Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:May herself underlined Brexit talking about laws, trade deals and borders. Her deal contravenes all of those. Her deal will not get through Westminster so what is the next step? That is now the question.

May will try to negotiate again. She will fail. A deal very similar to the one just aborted will go through Parliament in January. It will be rejected. The UK will leave with 'no deal'. May then resigns.

Liam Fox has said himself and other cabinet colleagues won't let a similar deal.to May's last one go to Parliament.

My guess is she gets concessions or she goes....The next PM then has the collateral to slightly extend article 50..

For me there's still rolls of the dice to happen before March.
Labour are clearly waiting on the opportune moment to push for a challenge, also they're clearly trying to gauge support among voters for a 2nd referendum and to a degree I do think that remain and leave voters have shifted between the main parties recently with remain migrating towards Labour. If they take the gamble on a 2nd referendum policy change that a large number of party members are pushing for (apart from Jezza) then it'll put a clear line between them and the Tories which up to now has been cross party confusion.

A50 is funny one. We can cancel it any time we want, but extending the date would require agreement with the EU which might get very difficult to negotiate.

Anyway, launching article 50 as we (or rather the conservative government with full support of the supine opposition) did must go down as one of the dumbest political actions in history. If they really really wanted to do the stupid Brexit thing they really should have got some plans in place first.

You don't need plans. You just need to believe in Brexit.

The most startling fact about 117 mps voting against May is that it makes Boris Johnson seem likelier to reach the final two in a contest...

If he reaches the last two he wins with 70% of members being Hard Brexit.

Johnson has just gone clear favourite.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The most startling fact about 117 mps voting against May is that it makes Boris Johnson seem likelier to reach the final two in a contest...

If he reaches the last two he wins with 70% of members being Hard Brexit.

Johnson has just gone clear favourite.

The UK's answer to the Donald. Hoo. Ray.

Still he's got a court case to fight first.

Slow movement towards an 'anti democratic' 2nd vote (yeah - lol) but I can imagine that they will struggle to get anything organised for it as the clock ticks down to the end of March.

It is going to go down to the wire, but can see no deal happening unless the HoC takes control and cancels A50. We can spend longer over working out if Brexit should take place and how if they do so, but there is serious need of some courage and backbone in parliament. My hope is that there will be a tipping point when politicians will work out that the best thing to do for their future careers will be to go against their party leadership and push for this.

On the Brexit poll thread I set up I voted for us leaving with a Brexit deal softer than the one May has negotiated. However, I'm now pondering that May will in fact get her way with her deal, as she appears to be ruling out revoking Article 50 or having a 2nd referendum. This way, MPs are spooked into voting for her deal as leaving with no deal looks the only other alternative. Also, Mogg (and at least some of the ERG lot) now appears to be backing Theresa May.

We are reaching crunch time for not only the Tories but also Labour on Brexit. Corbyn and McDonnell must be trying the patience of a lot of their urban younger remain minded voters. I'm not sure if anyone really knows Corbyn's current stance on Brexit, other than the political calculations on how to keep both remain and leave minded Labour voters on side. On the one hand, being out of the EU potentially gives more freedom for renationalisation. However, Corbyn must surely be mindful of how harmful Brexit will be to the NHS, and the potential risks to hard won employment rights and environmental legislation, etc. Surely the risks to NHS both in terms of losing EU workers and also in terms of being more vulnerable to being picked up by American corporations outweigh the constraints on renationalisation?

Corbyn's fellow London based Labour MPs represent heavily Remain constituencies so surely the message from supporters and colleagues is getting through to him. If he is perceived by the electorate as assisting a no deal Brexit or not fighting enough for Remain he will not be forgiven by many voters, including a large number of those newer, younger voters he has attracted to Labour.

Lets see what Labour come up with in January - they can still get away with this, but they can't sit on the fence and hedge their bets for much longer.

What, exactly, does 'Brexit deal softer than the one May has negotiated' actually mean? EFTA, or something else?

Duty281 wrote:What, exactly, does 'Brexit deal softer than the one May has negotiated' actually mean? EFTA, or something else?

I'd guess a Norway type deal. Which is probably the least worst form of Brexit even though its still worse than the deal we currently have.

