Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

Survation Poll:

"'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?"

Remain: 55%
Leave: 45%

Conservative:
72% Leave

Labour:
74% Remain

Lib Dems:
90% Remain

SNP:
77% Remain

Brexit Party:
98% Leave

Shout out to the 2% of Brexit Company voters who are literally too stupid for words.

Samo wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:Genuinely puzzled by the these No Deal enthusiasts...

People wanting out of the EU I can handle

'No Deal' is the only way out of the EU, at present. Theresa May's withdrawal agreement is not Brexit and, in any case, has next to zero chance of being passed through Parliament anyway.

It's no deal or stay in.

Anything that means we're no longer a member state of the EU is Brexit.

How does this still need explaining? It was exactly what brexiters voted for.

So I know the wagons are circling on this topic to such an extent that we're all subterranean at this point....but if a No Deal Exit is the very same result as Exit with a Deal (i.e., Brexit means Brexit) ...then one has to ask, again, what's the big fuss about No Deal?  
There's just gotta be a disguised Bear Trap in the detail or else so many normal folks wouldn't be going full on nuts in the Deal or No Deal debate.  Brexiteers smell the Backstop.  It wasn't hidden well enough.  They know its purpose.... and of course, that's why it seems non-negotiable for Europhiles - it's the trap.  You can't negotiate away your trapdoor.  People are just furious that the Brexiteers spotted it and more importantly, its purpose; that's all.

If it goes, there might be a Deal.  Pro Deal fans want a deal - yes?  Compromise - the art of negotiation, it is said.  Backstop goes.... Deal very possible.  Everyone happy?   No, not those that want Remain...and its baby sister, Backstop.

The UK government isn't negotiating with 'Remoaners', they are negotiating with the European Union.

Firstly there has been no practical plan as to how the problem at the Irish border can be dealt with without a Backstop. If there are no border checks between NI and ROI, let's say UK and US do a deal to let in chlorinated chicken, these chickens could come into ROI freely. The nature of the single market then means the chickens are exposed to the EU market across Europe. So this leaves the EU vulnerable.

Secondly, a point you keep ignoring SF, the EU have more leverage than the UK in these negotiations. The EU doesn't have to have altruistic motivations, they're a powerful organisation with a lot to lose. If they let the UK have a good deal, then why would other countries not follow the UK's example and leave the EU? It shouldn't be surprising that the EU are taking full advantage of their leverage.

One thing absolutely infuriating, and an insult to democracy, is this:
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1161618998783619073

Brexiters point to the fact that Remainers brought up the possibility of a WTO exit during the referendum, to claim there's a mandate for a WTO Brexit.
I hope that even fair minded and reasonable Brexiters can see this is flawed.
During the referendum, Remainers did bring up WTO Brexit, but this prospect was dismissed as scaremongering by Brexiters. The 52% of the population who voted for Brexit presumably gave a mandate to what the Brexiters promised, not the worst fears of the Remainers.

Otherwise with this crazy logic, one could quote Remainers fearing an economic recession with WTO Brexit, and then claiming that this means there's a mandate for a recession from the referendum.

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:Genuinely puzzled by the these No Deal enthusiasts...

People wanting out of the EU I can handle

'No Deal' is the only way out of the EU, at present. Theresa May's withdrawal agreement is not Brexit and, in any case, has next to zero chance of being passed through Parliament anyway.

It's no deal or stay in.

Anything that means we're no longer a member state of the EU is Brexit.

How does this still need explaining? It was exactly what brexiters voted for.

So I know the wagons are circling on this topic to such an extent that we're all subterranean at this point....but if a No Deal Exit is the very same result as Exit with a Deal (i.e., Brexit means Brexit) ...then one has to ask, again, what's the big fuss about No Deal?  
There's just gotta be a disguised Bear Trap in the detail or else so many normal folks wouldn't be going full on nuts in the Deal or No Deal debate.  Brexiteers smell the Backstop.  It wasn't hidden well enough.  They know its purpose.... and of course, that's why it seems non-negotiable for Europhiles - it's the trap.  You can't negotiate away your trapdoor.  People are just furious that the Brexiteers spotted it and more importantly, its purpose; that's all.

If it goes, there might be a Deal.  Pro Deal fans want a deal - yes?  Compromise - the art of negotiation, it is said.  Backstop goes.... Deal very possible.  Everyone happy?   No, not those that want Remain...and its baby sister, Backstop.

When did I say No Deal and Deal where the same thing?

