Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[The Mighty Thor]

The levels of desperation are incredible.

 

The magic money tree has been shaken again to the tune of £27 billion in a 'deal dividend' and suddenly in a moment of extreme clarity the Maybot can 'understand the voice of the country'.

 

Good love. It's telling you to feck right off.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

34 minutes ago, Cade said:

ERG and DUP plotting to put forward a motion blocking a 2nd referendum.

Less democracy is clearly the way forward.

 

Maybe tomorrow

 

Amendments today are the one clarifying today is about stopping No Deal and the 'Malthouse' deal which suggests a deal to move to full deal transition to Dec 2021. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The levels of desperation are incredible.

 

The magic money tree has been shaken again to the tune of £27 billion in a 'deal dividend' and suddenly in a moment of extreme clarity the Maybot can 'understand the voice of the country'.

 

Good love. It's telling you to feck right off.

 

 

 

Another bribe then.    Part of the deal dividend will be used to... wait for it... cut taxes.

 

 

So,    menacing Tory MPs with the ire of their voters again.    The well off ones who now quite fancy the idea of another tax break.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Another bribe then.    Part of the deal dividend will be used to... wait for it... cut taxes.

 

 

So,    menacing Tory MPs with the ire of their voters again.    The well off ones who now quite fancy the idea of another tax break.

 

A free vote that's not a free vote and a total ramping up of the rhetoric on her deal is better than a no deal.

 

Now she's peddling a 3rd meaningful vote on the same pile of shite as before for next week.

 

I've said it before, she needs sectioned. 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 hours ago, Class of 75 said:

The no deal option defends democracy and respects the referendum result.  We are leaving the EU not the other way around and should dictate the terms. We should leave with our dignity intact and invite them to negotiate the best package. If they can't agree so be it we revert to WTO rules and move forward on our own terms. 

 

Upon what basis do you think the UK should be able to dictate its customs and border terms with an entity it has declared it no longer wants to be a part of? The UK literally does not produce enough food currently to feed itself without trade from the party you want to drive a hard bargain with. Exactly what negotiating advantages do you think you have?

 

The EU has made it quite clear by now that it does not want a no deal Brexit, but that if the alternative is having London dictate terms to it, it will take it and let the UK hang by its own rope in the noose it tied for itself. And yet, perched on the platform below the gallows, the UK seems intent on wagging its finger at the UK saying, "right, I'm warning you..."

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

A free vote that's not a free vote and a total ramping up of the rhetoric on her deal is better than a no deal.

 

Now she's peddling a 3rd meaningful vote on the same pile of shite as before for next week.

 

I've said it before, she needs sectioned. 

 

 

 

Forced process via menaces,  bribes and public worry.     A wholly illegitimate means to an end.

 

The end?     Personal ambition.    Ego.     She has come so far that she must get this done by her way.

 

If she gets it done then fine.    But she'll have damaged UK politics like no other person has come close to doing.    

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

How did a "dishonest" UK Government with its "1979 negotiating strategy" negotiate a deal with all 27 EU members?

the 650(?) MPs on the other hand ... 

 

If we are looking for dishonesty how about the repeated assertion of the myth by Irish Government and EU that the under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement the UK is committed to no border in Ireland. And UA's "holding guns to heads" analogy has some relevance on that issue too, although the guns are pointed by others and at others heads not their own.

 

Whether it is materially under the terms of the GFA or is now a line in the sand drawn by one of the two principles involved in negotiating a deal matters not. It is widely agreed upon (at least upon by those not just arguing for the sake of pleasuring themselves) that the open border is a critical part of maintaining peace in Northern Ireland. The EU has made it quite clear on human rights terms that there must be no hard border and will consider no deal which does not ensure that. If that much is not utterly, completely clear by now I have no idea what people are reading.

