Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Lords could be taking another step towards it's own abolition today. 

 

 

I would hope so. I think the idea of a second chamber is a good one but it should be elected, not appointed.

 

One other thing that gets my goat is that electronic voting in the Commons would make voting much quicker. Why do we have to hang on to so many anachronisms?

 

[Cade]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

. Why do we have to hang on to so many anachronisms?

 

Careful now, you'll be labelled as a Britain-hating enemy of the people traitor

[Francis Albert]

41 minutes ago, Costanza said:

An excellent thread on No Deal being the "Will of The People".

The fact it is in response to Piers Moron debunking his usual trolling is an added bonus.

 

 

New definition of troll and trolling rapidly gaining traction. troll = someone who doesn't agree with you, verb: to troll.

[Craig_]

Getting frustrated at all this talk about resignations and the demise of the Conservative Party.

 

Wish they would just hurry the **** up and **** the **** off!

[Costanza]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

New definition of troll and trolling rapidly gaining traction. troll = someone who doesn't agree with you, verb: to troll.

Utter unaware nonsense. 

It's quite apparent Morgan takes a stance on more than one occasion to gather a reaction. 

If you can't see that then more fool you. 

Anyway,  your point is immaterial to the substance. Maybe you could debate that?

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Costanza

[redjambo]

14 minutes ago, Cade said:

Careful now, you'll be labelled as a Britain-hating enemy of the people traitor

 

I'll take that chance.

[Justin Z]

6 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Utter unaware nonsense.

 

Au contraire, the Kickback troll is completely aware of what he is doing. He knows full well the reason Piers Morgan is a troll is that he intentionally misrepresents reality for the sake of pointscoring and winding people up--that it has nothing to do with differing opinions. The Twitter post takes down Morgan's troll tweet in great detail--there is no "differing opinion" to even discuss; it is factual, well supported and conclusive.

 

The Kickback troll then takes the good faith, genuine effort on the part of Steve Analyst to correct Piers Morgan, the troll's, trolling tweet, and misrepresents it, in exactly the same way as Morgan the troll does. By misrepresenting why people are calling Piers Morgan a troll, he simply does what is in his troll nature--to ignore all evidence and semblance of reality that disagrees with his preconceived opinion, then accuse others of doing exactly what he himself does, because he enjoys upsetting people.

 

The moderation as regards this individual is more of a shambles than our performance at Ibrox last night.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Justin Z

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Utter unaware nonsense. 

It's quite apparent Morgan takes a stance on more than one occasion to gather a reaction. 

If you can't see that then more fool you. 

Anyway,  your point is immaterial to the substance. Maybe you could debate that?

 

You raised the "immaterial to the substance" point!!

 

As to the substance there is some truth in what Morgan said. The Leave vote was not about remaining in a customs union, being unable to negotiate separate trade deals, having freedom of movement or having only moderate restrictions on freedom of movement, it was not about being subject to EU rules without any say in what those rules are. Which is what the "Soft Brexit) (if any Brexit) we seem to be heading towards means.

Steve Analyst's "respectful" reply is certainly no more "factual" than Morgan's opinion.

 

On your other "immaterial to the substance" point what exactly is "utter unaware nonsense"? Is that just something you disagree with?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Au contraire, the Kickback troll is completely aware of what he is doing. He knows full well the reason Piers Morgan is a troll is that he intentionally misrepresents reality for the sake of pointscoring and winding people up--that it has nothing to do with differing opinions. The Twitter post takes down Morgan's troll tweet in great detail--there is no "differing opinion" to even discuss; it is factual, well supported and conclusive.

 

The Kickback troll then takes the good faith, genuine effort on the part of Steve Analyst to correct Piers Morgan, the troll's, trolling tweet, and misrepresents it, in exactly the same way as Morgan the troll does. By misrepresenting why people are calling Piers Morgan a troll, he simply does what is in his troll nature--to ignore all evidence and semblance of reality that disagrees with his preconceived opinion, then accuse others of doing exactly what he himself does, because he enjoys upsetting people.

 

The moderation as regards this individual is more of a shambles than our performance at Ibrox last night.