You didn't. It's classic Fly obfuscation. Write an excruciatingly long post that nobody wants to read, answering a question that nobody asked.

It Must Be Love wrote:One thing absolutely infuriating, and an insult to democracy, is this:
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1161618998783619073

Brexiters point to the fact that Remainers brought up the possibility of a WTO exit during the referendum, to claim there's a mandate for a WTO Brexit.
I hope that even fair minded and reasonable Brexiters can see this is flawed.
During the referendum, Remainers did bring up WTO Brexit, but this prospect was dismissed as scaremongering by Brexiters. The 52% of the population who voted for Brexit presumably gave a mandate to what the Brexiters promised, not the worst fears of the Remainers.

Otherwise with this crazy logic, one could quote Remainers fearing an economic recession with WTO Brexit, and then claiming that this means there's a mandate for a recession from the referendum.

My heart sinks every time I see Harley-Brewer quoted on Twitter. She misses the point so consistently, and yet she's delighted with herself.

Samo wrote:Survation Poll:

"'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?"

Remain: 55%
Leave: 45%

Conservative:
72% Leave

Labour:
74% Remain

Lib Dems:
90% Remain

SNP:
77% Remain

Brexit Party:
98% Leave

Shout out to the 2% of Brexit Company voters who are literally too stupid for words.

Amateur night from the New Lib Dem leader ruling out supporting Corbyn....He hasn't got the support for a Govt anyway..

Boxed herself into a corner.....Humiliating U turn or get part of the blame in the unlikely event of No Deal.

Cable wouldn't have been so naive..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Amateur night from the New Lib Dem leader ruling out supporting Corbyn....He hasn't got the support for a Govt anyway..

Boxed herself into a corner.....Humiliating U turn or get part of the blame in the unlikely event of No Deal.

Cable wouldn't have been so naive..

She offered a compromise of Harman and Clarke taking temporary charge. Rightly not trusting Corbyn. Just a shot at getting himself in power to try and push through his Lexit dreams.

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Amateur night from the New Lib Dem leader ruling out supporting Corbyn....He hasn't got the support for a Govt anyway..

Boxed herself into a corner.....Humiliating U turn or get part of the blame in the unlikely event of No Deal.

Cable wouldn't have been so naive..

She offered a compromise of Harman and Clarke taking temporary charge. Rightly not trusting Corbyn.  Just a shot at getting himself in power to try and push through his Lexit dreams.

Agree with this. If Labour really care, they'll compromise too.

12 Lib Dems don't get to pick the opposition leader..

They either want to stop No deal or they don't..

Absolute Bollox to not support a 5 week interim Govt pledging to stop Armageddon when you say you will do anything to stop No deal.

Spin all you want....A U-turn is coming.

they do get to decide whether an alternative government commands the confidence of the house. if it's an temporary government to seek an extension and call an election, why does Corbyn have to be in charge of that?

I fear the various groups opposing Brexit will never have the will to actually agree on firm effective action...they are all too busy playing politics ; and frankly if the country does end up crashing to a (probably disastrous) no deal exit I'd be blaming Corbyn and his sometime allies as much as the Tory nutters.
They've already had opportunities to thwart the extreme Brexiteers but haven't had the balls to take them. Fear they're going to leave any action too late anyway...

GSC wrote:they do get to decide whether an alternative government commands the confidence of the house. if it's an temporary government to seek an extension and call an election, why does Corbyn have to be in charge of that?

You are missing my point....You can't say No Deal is armageddon and then say we are not stopping it because we don't like Corbyn...Stupid and naive leaving yourself wide open like that..

and....Lo and behold as if by magic in the Independent "Lib Dems say they are not against the principle of a Caretaker Corbyn Govt"

Well fancy !!!

It's amazing what a quick few weeks does to the brain cells.  Only a few weeks ago, Jeremy Corbin was a devious and dangerous 'anti semite' fronting an 'anti semite' impregnated party that all good Labour people of conscience were leaving in their supposed droves.

....but, but... he'll stop a No Deal Brexit if he's given the reins of power!  
Oh well, let's be having him!  Three cheers for 'anti Semite' Jeremy, champion of the moral Referendum minority!

No Deal isn't necessarily more moral, but it's significantly less destructive to the UK as a whole than getting a deal.
As for majority/minority, unless 96% of the Leave voters voted for No Deal, then there would be a minority, even within the people who voted in the referendum, for No Deal.

I dislike Corbyn intently, but perhaps a deal with the Devil is necessary to prevent Armageddon (forgive the hyperbole).