 

There are a number of ways that this could be sanely accommodated but the peculiar alignment of politics happens to block all of them. An Irish Sea customs border is very likely a first step to a united Ireland, so the DUP, which hold an effective veto in Commons, will never ever agree to that. (And for Labour would mean saying goodbye to too many anti-Tory votes in Commons, so they won't agree.) A customs border at Gretna and Berwick would of course please the SNP and probably a decent number of Tories, but as I believe you have mentioned unionism is part of Toryism and aside from that May's pride won't let her be the PM that saw the end of the union if she can help it. A customs union and freedom of movement, even if somewhat restricted, would satisfy all of the above (at the expense of Scotland, so not the SNP) but would infuriate the xenophobes and nativists that formed the core of Brexit support.

 

The most sensible option, then, is to put it back to a second referendum with remain as an option, which would almost assuredly win at this point, but that would involve too many people in government having to say they were wrong. So instead the whole of Britain, once the largest empire in history, is going to go over a cliff while the EU watches sadly but resigned. In the end the UK will be a cautionary tale and will ensure that it's the last country to ever invoke Article 50, which ultimately is why the EU will, again, stand by while the UK shoots itself in the head.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Ugly American

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

JAYSUS FECKING CHRIST

FA STILL BANGING ON ABOUT THE IRISH BORDER NOT BEING A MASSIVE ISSUE WHEN THE ENTIRE WORLD AGREES IT IS

 

 

Try reading Instead of shouting

 

When and where did I say it wasn't a big issue?

 

All I have said is that despite lies to the contrary from one side of the negotiation and argument the authors of the Good Friday Agreement either thought it wasn't a big issue or simply neglected to include any reference to it in the Good Friday Agreement.

 

But lies on the "correct" side of the argument seem to be OK.

[Mikey1874]

Michael Gove introduced today's motion for government.

 

Basically said too dangerous for UK food industry due to tariffs on exports. Not much else was said. 

 

Still no indication what government's plan is now. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Mikey1874

[AlimOzturk]

5 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Michael Gove introduced today's motion for government.

 

Basically said too dangerous for UK food industry due to tariffs on exports. Not much else was said. 

 

Still no indication what government's plan is now. 

 

Guarantee from the way he was speaking there will be a other vote on Maybots withdrawal deal. 

 

They will use every tactic to try and scarMPS into voting for the deal. It is honestly disgraceful behaviour and I hope they fail again. 

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Whether it is materially under the terms of the GFA or is now a line in the sand drawn by one of the two principles involved in negotiating a deal matters not. It is widely agreed upon (at least upon by those not just arguing for the sake of pleasuring themselves) that the open border is a critical part of maintaining peace in Northern Ireland. The EU has made it quite clear on human rights terms that there must be no hard border and will consider no deal which does not ensure that. If that much is not utterly, completely clear by now I have no idea what people are reading.

 

There are a number of ways that this could be sanely accommodated but the peculiar alignment of politics happens to block all of them. An Irish Sea customs border is very likely a first step to a united Ireland, so the DUP, which hold an effective veto in Commons, will never ever agree to that. (And for Labour would mean saying goodbye to too many anti-Tory votes in Commons, so they won't agree.) A customs border at Gretna and Berwick would of course please the SNP and probably a decent number of Tories, but as I believe you have mentioned unionism is part of Toryism and aside from that May's pride won't let her be the PM that saw the end of the union if she can help it. A customs union and freedom of movement, even if somewhat restricted, would satisfy all of the above (at the expense of Scotland, so not the SNP) but would infuriate the xenophobes and nativists that formed the core of Brexit support.

 

The most sensible option, then, is to put it back to a second referendum with remain as an option, which would almost assuredly win at this point, but that would involve too many people in government having to say they were wrong. So instead the whole of Britain, once the largest empire in history, is going to go over a cliff while the EU watches sadly but resigned. In the end the UK will be a cautionary tale and will ensure that it's the last country to ever invoke Article 50, which ultimately is why the EU will, again, stand by while the UK shoots itself in the head.

The emboldened bits neatly sum up the fundamental aims of the Remainers and of the EU respectively.

 

(I think your "assuredly win" may be optimistic)

Edited March 13, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Guarantee from the way he was speaking there will be a other vote on Maybots withdrawal deal. 

 

They will use every tactic to try and scarMPS into voting for the deal. It is honestly disgraceful behaviour and I hope they fail again. 

 

Makes sense that that is the plan. 