 

Do complain to the moderators and tell me how they respond. PS I didn't read any more of Analyst's tweet than was quoted.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Justin Z]

And with that, the mask slips. The troll knows he has complete impunity on this forum, knows he can continue to misrepresent other posters' positions, misrepresent reality, and call fact opinion in order to disrupt otherwise useful discussion, without any fear of reprisal. Far from the only dissenting voice on this thread (contrary to his intentionally derisive "woe is me against the groupthinking world" lament), only he chooses to disagree by trolling.

 

- Ignoring doesn't work.

- Putting on ignore doesn't work.

- Reporting doesn't work.

 

The trolling will continue.

 

 

[redjambo]

22 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Utter unaware nonsense. 

It's quite apparent Morgan takes a stance on more than one occasion to gather a reaction. 

If you can't see that then more fool you. 

Anyway,  your point is immaterial to the substance. Maybe you could debate that?

 

 

So, are you content that you engaged with him now?

 

The leopard never changes its spots.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

All these ERG twats and other 'no deal would be just fine' Tories had to do to secure Brexit was to vote for May's deal.    Simple as that.    Brexit delivered on time.    No extensions.     No threat of a long extension.    No threat of taking part in EU elections.    No referendum.

 

But they didn't.     They held out for an impossible change to the WA backstop.    Or for the chance of a no deal exit.     These people are the architects of a possible soft Brexit plan for the PD.    They are culpable for a private members bill taking control away from the executive.     They are the ones who will have to answer to their own disappointed leave voters regarding why Brexit hasn't happened the way it was supposed to.

 

They can cry and shout as loud as they want but what has transpired is entirely their own fault.      I hope it eats away at them.

 

Do the ERG have the necessary numbers on their own to decide whether the WA was passed or not?

Not so sure that they do tbh, as I'm sure I heard it reported that even if all of the ERG & the DUP voted for the WA it would still need X number of Labour/Independant MP's to vote with the Government as well.

 

Quite happy to be corrected on this.

[Notts1874]

He didn't even read the twitter thread ????

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

He didn't even read the twitter thread ????

 

One does not need to be informed on a subject if one is right!

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

He didn't even read the twitter thread ????

Never read a twitter thread in my life.

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Do the ERG have the necessary numbers on their own to decide whether the WA was passed or not?

Not so sure that they do tbh, as I'm sure I heard it reported that even if all of the ERG & the DUP voted for the WA it would still need X number of Labour/Independant MP's to vote with the Government as well.

 

Quite happy to be corrected on this.

 

It can pass with Labour and enough Conservative MPs as long as both leaderships support the proposal.

 

If it comes to Parliament (indicative) votes it is much tighter.  

Edited April 4, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Notts1874]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

One does not need to be informed on a subject if one is right!

Its a burden some of us have to carry through life???

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

And with that, the mask slips. The troll knows he has complete impunity on this forum, knows he can continue to misrepresent other posters' positions, misrepresent reality, and call fact opinion in order to disrupt otherwise useful discussion, without any fear of reprisal. Far from the only dissenting voice on this thread (contrary to his intentionally derisive "woe is me against the groupthinking world" lament), only he chooses to disagree by trolling.

 

- Ignoring doesn't work.

- Putting on ignore doesn't work.

- Reporting doesn't work.

 

The trolling will continue.

 

 

Have you tried that? Serious question. Trolling is against the Board rules so if I am so obviously "trolling" then there is a very simple solution to your problem and you (and others) can suffer no more.

Criticising the Moderators incidentally is also against the Board rules.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Notts1874]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Never read a twitter thread in my life.

Click on the link. You might learn something.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Click on the link. You might learn something.

I might just read Steve Analyst's book but I am ****ed if I am going to start tweeting or twittering or whatever. I leave that sort of thing to Trump and Morgan.

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

I might just read Steve Analyst's book but I am ****ed if I am going to start tweeting or twittering or whatever. I leave that sort of thing to Trump and Morgan.

You don't have to set up an account to read the thread. See you have learnt something already.

 

 

[SE16 3LN]

26 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

He didn't even read the twitter thread ????