SecretFly wrote:It's amazing what a quick few weeks does to the brain cells.  Only a few weeks ago, Jeremy Corbin was a devious and dangerous 'anti semite' fronting an 'anti semite' impregnated party that all good Labour people of conscience were leaving in their supposed droves.

....but, but... he'll stop a No Deal Brexit if he's given the reins of power!  
Oh well, let's be having him!  Three cheers for 'anti Semite' Jeremy, champion of the moral Referendum minority!

Sorry Fly...Haven't read the Daily Mail in years...

Regarding the Lib Dems I can see their problem...A one policy party who if they put Corbyn in Govt and he stops no deal will have a problem in a GE after losing their SP..

Harman isn't a danger as she isn't a threat in a GE as she won't be LABOUR leader.

All about self interest.

Corbyn commands as much respect from the house as Johnson does. He wouldnt get support from enough to cancel no deal, whereas as joint labour/tory set up of Harman and Clarke would, especially from Tory remainers who you cant stop No Deal without.

Samo wrote:Corbyn commands as much respect from the house as Johnson does. He wouldnt get support from enough to cancel no deal, whereas as joint labour/tory set up of Harman and Clarke would, especially from Tory remainers who you cant stop No Deal without.

There aren't the numbers for Harman and Clarke either...Corbyn will make sure it's his way or No way..

Irrelevant how much respect Corbyn has....If he is offering away out of "Armageddon" you take it..

Or you are a cheap bunch of political opportunists..

Right ???

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:Corbyn commands as much respect from the house as Johnson does. He wouldnt get support from enough to cancel no deal, whereas as joint labour/tory set up of Harman and Clarke would, especially from Tory remainers who you cant stop No Deal without.

There aren't the numbers for Harman and Clarke either...Corbyn will make sure it's his way or No way..

Irrelevant how much respect Corbyn has....If he is offering away out of "Armageddon" you take it..

Or you are a cheap bunch of political opportunists..

Right ???

No way it is then. Corbyn's letter was disingenuous and lacking critical details. He's utter scheiss and he needs to give more specifics if he wants to be taken seriously here.

Anyone else struggling with the government's framing of the Operation Yellowhammer dossier as part of 'Project Fear'?

If you're trying to scare the public, it's a novel idea to do it via the medium of an internal government report.

I scent Wormtongue Gove.

Has his flavour all over it.

Boris! You've found your Manchurian Candidate! Tower of London for him to await the scaffold being built!

No deal is predictably turning into a complete nightmare, but it's still somehow a remainer conspiracy.

Businesses are being told to prepare for No Deal, and also that there's nothing to worry about. Why then do they need to prepare?

Well it was a document originally from a Remainer's cabinet?  Leaked by.....?   Well how many secret/spy Remainers did Boris pick up in his selections for cabinet?  
Who knows, Boris might look at the grandest secret Remainer of all every morning as he shaves.
Nothing is as it seems, as Buckingham Palace tries to pretend.....

The date of the document was from when Boris was already PM.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Businesses are being told to prepare for No Deal, and also that there's nothing to worry about. Why then do they need to prepare?

Prepare for the future?

Pr4wn wrote:The date of the document was from when Boris was already PM.

So Boris might very well be having a laugh to himself whilst shaving after all.  Maybe they all did an eeny meeny around the cabinet table to decide who would 'leak' the goods?

Let me look up my official cabinet personnel list.  Oh yes here it is, Cabinet Leaker:  Michael Gove.

I knew it!  All roads lead........

So the man who campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, and is tasked with preparing properly (apparently the last government wasn't serious) for leaving, is now a secret Remainer?

No offence, Fly, but you're fast running out of true Brexiters. And if that's the case, are we sure that the public these politicians represent are still Brexiters themselves?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:So the man who campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, and is tasked with preparing properly (apparently the last government wasn't serious) for leaving, is now a secret Remainer?

No offence, Fly, but you're fast running out of true Brexiters. And if that's the case, are we sure that the public these politicians represent are still Brexiters themselves?

Have the election to find out.  It's simple.

And yes, politicians can be duplicitous.  It's a long story often told in the real world.  Gove himself has proven it many times over the last number of years....proven it.  I joke about him being the leaker, because people who are adult and have observed politics long enough know that a leaker, practically by definition, is a person that has themselves seated into a position of trust only to proceed to attempt sabotage at every opportunity.  

