Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[jake]

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

Wouldn't be the first time

 

 

Tbf said moron Farage followers, who do indeed exist unfortunately, did likely swing the vote considering it was 52/48; I don't think that's terribly controversial.

I like it that way .

Everyone else is away with it.

 

Pans is sound mate it's just the debate always just comes back to the punch and Judy.

I'm guilty of it myself 

 

Could have really done with a Tony Benn leading the argument for leave.

I genuinely believe the xenophobic slant would have amounted to nothing had Labour especially in the North had paid attention to the discontent.

The SNP did exactly that in Scotland.

Immigration concerns were polarised by the left initially imo.

You couldn't and cant make reasoned arguments with out the race card coming out.

 

 

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Repeating yourself on JKB and this thread in particular? Will never catch on.

 

As Jake just pointed out, we're all guilty of it, but that's funny.

 

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Now endless references to Leavers aversion to brown people. That's what I call repetition. 

 

An emotional topic, no doubt, and rightly so if you ask me. It matters.

 

3 minutes ago, jake said:

You couldn't and cant make reasoned arguments with out the race card coming out.

 

"Race card" is a loaded term, meant to accuse the person making a claim of fundamental dishonesty and that what they're saying isn't legitimate so they're resorting to an underhanded tactic. Is that really the road we want to go down?

 

Actually, that does remind me, since we're on the subject. A nice article from Reason, a noted libertarian/right wing publication, about how arguments made on these forums in recent weeks--that unfettered immigration drives down wages--is naively wrong at best, and bald racism at worst. Nor is that, playing the race card.

[Justin Z]

7 minutes ago, jake said:

I genuinely believe the xenophobic slant would have amounted to nothing had Labour especially in the North had paid attention to the discontent.

The SNP did exactly that in Scotland.

 

Also while I agree with you to some extent, I think you don't give enough credit to the Scottish people as a whole, and their politics, if you boil it down to the SNP playing strategy right. The Nationalism up here is inclusive--that's been hammered over and over and over and over again (each of those "overs" is a different link). People on this forum and elsewhere still deny it and try to paint it as divisive or nationalistic in all the bad, jingoistic ways right wing nationalism is, but as a foreigner, I feel the inclusiveness--I feel welcome. It is fundamentally different here than in England, and I say that based on the feeling I've gotten talking to English people too.

 

It may have had an effect, what you're saying. But I think the Scottish are a different people, cut from a different cloth--and in this particular area, it's a far finer cloth.

[jake]

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

As Jake just pointed out, we're all guilty of it, but that's funny.

 

 

An emotional topic, no doubt, and rightly so if you ask me. It matters.

 

 

"Race card" is a loaded term, meant to accuse the person making a claim of fundamental dishonesty and that what they're saying isn't legitimate so they're resorting to an underhanded tactic. Is that really the road we want to go down?

 

Actually, that does remind me, since we're on the subject. A nice article from Reason, a noted libertarian/right wing publication, about how arguments made on these forums in recent weeks--that unfettered immigration drives down wages--is naively wrong at best, and bald racism at worst. Nor is that, playing the race card.

Will read later.

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Also while I agree with you to some extent, I think you don't give enough credit to the Scottish people as a whole, and their politics, if you boil it down to the SNP playing strategy right. The Nationalism up here is inclusive--that's been hammered over and over and over and over again (each of those "overs" is a different link). People on this forum and elsewhere still deny it and try to paint it as divisive or nationalistic in all the bad, jingoistic ways right wing nationalism is, but as a foreigner, I feel the inclusiveness--I feel welcome. It is fundamentally different here than in England, and I say that based on the feeling I've gotten talking to English people too.

 

It may have had an effect, what you're saying. But I think the Scottish are a different people, cut from a different cloth--and in this particular area, it's a far finer cloth.

I agree whole heartedly about Scottish mentality and outlook.

To just off topic for a bit the GERS figures for me was a glowing example of exactly why we should govern ourselves.

I meant the SNP tapped into it.

I do know the different approach to nationalism.

 

I need to go.

But I will expand .

 

Dont think I've ever given my views on brexit before.

😁

 

[Cade]

Boris has been asking the Attorney General for legal advice on closing down Parliament for 5 weeks to push through No Deal.

 

 

[dobmisterdobster]

8 minutes ago, Cade said:

Boris has been asking the Attorney General for legal advice on closing down Parliament for 5 weeks to push through No Deal.

 

 

He should totally do it. By the time the courts decide the legality of it, we will have already left.

[Cade]

Not if Parliament removes him.

 

Half of his own MPs hate his guts and for a PM to attempt to shut down parliament to force anything through is enraging the entire house on all sides.

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

He should totally do it. By the time the courts decide the legality of it, we will have already left.

Shutting Parliament, Really! What was the so called point of Brexit, then?

 

 

If that's the way things are done, maybe the SNP should declare a UDI.

Edited August 25, 2019 by ri Alban

[The Mighty Thor]

Johnson to meet the toddler in chief this morning. Apparently he is going to tell him the US must compromise if it wants a trade deal with the UK. 