 What an idiot

Edited April 4, 2019 by SE16 3LN

[Victorian]

26 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Do the ERG have the necessary numbers on their own to decide whether the WA was passed or not?

Not so sure that they do tbh, as I'm sure I heard it reported that even if all of the ERG & the DUP voted for the WA it would still need X number of Labour/Independant MP's to vote with the Government as well.

 

Quite happy to be corrected on this.

 

I think so on the last vote.    Pretty sure there were enough Tories who voted no who would have swung it.    But barely.     Could be wrong.

[Taffin]

I don't agree with him on this topic but I don't think FA is trolling.

 

Morgan was ( piers not our own) .

[Justin Z]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

I don't agree with him on this topic but I don't think FA is trolling.

 

Morgan was ( piers not our own) .

 

Claiming posters are calling Morgan a troll because he disagrees with their opinion--and that the people on this thread call anyone who disagrees, a troll--is a ****ing troll post. There is really no debating that.

 

Edit: And that would be true of anybody. Given the history and context, it's even more egregious.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Justin Z

[Taffin]

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

Claiming posters are calling Morgan a troll because he disagrees with their opinion--and that the people on this thread call anyone who disagrees, a troll--is a ****ing troll post. There is really no debating that.

 

I think there's a certain truth in that too if I'm honest.

 

He was called a troll for his stance on the GFA, yet never once did anyone post a link to disprove what he was saying. He was just a troll because he hadn't interpreted it to mean something it doesn't say the way they had.

[SE16 3LN]

UK citizens to get Visa free access to all EU countries in the event of no deal Brexit. That should swing it

[Justin Z]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I think there's a certain truth in that too if I'm honest.

 

He was called a troll for his stance on the GFA, yet never once did anyone post a link to disprove what he was saying. He was just a troll because he hadn't interpreted it to mean something it doesn't say the way they had.

 

That is 100% not why his repeated unsupported claims about what the GFA means, or does, in law or in practice, were dismissed as trolling, which they were.

 

It's because they were designed to disrupt discussion, rather than add to it, like the majority of his posts, as were his responses to disagreement.

 

SE16 has been roasted in this thread recently, but never called a troll as far as I've seen, because while he holds a different opinion, he doesn't post on it simply to annoy other people and trash the discussion.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Justin Z

[Don Dan]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Lords could be taking another step towards it's own abolition today. 

 

 

 

I’m wanting a giant leap not a step. We need to stop this jobs for the boys and girls who were in the Commons and this heredity nonsense. They need to be accountable to the electorate. 

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

That is 100% not why his repeated unsupported claims about what the GFA means, or does, in law or in practice, were dismissed as trolling, which they were.

 

It's because they were designed to disrupt discussion, rather than add to it, like the majority of his posts.

 

SE16 has been roasted in this thread recently, but never called a troll as far as I've seen, because while he holds a different opinion, he doesn't post on it simply to annoy other people and trash the discussion.

 

 

So why not just disprove him? It was only disruptive to those who didn't like what he was saying. I thought it was adding to the discussion but instead he just got called a troll.

 

People put the GFA on a ridiculous pedestal. If there's needs to be a hard border with Ireland as part of Brexit then there needs to be a hard border with Ireland...there's lots of hard borders in the world. FA claims this wouldn't contravene the GFA anyway, and I've yet to see someone show where it states that it would in response to them.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Taffin

[AlphonseCapone]

I'm not convinced FA is a troll, I think he is simply a contrarian who enjoys being in the minority position. 

[Justin Z]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

So why not just disprove him? It was only disruptive to those who didn't like what he was saying. I thought it was adding to the discussion but instead he just got called a troll.

 

People put the GFA on a ridiculous pedestal. If there's needs to be a hard border with Ireland as part of Brexit then there needs to be a hard border with Ireland...there's lots of hard borders in the world. FA claims this wouldn't contravene the GFA anyway, and I've yet to see someone show where it states that it would in response to them.

 

See, this is an example of a good post with a differing opinion. Making a fact claim that "the word 'border' appears nowhere in the GFA, which doesn't even contemplate the idea", then after being shown to be talking complete shite, doubling and tripling down on those outright lies, is trolling.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

I'm not convinced FA is a troll, I think he is simply a contrarian who enjoys being in the minority position. 