Cant deal with a drone flying over an airport but theres a technological solution that’ll take five minutes to set up to solve the Irish border problem.

It is quite laughable listening to May warble her BS that her deal is the only deal possible. Tosh and we all know it is.

If Westminster rejects her deal she should do the right thing and step down. The new PM can then put off Brexit and tell the EU that May's deal is dead and fresh negotiations need to be had. I am certain the EU would comply since the only other option is one that even the EU do not want - a messy exit with no deal.

Uk to leave the EU with no Brexit deal before the 1st April 2019 - 3/1 at Ladbrokes. Beautiful price.

Yep, there will always be someone who happily benefits from the misfortune of others.

Whats the odds on another referendum? And whats the odds on remaining?

Samo wrote:Whats the odds on another referendum?  And whats the odds on remaining?

Anywhere between 7/5 and 5/4 on another referendum in 2019.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/brexit/2nd-eu-referendum

9/2 on Betfair that the UK simply revokes article 50 and stops Brexit. 5/2 at Ladbrokes that there is another referendum and the UK votes to remain.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yep, there will always be someone who happily benefits from the misfortune of others.

Yep, I will always try to benefit from the misfortune of those betting companies that don't have a clue.

I almost admire your unwavering belief that a No Deal brexit would be a good thing despite disruption to food and medicine supplies, grounded planes and potential unrest at the Irish border.

Surely the chances of the Commons voting to endorse a no- deal Brexit are about as likely as the Tory rebels embracing the May blueprint ?
I can't see anything other than a further delay (presuming the EU accept such an arrangement) : though I have no idea how the wretched business can eventually be resolved anyway...

Samo wrote:I almost admire your unwavering belief that a No Deal brexit would be a good thing despite disruption to food and medicine supplies, grounded planes and potential unrest at the Irish border.

I almost admire your ability to read tabloid style headlines from biased media outlets, apply no independent thought whatsoever, and then regurgitate them when need be.

alfie wrote:Surely the chances of the Commons voting to endorse a no- deal Brexit are about as likely as the Tory rebels embracing the May blueprint ?
I can't see anything other than a further delay (presuming the EU accept such an arrangement) : though I have no idea how the wretched business can eventually be resolved anyway...

Thing is, though, no-deal Brexit is the automatic choice, unless an alternative plan is voted through. At the moment, there isn't enough Commons support for any of these alternatives (delay/EFTA/second ref/accept current deal/stop it altogether etc.), and as time rapidly moves forward, the prospect of 'no-deal' becomes ever more likely.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:I almost admire your unwavering belief that a No Deal brexit would be a good thing despite disruption to food and medicine supplies, grounded planes and potential unrest at the Irish border.

I almost admire your ability to read tabloid style headlines from biased media outlets, apply no independent thought whatsoever, and then regurgitate them when need be.

I almost admire your ability to bury your head in the sand yet still have a voice left to spout nonsense about other people.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:I almost admire your unwavering belief that a No Deal brexit would be a good thing despite disruption to food and medicine supplies, grounded planes and potential unrest at the Irish border.

I almost admire your ability to read tabloid style headlines from biased media outlets, apply no independent thought whatsoever, and then regurgitate them when need be.

I almost admire your ability to bury your head in the sand yet still have a voice left to spout nonsense about other people.

Yep, still have a voice. Used to being right so, y'know, comes with the territory.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:I almost admire your unwavering belief that a No Deal brexit would be a good thing despite disruption to food and medicine supplies, grounded planes and potential unrest at the Irish border.

I almost admire your ability to read tabloid style headlines from biased media outlets, apply no independent thought whatsoever, and then regurgitate them when need be.

I almost admire your ability to bury your head in the sand yet still have a voice left to spout nonsense about other people.

Yep, still have a voice. Used to being far right so, y'know, comes with the territory.

Corrected that for you

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:I almost admire your unwavering belief that a No Deal brexit would be a good thing despite disruption to food and medicine supplies, grounded planes and potential unrest at the Irish border.

I almost admire your ability to read tabloid style headlines from biased media outlets, apply no independent thought whatsoever, and then regurgitate them when need be.

