming Wrightbus survives, this situation actually exists.........

In reply to John2:

'A rebate of the EU tariff.' Talk about an administrative/bureaucratic nightmare! Just the kind of spanner in the works that no business needs - as any businessman knows and few politicians appear to. All unnecessary crap.

In reply to jkarran:

That's kind of where I am coming from in frames of reference. You may think the above, but a large proportion of the population are actually of the view that Boris et al are competent and trying their hardest against a parliament that is out to frustrate "the will of the people." Few points about the UK population.....In 2014 a Yougov poll said 45% (!!) still supported the death penalty. 27% (2018) said austerity either was about right or - worryingly - had not gone far enough (!!). 76% want immigration reduced. A recent poll found that Boris is actually more popular now than when he took office.

In short, whilst UKC is a bit of a left leaning remain bubble, and many here feel exactly what you've described about the current government, we need to accept that there's a whole world out there who really, really don't share our viewpoint, and are not going to vote for Labour under any circumstances.

The only way Labour is going to get elected is by either doing a Tony Blair and shifting right, or by working out how to stop a very large fragment of the population being selfish, racist, sexist, homophobic, hang-em-and-flog-em, little englander types who are not going away any time soon.

In short, there's not enough nice people out there.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Why is hardly anyone talking about this?  Quote from Mathew Parris Times article (pay walled). It seems to me the most important issue in the trust that we don't become a deregulated economy like the US. I simply don't get how any Labour MP could consider voting for this in contrast to May's deal, which had these protections, let alone a Lib Dem like Norman Lamb...why on earth are they are seriously considering trusting Boris when he is asking the ERG to trust him on the exact opposite outcome for such EU social, environmental, tax, competition and aid  protections....UK politics is really going mad.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-mps-must-beware-becoming-brexitee...

"As the Brexit-supporting Spectator magazine’s analysis puts it: “Binding commitments for the whole UK to maintain minimum standards in the areas of social and environmental policy, tax, competition and state aid have been removed from the withdrawal agreement.” The magazine’s editor, Fraser Nelson, put it more succinctly in a Daily Telegraph column yesterday: “The nasty ‘level playing field’ commitments have been moved into the coming free trade negotiation.” Mr Nelson is referring to the passage in Theresa May’s (binding) withdrawal treaty, which Mr Johnson has moved to the accompanying (non-binding) “political declaration”. My Times colleague Oliver Wright describes this as “slightly watered down [from May’s] version; but not much”, but the alterations are significant as a signal the prime minister wants to send to the Tory right. He will tell the ERG the change is important; and his go-betweens will be telling Labour MPs it isn’t. They should listen to Sir Keir Starmer, who says this “paves the way for a decade of deregulation”.

In reply to Offwidth:

Slightly less done now!?  MPs vote for Letwin amendment by majority of 16. Boris has legally got to ask the EU for an extension. Boris seems to imply he won't do that.

In reply to Offwidth:

Wow! Totally gripping........

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I agree that that would be a silly situation. However,

1) We do not yet know what tariffs would apply to trade with the EU under this arrangement since a trade deal has not been negotiated. Initially, I guess we would be applying WTO tariffs.

2) Once Northern Ireland has a Catholic majority, I believe it will only be a matter of time before the island of Ireland is united.

In reply to John2:

I think an increasing number of protestants are also starting to favour reunification.

In reply to John2:

Re. point 2. Yes, that's what I think will happen in time, as the older generation of protestants dies off, and more younger prots favour unification. As well as an eventual Catholic majority, as you say.

In reply to BnB:

You need better spies it seems.

Seems to me that this Letwin amendment was a masterstroke.

In doing so, they’ve completely shafted the ability of the government to threaten parliament with no deal, but forces parliament to bring in the legislation necessary to pass the WA.

This will enable all sorts of amendment that could constrain the government to negotiate a much softer Brexit than the one envisaged. In fact even the DUP could push for close alignment with CU/SM as a way to prevent the Irish Sea border they hate so much.

BJ will now have two bad choices, push the Brexit legislation as amended - and be trashed by the ERG and Brexit party. Or pull the legislation and become the one actually stopping Brexit from happening on the 31st - and be dead in a ditch.

Of course always a possibility that he doesn’t send the letter, in which case I hope he ends up behind bars.

Brilliant.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I must say I was cheering as the Letwin amendment was passed. But will this change the direction of Parliament? Other than reducing the risk of a treacherous no deal sabotage by the ERG? Latest analysis suggests that BJ has a majority of 5 for his deal.

You've been predicting no deal for months. It sounds as though your expectations have changed. That’s no surprise or criticism. It’s a constantly changing crisis.

In reply to BnB:

It doesn’t change the direction of Parliament, it enables parliament to attach amendment to the WAB, which will enable the opposition to wipe down the floor with BJ, and might help it force through a softer Brexit direction

No, I didn’t. I simply said since the start that it would be deluded and complacent to discount the possibility. I maintain that 100% and everybody should still be planning for a no deal. Thankfully most large businesses have understood that but unfortunately smaller businesses and individuals are wholly unprepared.

In reply to RomTheBear:

News this morning is he's sent the letter but comes as near as he dares to asking for its rejection by saying he and rest of UK government don't support it. Truly Trumpworthy petulance.

In reply to oldie:

Not signing it shows he thinks he is more important than the office, he is Prime Minister of the government, not King, President for life or a dictator (yet).

In reply to RomTheBear:

Seems the EU are motivated and able to turn the screws on parliament for a couple of weeks, with their support Johnson/Cummings has his deal vs no-brexit showdown. This WA plus amendments will eventually pass and since those amendments won't affect the treaty text which is settled they can be unpicked by the next government assuming it has a majority. That government looks like it will be Johnson's. The possibility of failing to secure a majority and ending up like Norway is where the risk lies for the brexit ultras who still need their economic shock.

jk

In reply to jimtitt:

Boris just has to send a letter and it does not need to be signed ( signing it is not part of the legislatation). As per the lawyer who advised Letwin on his amendments and was also involved on the various legal cases against BJ.

Basically it is a non issue.

In reply to neilh:

He doesn't have to act as a man of honour either and didn't.

In reply to jimtitt:

I am no big fan.

In reply to neilh:

Bercow blocks attempt at 'second meaningful vote'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-vote-boris-johnson-de...

Some of the answers to the 'spartan' questions that followed are good value.

In reply to neilh:

Jenkins et al questions and answers around 16.00 today on the Guardian live feed:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/21/brexit-johnson-to-pus...