 

There are ways to be this without being a troll. Respectfully playing the Devil's Advocate for the sake of advancing a discussion is about as polar opposite of an approach to what we've seen as could be.

[Cade]

As expected, Tory peers are trying to filibuster every single amendment.

Labour peers are using a seldom-used power to call a closure motion on each amendment, stopping the filibustering and moving business on for the day.

[AlphonseCapone]

8 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

So why not just disprove him? It was only disruptive to those who didn't like what he was saying. I thought it was adding to the discussion but instead he just got called a troll.

 

People put the GFA on a ridiculous pedestal. If there's needs to be a hard border with Ireland as part of Brexit then there needs to be a hard border with Ireland...there's lots of hard borders in the world. FA claims this wouldn't contravene the GFA anyway, and I've yet to see someone show where it states that it would in response to them.

 

It really isn't. It's a very serious issue that mixes identity, politics, nationality, emotions and rights. There's peace because of the GFA, because it allows people in the North to identify as they wish and if they so wish, to operate on the delusion the island isn't actually partioned. Add a hard border into that and the delusion isn't so easy to maintain, never mind the practical differences between the UK and Ireland which are minimised at the minute due to being in the EU. 

 

Even if the GFA doesn't mention the border, which is FA's position though Justin has said he is wrong on that, it's either naive or disingenuous to claim it doesn't play a massive part in people's ability to accept peace. 

 

It wasn't long ago British soldiers were being snippered at that border. Makes it a bit different to the US and Canada border for example. 

[Cade]

Yowsa, Lords pass the first "stop messing about and get on with it" vote by 239 to 118.

 

If this can be taken as a general show of support for the Cooper bill, we may see it in Law by the end of the day after all.

[Cade]

I have discussed the GFA and the hard border to death over the last 196 pages of this thread.

 

The GFA enshrines in law that NI citizens and ROI citizens have to have the same rights. This includes the right to hold an Irish passport or a UK one or both as they wish and to identify as either British or Irish or neither as they wish. This also includes the freedom to live wherever they want on the island of Ireland and to have freedom of movement within it.

A hard border impacts these rights.

 

Let's stop pretending that a hard border isn't a huge issue.

The UN, the EU, UK, both assemblies on the island of Ireland and experts on international law all agree it is.

An international peace treaty cannot simply be ignored by one signatory.

Let this be an end to the "debate"

Edited April 4, 2019 by Cade

[Taffin]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

 

It really isn't. It's a very serious issue that mixes identity, politics, nationality, emotions and rights. There's peace because of the GFA, because it allows people in the North to identify as they wish and if they so wish, to operate on the delusion the island isn't actually partioned. Add a hard border into that and the delusion isn't so easy to maintain, never mind the practical differences between the UK and Ireland which are minimised at the minute due to being in the EU. 

 

Even if the GFA doesn't mention the border, which is FA's position though Justin has said he is wrong on that, it's either naive or disingenuous to claim it doesn't play a massive part in people's ability to accept peace. 

 

It wasn't long ago British soldiers were being snippered at that border. Makes it a bit different to the US and Canada border for example. 

 

 

There are lots of things that are very important to maintain now, that sadly will have to change once we leave the EU. That's just the way it is.

 

Would it be okay for Russia and Latvia to demand freedom of movement over their border via the threat of violence?

 

Countries should not shy away from making decision for themselves (that harm nobody, nor infringes on another's sovereignty) based on the threat of violence from other countries.

[Costanza]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

So, are you content that you engaged with him now?

 

The leopard never changes its spots.

I was hoping for something of substance to counter the arguments rather than a meaningless aside on trolling or waffling without evidence.

The not even reading the thread was the cherry on top though.

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

28 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

I’m wanting a giant leap not a step. We need to stop this jobs for the boys and girls who were in the Commons and this heredity nonsense. They need to be accountable to the electorate. 

Tony Liar was going to sort it out. 

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

See, this is an example of a good post with a differing opinion. Making a fact claim that "the word 'border' appears nowhere in the GFA, which doesn't even contemplate the idea", then after being shown to be talking complete shite, doubling and tripling down on those outright lies, is trolling.

