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?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pm's second bite gets voted down and she can't be bothered turning up...

According to sources Labour supposed to split tonight...Ummuna..Leslie etc... Seems they can't be bothered.

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need to him ??

Interesting comment. I wonder what the senior military think of all this?

"The airline has faced several difficulties, including recent spikes in fuel and carbon costs, the latter arising from the EU's recent decision to exclude UK airlines from full participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
"Current trading and future prospects have also been seriously affected by the uncertainty created by the Brexit process, which has led to our inability to secure valuable flying contracts in Europe."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47267901

Surely this can't be right. Duty told us 100% that this sort of stuff wasn't real and was only a figment of Project Fear's warped imagination.

If you’re aware of what I’ve actually said, Julius, which you are not because you are incredibly ignorant and blinkered, you would know that I have consistently stated that the short-term economic upheaval arising from Brexit is the main negative for leaving the European Union. Still, if you must, carry on with misrepresentation and embarrassing yourself.

Blimey, someone can't take a joke!

And when called out on your lies and misrepresentation, as usual, you pretend it was a joke.

Don't be daft - it was so obviously over the top, what else could it be other than having a bit of a laugh?

God knows your views don't need to be misrepresented in order to be laughable, but in this case it was just banter.

JuliusHMarx wrote:God knows your views don't need to be misrepresented in order to be laughable, but in this case it was just banter.

Jules 

JuliusHMarx wrote:Don't be daft - it was so obviously over the top, what else could it be other than having a bit of a laugh?

God knows your views don't need to be misrepresented in order to be laughable, but in this case it was just banter.

Your usual lies and misrepresentation, is obviously what it was. Now you're trying to weasel away, which is usual when you are challenged on it.

And, on the second line, don't be silly, you would likely be wrong about the majority of my viewpoints on things.

I dont remember you ever saying there was negatives to Brexit. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Don't be daft - it was so obviously over the top, what else could it be other than having a bit of a laugh?

God knows your views don't need to be misrepresented in order to be laughable, but in this case it was just banter.

Your usual lies and misrepresentation, is obviously what it was. Now you're trying to weasel away, which is usual when you are challenged on it.

And, on the second line, don't be silly, you would likely be wrong about the majority of my viewpoints on things.

Samo - if you support a United States of Europe, Brexit is only a negative. Other than that, I’ve consistently stated that the short term economic upheaval, and the incompetence of our politicians in Westminster in negotiating/handling Brexit, would be viable reasons to have voted Remain.

Duty281 wrote:Samo - if you support a United States of Europe, Brexit is only a negative. Other than that, I’ve consistently stated that the short term economic upheaval, and the incompetence of our politicians in Westminster in negotiating/handling Brexit, would be viable reasons to have voted Remain.

Cant find anything to back that up. Again, feel free to prove me wrong.

How do you know it won't make any difference ???...They were singing anti Govt songs and "Oh Jeremy Corbyn"....A 150 vote swing in marginals sees Labour in Downing Street with the SNP....

Every little helps.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Samo - if you support a United States of Europe, Brexit is only a negative. Other than that, I’ve consistently stated that the short term economic upheaval, and the incompetence of our politicians in Westminster in negotiating/handling Brexit, would be viable reasons to have voted Remain.

Cant find anything to back that up.  Again, feel free to prove me wrong.

Well it has been my consistent belief for years - and still is my belief now - and will likely exist in one of the many, many pages on this sub-forum.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Samo - if you support a United States of Europe, Brexit is only a negative. Other than that, I’ve consistently stated that the short term economic upheaval, and the incompetence of our politicians in Westminster in negotiating/handling Brexit, would be viable reasons to have voted Remain.

Cant find anything to back that up.  Again, feel free to prove me wrong.

Well it has been my consistent belief for years - and still is my belief now -  and will likely exist in one of the many, many pages on this sub-forum.

Go on then, show us.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How do you know it won't make any difference ???...They were singing anti Govt songs and "Oh Jeremy Corbyn"....A 150 vote swing in marginals sees Labour in Downing Street with the SNP....

Every little helps.

I can't see the SNP going into coalition given that Corbyn has been extremely cool on subject of another Scottish indyref. If he backs it then it would be a goer.

Duty281 wrote:Samo - if you support a United States of Europe, Brexit is only a negative. Other than that, I’ve consistently stated that the short term economic upheaval, and the incompetence of our politicians in Westminster in negotiating/handling Brexit, would be viable reasons to have voted Remain.

But ask any Brit (or most of them) and they harken back to the days of the British Empire with great fondness which was exactly the same principle.