 

Might be just a few days before the leave date. 

 

https://interactive.news.sky.com/2017/brexit-countdown/

Edited March 13, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Cade]

Gove saying that May's Deal got more votes this time around, hinting that it'll simply be put back before Parliament again and again and again until it passes.

Other MPs ask the Speaker if this is allowed.

He says there is precedent but at some point he'd have to step in and stop the nonsense.

 

[Jambo100]

Is GFA the Glasgow football association.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

18 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The emboldened bits neatly sum up the fundamental aims of the Remainers and of the EU respectively.

 

(I think your "assuredly win" may be optimistic)

 

You mean to tell me that the entity which does not want to be broken up and the people in the UK don't want to break up with it would ultimately aim to not break the thing up? This is some deep analysis you've managed!

 

The Leave campaign lied about what they could attain, based on the premise that the UK is always in the position of power and can dictate what it wants to everyone else. It's bad internal politics to admit that this is hogwash despite the fact that it's self-evidently the truth. The Brexiters continue to be oblivious to reality -- as the EU Brexit ambassador said, Parliament has been like the Titanic repeatedly voting for the iceberg to get out of the way. Every time it doesn't happen they get more and more ridiculous.

 

Both major parties in Commons had Brexit as their official positions and May still hasn't managed to put a deal together. There was a time when an orderly Brexit was possible. So long as the ERG keep their hard line about the customs union, that time has passed. It's now a second referendum which (very likely) reverses the first or a UK self-immolation. (Sorry, I'll reach an end to morbid metaphors eventually.)

Edited March 13, 2019 by Ugly American

[The Mighty Thor]

7 minutes ago, Cade said:

Gove saying that May's Deal got more votes this time around, hinting that it'll simply be put back before Parliament again and again and again until it passes.

Other MPs ask the Speaker if this is allowed.

He says there is precedent but at some point he'd have to step in and stop the nonsense.

 

Oh that's her plan alright.

 

However this time she might dispense with the charade of jetting backwards and forwards to Brussels between votes.

[SE16 3LN]

26 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Whether it is materially under the terms of the GFA or is now a line in the sand drawn by one of the two principles involved in negotiating a deal matters not. It is widely agreed upon (at least upon by those not just arguing for the sake of pleasuring themselves) that the open border is a critical part of maintaining peace in Northern Ireland. The EU has made it quite clear on human rights terms that there must be no hard border and will consider no deal which does not ensure that. If that much is not utterly, completely clear by now I have no idea what people are reading.

 

There are a number of ways that this could be sanely accommodated but the peculiar alignment of politics happens to block all of them. An Irish Sea customs border is very likely a first step to a united Ireland, so the DUP, which hold an effective veto in Commons, will never ever agree to that. (And for Labour would mean saying goodbye to too many anti-Tory votes in Commons, so they won't agree.) A customs border at Gretna and Berwick would of course please the SNP and probably a decent number of Tories, but as I believe you have mentioned unionism is part of Toryism and aside from that May's pride won't let her be the PM that saw the end of the union if she can help it. A customs union and freedom of movement, even if somewhat restricted, would satisfy all of the above (at the expense of Scotland, so not the SNP) but would infuriate the xenophobes and nativists that formed the core of Brexit support.

 

The most sensible option, then, is to put it back to a second referendum with remain as an option, which would almost assuredly win at this point, but that would involve too many people in government having to say they were wrong. So instead the whole of Britain, once the largest empire in history, is going to go over a cliff while the EU watches sadly but resigned. In the end the UK will be a cautionary tale and will ensure that it's the last country to ever invoke Article 50, which ultimately is why the EU will, again, stand by while the UK shoots itself in the head.

  That's actually nothing like what they're saying and is a good reason the public shouldn't be trusted with a vote like this.

[Cade]

Gove noising up the DUP by threatening direct London rule in NI if No Deal happens

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

  That's actually nothing like what they're saying and is a good reason the public shouldn't be trusted with a vote like this.

 

Oh, silly me, here I thought I'd read about months of handwringing and May's useless flagellation over something called an "Irish backstop" and how Brexiters can't stand it but the EU won't let it be removed from any deal. Must be mistaken!