Tabloid style headlines like the ones that are almost unilaterally pro-brexit? Those tabloids? Or other tabloids?

Or I could just do what I have been doing, which is listen to the views, opinions and expertise of people with decades of experience in these fields who almost all conclude that no-deal Brexit will be a catastrophe, rather than the “out for the own ends” disaster capiltalists like Rees-Mogg and Farage who cant keep their stories straight.

Also, if you could direct me to these hallowed non-biased, partisan media outlets who call upon the same levels of expertise and experience of people in these fields to conclude that No Deal isnt a catastrophe I’d be happy to read into them.

Obviously a no-deal Brexit would be monumentally stupid. But:

'We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.''

George Orwell, "In front of your nose" 1946

I do watch twitter on this subject - probably far too much according to the wife. There is a lot of rubbish spoken, (mainly by one side but no side is immune) and some real sense (mainly by the other side) and some hard facts.

I have yet to see a reputable expert provide hard evidence or a path to how any kind of Brexit will be good for us. I have also started increasingly seeing cases of people who will be ruined because of it, either because their businesses will fail or because safety nets of medicine and sickness benefits will be lost because of where they live.

People will die, needlessly, if Brexit goes ahead. It is that simple.

One thing that was pointed out the other day is that in the case of a no deal Brexit we are still stuck with the £39 billion bill as that is to cover existing commitments. It is not going to be available as a sticking plaster/ get rich quick scheme for one of the cabinet's besties as if we don't pay it nobody is going to trust us.

Financial service companies have moved £800bn in assets from the UK to Europe in preparation for Brexit.

For some people, needless deaths are the acceptable collateral damage of 'regaining sovereignty'. Many of those people will deny that such deaths will occur, and thus deny that there is any collateral damage, either through ignorance or a willing blindness that allows them to feel superior.

JuliusHMarx wrote:For some people, needless deaths are the acceptable collateral damage of 'regaining sovereignty'. Many of those people will deny that such deaths will occur, and thus deny that there is any collateral damage, either through ignorance or a willing blindness that allows them to feel superior.

As ever 'needless deaths' are OK as long as they are someone else's

You have to laugh at the level of moron trying to intimidate Anna Soubry:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46789601

The only people acting like Nazi Brownshirts here are those intimidating MPs in this way. Are these people so utterly stupid as not to actually know anything about the Nazis they're accusing Soubry of being at one with? I have to say as well, what a surprise that we hear nothing on this from the more ardent pro-Brexit MPs such as Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc. If nothing else, this whole Brexit débacle should really be opening a lot eyes to the sewer dwellers that are still alive and well in the UK.

navyblueshorts wrote:You have to laugh at the level of moron trying to intimidate Anna Soubry:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46789601

The only people acting like Nazi Brownshirts here are those intimidating MPs in this way. Are these people so utterly stupid as not to actually know anything about the Nazis they're accusing Soubry of being at one with? I have to say as well, what a surprise that we hear nothing on this from the more ardent pro-Brexit MPs such as Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc. If nothing else, this whole Brexit débacle should really be opening a lot eyes to the sewer dwellers that are still alive and well in the UK.

JRM: "@Anna_Soubry ought not to be insulted or intimidated. Anna is entitled to her views and to express them as I am entitled to disagree with her."

Sadly, you get these types of morons on all sides of the debate.

And yet 700,000 protesters turned out to support a peoples vote and there wasnt a whiff of trouble. And there havent been any MP's murdered by remain supporters.

Samo wrote:And yet 700,000 protesters turned out to support a peoples vote and there wasnt a whiff of trouble.  And there havent been any MP's murdered by remain supporters.

Even by your very low standards, that is quite a despicable comment. Need I remind you of the Leave voter murdered by a Remain supporter?

A tiny minority of Remain supporters are violent morons. A tiny minority of Leave supporters are violent morons.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:And yet 700,000 protesters turned out to support a peoples vote and there wasnt a whiff of trouble.  And there havent been any MP's murdered by remain supporters.

Even by your very low standards, that is quite a despicable comment. Need I remind you of the Leave voter murdered by a Remain supporter?