So of course, any number of 'staunch' Leavers could be closet Remainers.  No point in being a Remainer outside...you do damage from the inside.  May was another one.  Her game was to deny her very mantra of Leave means Leave.  Boris might very well prove to be another, as I've stated plenty on these pages.  Politics is a dirty game, Luckless.

I'm all for an election. That's where we're headed anyway, so let's stop fannying about.

I don't suppose you'd be up for any job which requires frisking Scandinavian lorry drivers for possible illegal contraband, lucky?
Because this is what I think a no deal backstop-less Brexit might entail.  That'd be dreadful wouldn't it?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm all for an election. That's where we're headed anyway, so let's stop fannying about.

TBH, I'm not sure there's any real point at the moment. It'll just be Referendum Mk.3. Likelihood is it'll result in a hung/minority/coalition Government again and it'll be a one issue election for most voters i.e. Brexit. Can't see Boris agreeing to one until post-Oct 31st and I think most of us on here completely underestimate the issues re. Brexit from the anti-EU side.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm all for an election. That's where we're headed anyway, so let's stop fannying about.

TBH, I'm not sure there's any real point at the moment. It'll just be Referendum Mk.3. Likelihood is it'll result in a hung/minority/coalition Government again and it'll be a one issue election for most voters i.e. Brexit. Can't see Boris agreeing to one until post-Oct 31st and I think most of us on here completely underestimate the issues re. Brexit from the anti-EU side.

Problem Johnson has is that calling a post Oct 31 is beyond his control....Need 2/3 of the house..

Cold...Wintry December days could spring up any result..

A No deal on Oct 31 and a GE early in 2020 means time for some No deal fallout..

Only GE on the horizon is one before Brexit where he is VONCed..

Johnson has a majority of one. If he doesn't call a general election, he's going to struggle to pass any legislation (even putting Brexit to one side). If the government can't pass legislation, you have paralysis.

A new government, even a coalition with a narrow majority, would at least have a fresh mandate.

Agree with every word....However Fixed term Parliament act is to stop Govts cutting and running like Blair in 2005 when Iraq was turning sour so he went a year early...

Iraq was only going to get worse in headache terms for him and he knew it..

2/3 majority needed so Johnson hasn't got a GE in his command...

All true, but I don't think Johnson cares once past Oct 31st. Brexit as bad as 'experts' claim - he's no worse off really. He'll blame May's deal, Parliament for not approving it, the EU for 'being intransigent' and with a 'no deal' default enshrined in law. What could I do M'lud? Better than predicted and he's a shoe-in if GE called post-Oct 31st. I think he'd be happy to take what comes in a GE post-Oct 31st if we're out of the EU by then.

Pro-Brexit votes aren't going to change until Brexit is actually lived, in all its glory. Whatever that is.

navyblueshorts wrote:All true, but I don't think Johnson cares once past Oct 31st. Brexit as bad as 'experts' claim - he's no worse off really. He'll blame May's deal, Parliament for not approving it, the EU for 'being intransigent' and with a 'no deal' default enshrined in law. What could I do M'lud?

I don't quite agree with this. He'll certainly try to pin the blame elsewhere, but since taking office he's been saying that a no-deal Brexit won't be all that bad as long as we prepare for it. Even yesterday, he was reducing potential problems to 'bumps in the road'. Now if he calls an election amid fuel shortages, food shortages, tailbacks at the ports, isn't it likely that people will rightly be asking why we weren't prepared, and why the government told them there was nothing to worry about? Won't those assurances be seen as outright deception?

navyblueshorts wrote:Pro-Brexit votes aren't going to change until Brexit is actually lived, in all its glory. Whatever that is.

This I agree with - to an extent. The unknown here is how many Brexit supporters are on board with a no-deal Brexit?

Remember a very dark period I think in the early Reagan years when we really did feel the World was going to be dropped in to a Nuclear war.  It really was a genuine fear in the air....perpetuated then as now by news and media.  There were documentaries about the effects and aftermath of a nuclear war...fallout dust, create a shelter for yourself in your own home; and if the chairs and furniture around you protect you from the white vaporising heat of initial blast then expect to stay in there for weeks if not months.... we had dramas too, and we had the constant news reports about rising tensions etc...
Well, the nuclear war didn't hit and instead, the 'warmonger idiot' Reagan actually brokered a communication and understanding with the Russians that nobody ever expected when he came into office in threatening belligerent mood.

But two points from that allusion.  No - Armageddon didn't happen, but yes, it was probably planned for.  