Good lad. Let them know who 'holds all the cards', and that'll bring these uppity colonials to heel.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Johnson to meet the toddler in chief this morning. Apparently he is going to tell him the US must compromise if it wants a trade deal with the UK. 

Good lad. Let them know who 'holds all the cards', and that'll bring these uppity colonials to heel.

You’ve really got to laugh.

[dobmisterdobster]

12 hours ago, Cade said:

Not if Parliament removes him.

 

Half of his own MPs hate his guts and for a PM to attempt to shut down parliament to force anything through is enraging the entire house on all sides.

He would only attempt it after surviving a confidence vote (highly probable that he will survive)

[dobmisterdobster]

7 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Shutting Parliament, Really! What was the so called point of Brexit, then?

 

 

If that's the way things are done, maybe the SNP should declare a UDI.

Prorogation is a tool that any prime minister can use.

 

UDI would require a positive referendum result which the SNP does not have yet.

[Boris]

3 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Prorogation is a tool that any prime minister can use.

 

UDI would require a positive referendum result which the SNP does not have yet.

 

Or a majority of Westminster mps fighting the ge on Indy, as per the 70’s?

 

Not the desired tactic, but still a possibility?

[Cade]

BawJaws now stating that walking away with No Deal means we don't have to pay any divorce money.

 

He forgets that we will have to come to some sort of deal in the future.

And they'll get that money during those negotiations.

Nobody can trade on WTO for long.

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Prorogation is a tool that any prime minister can use.

 

UDI would require a positive referendum result which the SNP does not have yet.

No, it doesn't. A majority of MPs at the next election is sufficient.

[Hasselhoff]

57 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

No, it doesn't. A majority of MPs at the next election is sufficient.

 

No way! There is still a majority of people who vote pro-uk parties. As long as that is the case, you might be able to get a pro-indy majority due to dilution of votes but it doesn't mean UDI is an option. 

 

Talk of two votes being required now anyway. If Indy is voted for, we get another vote to confirm if the final real is what was promised. Sounds good!

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

BawJaws now stating that walking away with No Deal means we don't have to pay any divorce money.

 

He forgets that we will have to come to some sort of deal in the future.

And they'll get that money during those negotiations.

Nobody can trade on WTO for long.

We should never have accepted the backstop and the divorce bill as the EU's preconditions for even opening negotiations. Too late I think  but "BawJaws" is right to renege on those commitments.

 

[Boris]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

We should never have accepted the backstop and the divorce bill as the EU's preconditions for even opening negotiations. Too late I think  but "BawJaws" is right to renege on those commitments.

 

Isn’t the divorce bill merely us paying up our dues that we are committed to? Reneging on commitments would be a bit off?

 

As for the backstop, well, who cares about the Irish?

 

What I’m finding quite insidious is the attempt to shift the narrative by our govt to blaming the eu. Entitlement unbound!

[Cade]

The backstop only comes into force if the UK govt has no other method of keeping the Irish border open.

The very fact that they're so wound up by it is because we have no plan and therefor the Backstop is almost certain to be enforced.

 

About a quarter of the divorce bill is legally binding, the rest is goodwill payments for things we've committed to but not legally bound to pay for.

As said before, reneging on that won't do any favours when we come cap in hand to the EU for a deal after a few months of chaos post No-Deal.

They'll get their money one way or the other so we may as well stop playing the prick and pay up front like a responsible, mature nation.

 

 

[ri Alban]

10 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

We should never have accepted the backstop and the divorce bill as the EU's preconditions for even opening negotiations. Too late I think  but "BawJaws" is right to renege on those commitments.

 

Agreed? One is debt owed and the other was a UK government proposal. 

 

So you'll be all for Scotland telling the UK to shove their debt up their arse?

Edited August 26, 2019 by ri Alban

[scott herbertson]

Interesting document on Irish preparations for No Deal

 

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/eu/brexit/brexitcontingency/190130-Update-to-Contingency-Action-Plan-FINAL.pdf

 

 

[Francis Albert]

12 hours ago, Boris said:

Isn’t the divorce bill merely us paying up our dues that we are committed to? Reneging on commitments would be a bit off?

 

As for the backstop, well, who cares about the Irish?

 

What I’m finding quite insidious is the attempt to shift the narrative by our govt to blaming the eu. Entitlement unbound!

On the divorce bill you are right and I didn't express myself well. I meant reneging only to the extent that we should not have accepted  that or the backstop as a precondition for negotiations. It might be seen as bad faith to "renege" now but in negotiations nothing is really agreed until everything is agreed.

At the end of day we should of course pay what we owe.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Mikey1874]

Still interesting the freedom fighters arguing for good deals worldwide don't mention  how that is better than all the EU deals with places like Japan. 

[Cade]

29 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Still interesting the freedom fighters arguing for good deals worldwide don't mention  how that is better than all the EU deals with places like Japan. 

It's not.