Hell of a generalisation

I have to say as a youngish man I look back fondly to the old Empire, something that has never existed during my lifetime.

Point is if those anti-Eu could have their way they'd go back to the days of the British Empire in a shot. That tells me that they do not object to one body calling the shots as long as it is them.

As Dolph says, that is one hell of a generalisation. If I had my way, I certainly wouldn't go back to the days of the British Empire and neither, I assume, would the majority of Leave voters.

A lot of noise is made that harks back to it, but in the same way I don’t care now how people did during and after the wars, it just holds no relevance.

I’ve also supported another Scottish independence referendum since Brexit results etc, but I don’t think anyone has time for more of anything like that right now

CaledonianCraig wrote:Point is if those anti-Eu could have their way they'd go back to the days of the British Empire in a shot. That tells me that they do not object to one body calling the shots as long as it is them.

Any evidence to back that up whatsoever?

El Radar wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Point is if those anti-Eu could have their way they'd go back to the days of the British Empire in a shot. That tells me that they do not object to one body calling the shots as long as it is them.

Any evidence to back that up whatsoever?

No not specifically but how many times have you been told or hear people saying that things were so much better back then. Much more than would argue that things were better even in the 80s or 90s or 00s.

About Brexit I see it as something that has been terribly badly thought out. A No Deal Brexit would be disastrous but Britain would survive. Life would be mighty tough but it would find its way through to brighter times many years down the line. It is much like Scottish independence would be in my opinion but with self-governance being achieved at the end of it as well where Scots choose who run their country which is not the case.presently given Tories have been a minority party in Scotland for 60 years and Labour now the same.

So the final Parliamentary vote on May's deal will, apparently, happen by the 12th March.

Will enough MPs be terrified by the prospect of no-deal to vote it through? And, if not, will May rush off a hasty extension request to the EU?

Duty281 wrote:So the final Parliamentary vote on May's deal will, apparently, happen by the 12th March.

Will enough MPs be terrified by the prospect of no-deal to vote it through? And, if not, will May rush off a hasty extension request to the EU?

Quite clear that those saying she is clearly trying to run down the clock are bang on. She is trying to scare the crap out of MP's into agreeing a deal which is evidently bad for the UK. She is banking on fear pushing her deal over the line and nothing else. She is off on a Jolly to Sharm-el-sheikh as of today instead of working for a better deal. Sums this government up to a tee.

Yet to be confirmed but multiple sources reporting that Labour will table an amendment calling for a Peoples Vote with the option to Remain.

Seems Labour frontbenchers will put all their effort into getting their own amendment over the line first - which is their version of a deal. They’ll also be backing the Cooper amendment to take No Deal off the table. If their first amendment fails (which is likely) then they’ll back or table an amendment for a Peoples Vote. However, this could mean backing the Kyle-Wilson amendment which would take Mays deal to a public vote, but this has yet to be finalised and drafted.

"Don't scrap your posters, don't recycle them, because you're going to need them for a third referendum. Because I've got a feeling they're going to keep on voting until they get the answer they want.”

Very true, Jeremy. This is a move borne out of desperation  - departing MPs, falling in the polls etc. - and is merely a futile gesture to try to appease the anti-democrats in his party. It's too late in the day for another vote (barring extension), and Corbyn knows this.

"The Peoples Vote" - what an impressive Orwellian spin to the situation.

With speculation of a second vote and a delay to A50 gain ground, the pound has bounced to a four-week high. Its almost as if not leaving is good for peoples livelihoods.

Or you could write it off as a coincidence which Im sure some of you will.

Word is that if MPs reject May's deal on 12th May, then they will vote on no-deal on 13th May.
Strongest sign yet that no-deal won't happen - thank God!

Bizarre politicking from May. She, apparently, wants her deal to go through early next month, but offering the possibility of extension a couple of days after means that her deal is less likely to carry, because most of the MPs who rejected it last time out would gladly seek an extension.

So it now seems likely, if all happens according to the schedule as May said, that MPs will vote for extension. That vote will happen on the 14th, just two weeks before we are due to leave. But what if the EU27 doesn't agree to extension? It only takes 1 to kibosh it. Or what if the terms of extension (how long/fees/MEP elections etc.) cannot be agreed upon in the very short time-frame before exit is due to happen? Then it will surely be no-deal with no other options left and no time left.

However, if extension is agreed upon, it is worth remembering that it solves absolutely nothing. It merely 'kicks the can down the road' and delays. If a good deal cannot be agreed upon in two years, and seeing as how nothing has happened in the two months since the deal was first rejected, then spending another few months ruminating over it will have zero effect.