A tiny minority of Remain supporters are violent morons. A tiny minority of Leave supporters are violent morons.

There are always morons on all sides, but leave marches seem dominated by aggro and yet the big remain marches happened with no problems at all. As has recently been shown the aggression seems to be an actual tactic. Only one side is threatening civil war, for instance. As for remain I guess it only depends on how offensive you find the word 'gammon' to be.

The leaver supposedly murdered, the story I can find said it was a fight between two alcoholics where one died of a combination of factors after the event. The referendum may have been a trigger but I doubt it was the only cause. Tragic result but not quite the same as the premeditated terrorist act which ended with the death of Jo Cox.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:And yet 700,000 protesters turned out to support a peoples vote and there wasnt a whiff of trouble.  And there havent been any MP's murdered by remain supporters.

Even by your very low standards, that is quite a despicable comment. Need I remind you of the Leave voter murdered by a Remain supporter?

A tiny minority of Remain supporters are violent morons. A tiny minority of Leave supporters are violent morons.

I'll concede that both sides have moronic elements, but I'd also wager that one side have a fair few more than the other. Spoiler: its the one that has 13 year old girls assaulting police officers.

You found those impartial, unbiased media outlets calling on the experience and expertise of experts to conclude that No Deal wont be a catastrophe? Been dying to read them.

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:And yet 700,000 protesters turned out to support a peoples vote and there wasnt a whiff of trouble.  And there havent been any MP's murdered by remain supporters.

Even by your very low standards, that is quite a despicable comment. Need I remind you of the Leave voter murdered by a Remain supporter?

A tiny minority of Remain supporters are violent morons. A tiny minority of Leave supporters are violent morons.

There are always morons on all sides, but leave marches seem dominated by aggro and yet the big remain marches happened with no problems at all. As has recently been shown the aggression seems to be an actual tactic. Only one side is threatening civil war, for instance. As for remain I guess it only depends on how offensive you find the word 'gammon' to be.

The leaver supposedly murdered, the story I can find said it was a fight between two alcoholics where one died of a combination of factors after the event. The referendum may have been a trigger but I doubt it was the only cause. Tragic result but not quite the same as the premeditated terrorist act which ended with the death of Jo Cox.

Well my point is, there has been plenty of nastiness and unpleasantness from a minority on both sides of the argument. Ageism and a list of insults as long as your arm from a minority of Remain supporters, and some equally unpleasant antics from a minority of Leave supporters.

Of course this isn't a new thing in UK politics, but it is getting greater visibility now.

I don't think there was any significant disorder at either leave or remain marches that have been held.

Figures suggest 250,000 turned out for a People's vote...

The 700,000 is bollox

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Figures suggest 250,000 turned out for a People's vote...

The 700,000 is bollox

No- the 250,000 quote is bollox from the Telegraph and an 'unnamed source'. Actually estimating the numbers is hard, not least because the Met. Police have no data. A web search showed at least one story where they went into more details, and suggested that the actual count was between 450K and the 670K quoted by the march organisers, but said it is very hard to get a more accurate number

Have you seen the latest little conspiracy story?

1.1 million postal votes were not counted in the ref, mostly on the basis of signatures not matching. The company responsible for collecting and vetting postal votes (idox) has Eurosceptic Peter Lilley as a director.

I'd be very interested to find out what the normal 'failure' rate is. There are also question marks over Idox's involvement in the Scotland voting

lostinwales wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Figures suggest 250,000 turned out for a People's vote...

The 700,000 is bollox

No- the 250,000 quote is bollox from the Telegraph and an 'unnamed source'. Actually estimating the numbers is hard, not least because the Met. Police have no data. A web search showed at least one story where they went into more details, and suggested that the actual count was between 450K and the 670K quoted by the march organisers, but said it is very hard to get a more accurate number

Have you seen the latest little conspiracy story?

1.1 million postal votes were not counted in the ref, mostly on the basis of signatures not matching. The company responsible for collecting and vetting postal votes (idox) has Eurosceptic Peter Lilley as a director.