My point was a narrow one. The claim that a hard border  or any border controls would breach the terms of the GFA is simply not supported by the wording of the GFA and no-one has successfully refuted that (despite your unsubstantiated claim that I was shown to be talking absolute shite). I have said that the absence of a hard border is important and should be avoided but that is a different thing. If indeed the GFA, a legally binding international treaty, did clearly rule out any possibility of a hard border it is hard to see why the back-stop is needed.

As for the absence of the word "border" that is of course not really the point. But having read the GFA three or four times I have still not found the word "border". The word "cross-border" appears a few times but that is a different word, just as cross-dressing does not have the same meaning as dressing.  

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

There are lots of things that are very important to maintain now, that sadly will have to change once we leave the EU. That's just the way it is.

 

Would it be okay for Russia and Latvia to demand freedom of movement over their border via the threat of violence?

 

Countries should not shy away from making decision for themselves (that harm nobody, nor infringes on another's sovereignty) based on the threat of violence from other countries.

 

You'll need to explain the situation with Russia and Latvia for that to make any sense. 

[AlphonseCapone]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

 

There are lots of things that are very important to maintain now, that sadly will have to change once we leave the EU. That's just the way it is.

 

Would it be okay for Russia and Latvia to demand freedom of movement over their border via the threat of violence?

 

Countries should not shy away from making decision for themselves (that harm nobody, nor infringes on another's sovereignty) based on the threat of violence from other countries.

 

But the big difference between Russia and Latvia to the Irish situation is that the threat of violence isn't from another country, it's technically a threat of violence from people within our own country. There won't be violence from the Republic, it'll be nationalists in the North. 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

 

There are lots of things that are very important to maintain now, that sadly will have to change once we leave the EU. That's just the way it is.

 

Would it be okay for Russia and Latvia to demand freedom of movement over their border via the threat of violence?

 

Countries should not shy away from making decision for themselves (that harm nobody, nor infringes on another's sovereignty) based on the threat of violence from other countries.

 

Out of interest, where have you seen a "threat of violence"?

 

All I see is the case where the non-existent border has helped maintain a peaceful situation and making that border less transparent jeopardises that peace.

 

Russia and Latvia have had a border since Latvia's independence, with border crossings in place and visas mostly required, so you can't equate the two situations.

[Cade]

Tory peer's amendment to force the Cooper bill to be processed in the normal (i.e. slow) time has been crushed 254 to 94.

 

This bill can now be pushed through the Lords.

 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Cade said:

Tory peer's amendment to force the Cooper bill to be processed in the normal (i.e. slow) time has been crushed 254 to 94.

 

This bill can now be pushed through the Lords.

 

Good!

Fekim!

[Taffin]

11 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Out of interest, where have you seen a "threat of violence"?

 

All I see is the case where the non-existent border has helped maintain a peaceful situation and making that border less transparent jeopardises that peace.

 

Russia and Latvia have had a border since Latvia's independence, with border crossings in place and visas mostly required, so you can't equate the two situations.

 

 

Your second paragraph conflicts with the first. Peace being jeopardised is a threat of violence.

 

There's obviously not going to be an exactly similar scenario. It's a broader point on whether potential unrest/aggression from neighbouring countries  should take precedence over another countries sovereignty (so long as what they are doing isn't against international law). I don't think it should. Others do, which is okay.

 

 

I accept this is off topic and people are bored of it so I won't post again about it ?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Taffin

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

Tory peer's amendment to force the Cooper bill to be processed in the normal (i.e. slow) time has been crushed 254 to 94.

 

This bill can now be pushed through the Lords.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Good!

Fekim!

 

 

Just need the EU 27 to agree an extension now. Will they?

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

 

 

 

Just need the EU 27 to agree an extension now. Will they?

Who knows. Perhaps if it's a lengthy one. Say 99 years or so. 

[Cade]

Depends what TM and JC cook up over the weekend.

The Cooper bill is just forcing them to take no deal off the table as a negotiating tactic.

Obviously it can't prevent a no deal situation if nothing gets passed in the Commons, as it's the legal default if nothing is ratified.