Duty281 wrote:Bizarre politicking from May. She, apparently, wants her deal to go through early next month, but offering the possibility of extension a couple of days after means that her deal is less likely to carry, because most of the MPs who rejected it last time out would gladly seek an extension.

So it now seems likely, if all happens according to the schedule as May said, that MPs will vote for extension. That vote will happen on the 14th, just two weeks before we are due to leave. But what if the EU27 doesn't agree to extension? It only takes 1 to kibosh it. Or what if the terms of extension (how long/fees/MEP elections etc.) cannot be agreed upon in the very short time-frame before exit is due to happen? Then it will surely be no-deal with no other options left and no time left.

However, if extension is agreed upon, it is worth remembering that it solves absolutely nothing. It merely 'kicks the can down the road' and delays. If a good deal cannot be agreed upon in two years, and seeing as how nothing has happened in the two months since the deal was first rejected, then spending another few months ruminating over it will have zero effect.

It means Theresa May can point to the EU and say we have got a no deal because of the EU's bureaucratic intransigence.  Or if the EU do agree an extension she can point to the EU and say - they are making it up as they go along - look how easily they change their rules that before they said was set in stone.

In the first scenario the blame can be shifted onto the EU in the second scenario they could use it as a leverage against the EU to get a better deal.  All this depends on the quality of British political leadership.   The main objective of most of the conservatives including the Brexiters is to win the next general election.  

Theresa May has offered herself as the sacrificial lamb by saying she will step down before the next general election.  Theresa May has stepped in when David Cameron fled the scene.   I don't think history will be kind to David Cameron.

In what way are the EU being bureaucratically intransigent? They agreed a deal with our Government some time ago.

This is getting more and more absurd by the day. Today May went in for yet another round of kicking-the-can-down-the-road, and yet again, spineless Tory "rebels" have caved in and said "we trust her (lol!), she's conceded enough".

Anyway, current situation and how I expect things to progress.

1) Vote on the 12th March on May's deal. Can't see this passing: May will only have gained minimal concessions on the backstop, almost certainly not enough to get the ERG and hard Brexiteers on board; also, with the possibility of voting down no-deal and voting for an extension, there's no incentive for the remain wing of the Tories to back her deal either. The defeat might be less than the January vote, but probably not by much.

2) Assuming deal is voted down. Vote on the 13th March on whether this means the UK should leave without a deal. This will probably be rejected. Labour and TINGE will vote against (possibly only Hoey rebelling on the Labour side, maybe one or two others), so even if May whips for, more than likely enough Tory rebels to ensure it's voted down. Unlikely that May will whip that way anyway, since it would almost certainly split the cabinet and either force mass sackings/resignations, or shatter her authority even more. She may whip against (would involve a sizeable rebellion, but less damaging IMO than whipping for), or even allow a free vote.

3) Assuming no-deal is rejected. Vote on the 14th March to apply for an extension. Here's where things get even more farcical. If this is voted down, then what? Parliament doesn't want current deal, doesn't want no-deal, but doesn't want to allow for time to negotiate a new deal that they might accept??? Now I don't actually expect this to happen, as it would be completely illogical for Parliament to take that stance, and I think May's concessions today suggest very much she thought they'd lose vote on Cooper/Boles and have to apply for an extension while losing some control of the process, whereas in this situation they at least stay relatively in control.

So let's assume the (IMO) most likely scenario occurs: Parliament rejects May's deal, votes down no-deal, and instructs the government to apply for an extension of Article 50. What then? Is the extension just so that May can wring a few more cosmetic concessions from the EU on her deal? Do we go through all this again in 2 months time?

Like I said, just a mess. I still expect the EU to accept an extension request, as IMO they're not really ready for a no-deal exit either (they're readier than the UK is, mind, but would I suspect rather have more time to prepare if possible). But they'll accept it as a one-time thing only, either until the end of June at latest (not requiring UK to participate in EU elections) or something significantly longer than that (i.e. 2+ years). If we go for a short extension, and come end of June we still haven't agreed to a deal, then I suspect they'll just let the UK crash out.

"Bureaucratically intransigent"



The EU set out its negotiating stance in the very beginning. It's the UK that's deciding to leave, the UK that's making it up as it goes along, the UK that chosed, in all likelihood, the thickest member of parliament to be their first Brexit secretary. It's the UK that's insulting the EU, comparing them to genocidal Nazis, it's the UK that's making unrealistic demands, wanting to have its cake and eat it.