[Toxteth O'Grady]

36 minutes ago, Jambo100 said:

Is GFA the Glasgow football association.

Sometimes, but in this context it's The Good Friday Agreement

[Costanza]

This is an interesting, actually hugely worrying tweet.

 

We can revoke Article unilaterally but an extension can be vetoed by a EU state. So, we have at least 2 countries in the pocket of Putin, who dearly wants Brexit to happen. What is also interesting is that Aaron Banks is involved in this. Aaron Banks was the main donor behind Leave.EU and was allegedly offered financial gain in a deal with a Russian gold company. Theresa May refused to confirm when she was Home Secretary that she declined a request from the security services to investigate Aaron Banks. Makes you wonder, doesn't it...

[Notts1874]

3 minutes ago, Costanza said:

This is an interesting, actually hugely worrying tweet.

 

We can revoke Article unilaterally but an extension can be vetoed by a EU state. So, we have at least 2 countries in the pocket of Putin, who dearly wants Brexit to happen. What is also interesting is that Aaron Banks is involved in this. Aaron Banks was the main donor behind Leave.EU and was allegedly offered financial gain in a deal with a Russian gold company. Theresa May refused to confirm when she was Home Secretary that she declined a request from the security services to investigate Aaron Banks. Makes you wonder, doesn't it...

If you read the whole thread it tells you who Lega Nord are good mates with.

 

Edit. See you have mentioned it in your post.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Notts1874

[SE16 3LN]

15 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Oh, silly me, here I thought I'd read about months of handwringing and May's useless flagellation over something called an "Irish backstop" and how Brexiters can't stand it but the EU won't let it be removed from any deal. Must be mistaken!

No, you've just misunderstood it. Doesn't make you a bad person.

[Cade]

Herr Farage was pleading for EU states to veto extending Article 50 in the EU Parliament today as well.

 

 

[Cade]

 in Parliament! Tory dame who was putting the no-deal vote forward tries to withdraw the vote, Speaker says no as it's too late due to the debate having started. Tories in total chaos. Party split looking more and more likely.

[Victorian]

Ahhh.  So the sort of person you would expect to scream about democracy being respected,   as well as sovereignty returning to the UK parliament (Farage here) is content to attempt to influence against something that may be decided upon and actioned as a result of a motion in our very own sovereign UK parliament?

 

Geez sovereignty (for me to have when it best suits me)

 

Respect democracy (the type wot suits me)

[Victorian]

Sounds like Spelman has been nobbled by May.      May routinely employs proxy parties to do and say the things that don't suit her to directly say and do.    The Brady amendment had May's fingerprints all over it.     It seems likely that Spelman is more government loyal than is made known.     All of this fits entirely within the usual M.O.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Victorian

[Francis Albert]

39 minutes ago, Costanza said:

This is an interesting, actually hugely worrying tweet.

 

We can revoke Article unilaterally but an extension can be vetoed by a EU state. So, we have at least 2 countries in the pocket of Putin, who dearly wants Brexit to happen. What is also interesting is that Aaron Banks is involved in this. Aaron Banks was the main donor behind Leave.EU and was allegedly offered financial gain in a deal with a Russian gold company. Theresa May refused to confirm when she was Home Secretary that she declined a request from the security services to investigate Aaron Banks. Makes you wonder, doesn't it...

Sorry ... which two countries are in the pocket of Putin (ones that can veto article 50 extension)?

[Victorian]

Wera Hobhouse (LD) nails the will of the people fairytale.    

[Victorian]

Brexiteer zealots.     Turning up the volume on the Malthouse managed no-deal.     Now we're being told all about all the separate little customs arrangements that have already been agreed with the EU.     All because it prevents us being trapped in a backstop without a unilateral ability to withdraw.

 

All these little customs arrangements they're crowing triumphantly about... does the UK have a unilateral ability to maintain them?     To prevent the EU from unilaterally ending them?

 

No.      