I'd be very interested to find out what the normal 'failure' rate is. There are also question marks over Idox's involvement in the Scotland voting

What do you mean - 'unnamed source'? The Telegraph is perfectly clear in saying the source is a 'debriefing document prepared by the Greater London Assembly'.

The 'latest little conspiracy' appears to be, after a little research, total inane drivel spouted by the unhinged Grayling.

8.5 million postal ballots were sent out, 7.4 million were returned. In other words, 1.1 million chose not to vote. 144,000 of those returned were rejected due to verification errors.

For comparison, at the 2017 GE, 1.1 million who received postal ballots chose not to vote, and 105,000 of those returned were rejected due to verification errors.

Nice to see Parliament taking back control last night. Bercow was brave but he absolutely did the right thing.

Pr4wn wrote:Nice to see Parliament taking back control last night. Bercow was brave but he absolutely did the right thing.

Its even nicer to see the Brexit mob foaming at the mouth over Parliament using the sovereignty they claimed they voted to take back. Tie this amendment with Coopers one and its another nail in the coffin for No Deal.

Duty must be delighted to see Parliament taking back so much control. That's why he voted for Brexit.

Pr4wn wrote:Nice to see Parliament taking back control last night. Bercow was brave but he absolutely did the right thing.

Yeah, maybe. Would you have held the same view if you were pro-Brexit? Technically, it might have been within his authority and his judgement may be correct, but doing as he did off his own bat and contrary to others' advice, is risky at any time and worse just now on such an issue. The idea of precedent is important and I don't think it's wise to break with it here, unilaterally, at such short notice and without consultation.

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Nice to see Parliament taking back control last night. Bercow was brave but he absolutely did the right thing.

Its even nicer to see the Brexit mob foaming at the mouth over Parliament using the sovereignty they claimed they voted to take back. Tie this amendment with Coopers one and its another nail in the coffin for No Deal.

Laugh all you like, but it doesn't look good and will enflame the pro-Brexiteers. Might even make the Government more bloody-minded. Don't forget, Duty is correct about no-deal being the default if a deal isn't agreed by March 29th. Maybe MPs will have their chance to vote on May's deal withdrawn now, if technically possible.

If we go out with No Deal, and revert to WTO agreements, shouldn't we have a referendum on whether to stay in the WTO? I don't remember us (the people) having a proper say in joining it. Surely we don't want to adhere to the rules of an unelected body of bureaucrats?
BRING BACK SOVEREIGNTY! WTO-XIT!

Who voted for the head of the WTO? I certainly bloody didnt. Unelected bureaucrats in Geneva lording it over us all.

No deal won't happen........Article 50 extension is the default..

Probable scenarios..

1. Labour rebels pass May's deal......Leads to DUP saying Confidence and supply is off if May stays so she falls...Tories win VONC..Leave March 29th..

2. MV vote gets voted down......VONC which the Tories win and then Starmer and a few other PV supporters in the Shadow Cabinet say they quit unless Labour backs a second referendum..

Labour can't afford to lose them so they back a PV....Leads to Article 50 extended with 20+ left Tories supporting Labour's position.....

All hell breaks loose in the Tory Party..

3. Corbyn doesn't back a second ref which leads to an unsuccesful challenge against him...Resignations as above and a new Centrist Party......Which has right wing Labour mps...Lib Dems and left leaning Tories..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No deal won't happen........Article 50 extension is the default..

Probable scenarios..

1. Labour rebels pass May's deal......Leads to DUP saying Confidence and supply is off if May stays so she falls...Tories win VONC..Leave March 29th..

2. MV vote gets voted down......VONC which the Tories win and then Starmer and a few other PV supporters in the Shadow Cabinet say they quit unless Labour backs a second referendum..

Labour can't afford to lose them so they back a PV....Leads to Article 50 extended with 20+ left Tories supporting Labour's position.....

All hell breaks loose in the Tory Party..

3. Corbyn doesn't back a second ref which leads to an unsuccesful challenge against him...Resignations as above and a new Centrist Party......Which has right wing Labour mps...Lib Dems and left leaning Tories..

Extension of A50 requires all EU27 to agree. Want to bet on that happening? Maybe, they'd support that but it's a pretty high stakes game to be relying on things out of your own control.