But the UK doesn't hold any cards. They make all these demands and then cry foul when the EU doesn't agree to them.

But that's how negotiations work.

Oh, and in other news, the economy will be up to 9% worse off in the event of a no-deal situation. That's what the experts say but who needs them anyway, am I right?

Pr4wn wrote:

Oh, and in other news, the economy will be up to 9% worse off in the event of a no-deal situation. That's what the experts say but who needs them anyway, am I right?

For context, the global financial crash that landed us with nearly a decade of crippling Tory austerity made us only 2% worse off.

Pr4wn wrote:"Bureaucratically intransigent"



The EU set out its negotiating stance in the very beginning. It's the UK that's deciding to leave, the UK that's making it up as it goes along, the UK that chosed, in all likelihood, the thickest member of parliament to be their first Brexit secretary. It's the UK that's insulting the EU, comparing them to genocidal Nazis, it's the UK that's making unrealistic demands, wanting to have its cake and eat it.

But the UK doesn't hold any cards. They make all these demands and then cry foul when the EU doesn't agree to them.

But that's how negotiations work.

Oh, and in other news, the economy will be up to 9% worse off in the event of a no-deal situation. That's what the experts say but who needs them anyway, am I right?

Pretty much spot on in my opinion.

This article 50 extension till June is May's desired option not her deal.. It is designed to get in a GE on May 2nd...Labour are in dire straits and this..  'Me first useless old twonk' of a PM can see 5 more years..

Heaven help us.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:This article 50 extension till June is May's desired option not her deal.. It is designed to get in a GE on May 2nd...Labour are in dire straits and this..  'Me first useless old twonk' of a PM can see 5 more years..

Heaven help us.

Well thankfully she has already said she will not lead the Tories in another election campaign so if there is to be a May election she will have resigned her post. Mind you this is TM we are talking about. No magic money tree then stacks of it to pay DUP. Strong and stable - you must be joking. Her deal or no deal - well that has changed now as well. She has had more turns than Lombard Street in San Francisco.

Labour's amendment defeated so, theoretically, they should be going 100% for a second referendum now. An SNP amendment on categorically ruling out 'no deal' was also defeated.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:This article 50 extension till June is May's desired option not her deal.. It is designed to get in a GE on May 2nd...Labour are in dire straits and this..  'Me first useless old twonk' of a PM can see 5 more years..

Heaven help us.

Well thankfully she has already said she will not lead the Tories in another election campaign so if there is to be a May election she will have resigned her post. Mind you this is TM we are talking about. No magic money tree then stacks of it to pay DUP. Strong and stable - you must be joking. Her deal or no deal - well that has changed now as well. She has had more turns than Lombard Street in San Francisco.

Who will replace her? You have to wonder if anyone with any actual talent who is not insane or corrupt (a short list) would be prepared to stand when the party itself is so divided. Nobody from the ERG would stand but the list of people they would be prepared to back must be very short and full of incompetents.

Javid is keen as mustard for it.

Pr4wn wrote:Javid is keen as mustard for it.

So should be disqualified I reckon. Pretty much anyone who desperately wants to be PM would be compromised by the fact they'd then do anything to stay as PM. Needs a strong man/woman who actually doesn't care if they lose the post at a GE or via internal party politics. Back me or sack me; I don't care. That sort of thing. Would probably also help if they're either independently wealthy (i.e. don't care about MP or PM salary) or simply aren't bothered about the associated salary. Suspect there aren't too many genuine altruists, complete with suitable qualifications, in the last bracket though.

Don't think you have to worry about the wealthy part in the Tory party mate.

Think May wants an extension to smash Labour in a GE...The Brexiteers will want to smash May if we end up having one.

Brexit Tory divide is Labour's only hope...

Plenty more Brexteer ministers that may quit if March 29 gets extended..

Strange place we are in at the moment..

Con attacking Con...Lab attacking Lab..and the Libdems making no ground whatsoever.

Pr4wn wrote:Don't think you have to worry about the wealthy part in the Tory party mate.

True. Shame most of the wealthy Tories in the public eye are manifestly unqualified in so many other ways.

I may be too cynical, but seems to me that being in Cabinet (or Shadow Cabinet) is like any local, unimportant Committees the country over. You know, Golf Club committees etc. The sort of people you want on them wouldn't touch the job with a barge pole as they've far better things to do with their time and the ones everyone knows should be nowhere near being on them are those that are jumping up and down shouting "Pick me!, Pick me!".

Chris Grayling is a cabinet minister.

He wears a cabinet minister's hat.