 

So it's a managed exit into a world where we cannot guarantee the continuity of the things we are being told are good.    Equally as hostage to the EU as a backstop.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Victorian

[Martin_T]

If only we were all safely retired, without young families to support and able to comfortably spend all day arguing on the internet (ironically for the opposite side of how we voted), safe in the knowledge that we don't have a career to lose or family to support.

[Notts1874]

Its not going to

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Brexiteer zealots.     Turning up the volume on the MALTHOUSE managed no-deal.     Now we're being told all about all the separate little customs arrangements that have already been agreed with the EU.     All because it prevents us being trapped in a backstop without a unilateral ability to withdraw.

 

All these little customs arrangements they're crowing triumphantly about... does the UK have a unilateral ability to maintain them?     To prevent the EU from unilaterally ending them?

 

No.      

 

So it's a managed exit into a world where we cannot guarantee the continuity of the things we are being told are good.    Equally as hostage to the EU as a backstop.

It's not going to pass.

[Cade]

Doesn't matter if shitehouse Malthouse passes the UK parliament, it's already been flat out rejected by the EU.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

Doesn't matter if shitehouse Malthouse passes the UK parliament, it's already been flat out rejected by the EU.

 

But parts of it are being hawked around as already happening and being proof that no-deal is good.    But for the reasons I talked about,    it leaves us as hostages to unilateral EU decisions.

[Cade]

Anybody who wants to trade at all with the EU has to agree to certain standards for their products in order to export to the EU.

Whether or not you're a member state.

Nobody else pisses and moans.

Brexit is a fantasy death cult.

[Victorian]

As expected,   the EU is now basically saying that diplomacy is at an end.   No more talks.    No more visits.    No extension of article 50 unless accompanied by a clear way forward.

 

The PM is so howling that the very most diplomatic people on the planet have effectively suspended diplomatic relations.       

 

Our country is an embarrassment.

[Victorian]

Anna Soubry just slayed the rancid trickery of causing tonight's vote to have it's teeth removed.        I would vote for her in a minute.

[Costanza]

51 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Sorry ... which two countries are in the pocket of Putin (ones that can veto article 50 extension)?

Hungary and Italy.

Just putting this here as well. 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

Then UK may have to revoke Article 50.

 

And start again.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Hungary and Italy.

Just putting this here as well. 

 

 

 

 

The EU apparently doesn't fancy another 6 months of regular visits from May asking for exactly the same thing and offering nothing in return.

[AlimOzturk]

 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Then UK may have to revoke Article 50.

 

And start again.

 

That could be a feasible EU plan.    But it seems unlikely to command a house majority.    That's a major step that would deeply concern MPs.

[Mikey1874]

13 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

That could be a feasible EU plan.    But it seems unlikely to command a house majority.    That's a major step that would deeply concern MPs.

 

Agree.

 

But could say on 28 March be the only way to stop No Deal.

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Agree.

 

But could say on 28 March be the only way to stop No Deal.

 

I think it's so profound that it would struggle to get a majority in any circumstances.     Self interest trumps everything sometimes.

[Victorian]

That was a truly shocking rant by Fox.    A maniacal liar.

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I think it's so profound that it would struggle to get a majority in any circumstances.     Self interest trumps everything sometimes.

 

I could see that happening. Then it's either No Deal or they finally pass May's deal.

 

No Deal is still on.

[Victorian]

The co-sponsors of amendment A (mainly Yvette Cooper) may turn out to be the heroes of Brexit.

[Victorian]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

I could see that happening. Then it's either No Deal or they finally pass May's deal.

 

No Deal is still on.

 

This amendment might prevent no-deal at any time.   If passed.     

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

Sounds like Spelman has been nobbled by May.      May routinely employs proxy parties to do and say the things that don't suit her to directly say and do.    The Brady amendment had May's fingerprints all over it.     It seems likely that Spelman is more government loyal than is made known.     All of this fits entirely within the usual M.O.

 

Voting on that amendment now.

 

Result soon. 

[Victorian]

If an extension cannot be achieved then it would be full revocation of article 50 (not likely),  May's deal or a very urgent alternative.

 

Overwhelmingly most likely would be May's deal.

 

If we get an extension it will have to be a long one,   imposed by the EU.    They probably wont grant a short extension.