IF a No Deal Brexit Hasn't been meticulously planned for... by the UK, by Ireland, by France, by the rest of the EU member States, by the EU officials that meticulously plot and plan ever other little detail that happens in the current EU, then that will not be merely negligence over such a long period by the UK, AND ALL OTHER CONCERNED Nations...it will have been criminal negligence.  If people go hungry or die for want of drugs that will be criminal negligence and cynical negligence by ALL, both EU and UK.  

So, I'm sure everyone concerned in the passage of the UK out of the EU have planned sufficiently behind the scenes for any and all outcomes that will emerge from so many years of talks and negotiations.
But don't let that stall the politics of panic.

That analogy doesn't really work, Fly. I don't think anyone during the Cold War doubted what would happen if a bomb was dropped.

It would work better if Reagan or Gorbachev had been telling their people that the bomb would only give them a bit of headache.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:All true, but I don't think Johnson cares once past Oct 31st. Brexit as bad as 'experts' claim - he's no worse off really. He'll blame May's deal, Parliament for not approving it, the EU for 'being intransigent' and with a 'no deal' default enshrined in law. What could I do M'lud?

I don't quite agree with this. He'll certainly try to pin the blame elsewhere, but since taking office he's been saying that a no-deal Brexit won't be all that bad as long as we prepare for it. Even yesterday, he was reducing potential problems to 'bumps in the road'. Now if he calls an election amid fuel shortages, food shortages, tailbacks at the ports, isn't it likely that people will rightly be asking why we weren't prepared, and why the government told them there was nothing to worry about? Won't those assurances be seen as outright deception?

Agree with this. It all depends on the impacts of Brexit post-Oct 31st doesn't it? If there's no obvious immediate impacts (as there wasn't after the Referendum result), I think he's laughing, even if there are serious longer-term problems. I think we also have issues with heavily entrenched positions re. Brexit and pro-EU people don't understand well enough why so many voted to leave. Outright deception? You and I might think so, but I'm losing faith in that really meaning anything, or having a meaningful impact, any more.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Pro-Brexit votes aren't going to change until Brexit is actually lived, in all its glory. Whatever that is.

This I agree with - to an extent. The unknown here is how many Brexit supporters are on board with a no-deal Brexit?

We'll see I guess. I was optimistic pre-2016 Referendum, but I don't think anything will change now if anyone dared to call another Referendum or we have a Brexit-dominated GE. Even if there were a pro-EU outcome of either, I think it would be marginal and there'll be trouble both politically and, perhaps, socially. In other words, it's a mess and we're in a pickle.

I agree that without a second referendum in which the people effectively overrule themselves, it would be dangerous for Brexit to be stopped. But that's another reason a general election would be a good thing: a new government could get its deal passed in the Commons, and Brexit would duly be delivered.

Boris Johnson, the UK PM who was elected to office by less than 1% of the population, is lecturing the EU on democracy in his latest letter.

His supporters will eat it up, depressingly, without seeing the irony.

The EU President and Commission (real power) cronies are elected to office by much less than 1% of the EU population and much less than the 1% of the British population that voted for Boris......so Boris is on firm ground with his 'landslide' 1% victory....

Whataboutery and false equivalence at its finest, Secret. I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Truth. You just never observe the full picture before posting.

I guess I should read some of those conspiracy sites you love to open my mind.

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1163757521582116864

Can anyone really see a path that isn't no deal or no Brexit?

SecretFly wrote:So of course, any number of 'staunch' Leavers could be closet Remainers.  No point in being a Remainer outside...you do damage from the inside.  May was another one.  Her game was to deny her very mantra of Leave means Leave.  Boris might very well prove to be another, as I've stated plenty on these pages.  Politics is a dirty game, Luckless.

No, this is just another cop-out. Obviously politicians are duplicitous, and motivated by personal gain.
If we make a success of Brexit after leaving with No Deal, this would greatly enhance the reputation and career prospects of Boris and those in the cabinet. No Deal would shut down threat from Brexit Party, while its success would fatally hurt the credibility of Remainers/Lab/LibD.  

So Boris has no motive, if No Deal really is what he says it is, to not carry through No Deal and make it work.
The reason you're saying that^ is to protect yourself from criticism if either: No Deal happens and there's an economic crash, or Boris realises this is about to happen and caves to the EU. You will claim that this resulted because a secret remainer, Boris or a cabinet member, sabotaged the UK. Thus deflecting from the fact you may have actually miscalculated the leverage the UK has in the negotiation, and the feasibility of trading under WTO rules.