And it can't be.

The EU usually has "preferred partner" or "most favoured nation" clauses in their trade deals, preventing the other side from giving anybody else better terms than they have with the EU.

So, logically, anybody that has a deal with the EU cannot by law give the UK a similar deal.

So we'll be worse off no matter what.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

42 minutes ago, Cade said:

It's not.

And it can't be.

The EU usually has "preferred partner" or "most favoured nation" clauses in their trade deals, preventing the other side from giving anybody else better terms than they have with the EU.

So, logically, anybody that has a deal with the EU cannot by law give the UK a similar deal.

So we'll be worse off no matter what.

 

 

 

Stepping back from it the main way UK can be successful aside from staying in or very close to Customs Union and single market is to have a radical low tax free trade arrangement something like Singapore. 

 

Must be the plan. Shame they aren't being honest about that. 

[Cade]

Setting up the UK as one giant offshore tax haven has always been the plan of the hardcore mentalists.

The UK will become a theme park for the ultra-rich with the rest of us slaving away under them.

And it'll be you and I paying for it.

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

https://apple.news/AJSKva0bMRwycLDtwBI-VmQ

 

Light on detail but at least some movement to try and stop a no deal. Though weirdly I think bojo and co will probably outsmart corbyn and co to get a exist on 31 Oct.

 

Must have a cunning plan.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

 

[Victorian]

Downing Street says it is undermining the government because "progress is now being made".

 

Aye... sure it is.    The only progress being sought is to make it impossible to achieve any deal.     

 

Sounds like Swinson has conceded that Corbyn would head an interim government but all parties have agreed to keep that undeclared whilst other options are pursued first.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The idea of opposition MPs forming an alternative legislature does scare me. Britain is not a banana republic (yet).

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

The idea of opposition MPs forming an alternative legislature does scare me. Britain is not a banana republic (yet).

 

The idea of a minority closing down parliament to force their way through is cool though?

[dobmisterdobster]

52 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Downing Street says it is undermining the government because "progress is now being made".

 

Aye... sure it is.    The only progress being sought is to make it impossible to achieve any deal.     

 

Sounds like Swinson has conceded that Corbyn would head an interim government but all parties have agreed to keep that undeclared whilst other options are pursued first.

Boris is stringing everyone along and he isn't serious about striking a deal. Everyone can see that.

 

It's true that as leader of the opposition, Corbyn has the right to form an alternative government ahead of anyone else.

It's also true that Corbyn does not have sufficient support to form an alternative government.

[dobmisterdobster]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

The idea of a minority closing down parliament to force their way through is cool though?

The executive using prerogative powers to allow an act of parliament to go into effect*

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

The executive using prerogative powers to allow an act of parliament to go into effect*

 

Yeah, I know what it is

[dobmisterdobster]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Yeah, I know what it is

Then what's the problem?

[Unknown user]

Just now, dobmisterdobster said:

Then what's the problem?

 

[Cade]

Parliament is supreme.

 

Not the Prime Minister.

Not the party with the most MPs.

 

Parliament as a whole.

 

Circumventing Parliament is dictatorial.

Charles I and Cromwell both closed down Parliament to suit their own personal agendas and the nation suffered for it.

[dobmisterdobster]

14 minutes ago, Cade said:

Parliament is supreme.

 

Not the Prime Minister.

Not the party with the most MPs.

 

Parliament as a whole.

 

Circumventing Parliament is dictatorial.

Charles I and Cromwell both closed down Parliament to suit their own personal agendas and the nation suffered for it.

Parliament might be supreme whatever that means but they cannot govern. Only the government can govern.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Parliament might be supreme whatever that means but they cannot govern. Only the government can govern.

 

I thought Brexit supporters were all about the sovereignty of parliament, or was that just a buzz phrase to be used when it suited?

 

There are plenty within the government who don't want this to happen. Proroguing parliament to get it through by default against the will of parliament and many in government is a very dangerous precedent and bad faith in the extreme. 

 

 

[Cade]

The government can only govern if it has enough support in Parliament to allow it to do so.

 

That's what all these "VOTE" things have been about.

 

[dobmisterdobster]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I thought Brexit supporters were all about the sovereignty of parliament, or was that just a buzz phrase to be used when it suited?

 

There are plenty within the government who don't want this to happen. Proroguing parliament to get it through by default against the will of parliament and many in government is a very dangerous precedent and bad faith in the extreme. 

 

 

What do you mean "by default"? Parliament voted for the Article 50 legislation. They played themselves.

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

The government can only govern if it has enough support in Parliament to allow it to do so.

 

That's what all these "VOTE" things have been about.

 

Boris does have the support of parliament, hence why JC has delayed his vote of no confidence.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

What do you mean "by default"? Parliament voted for the Article 50 legislation. They played themselves.

Boris does have the support of parliament, hence why JC has delayed his vote of no confidence.

 

Deliberately missing the point, I won't waste any more time on you. 

[dobmisterdobster]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

Deliberately missing the point, I won't waste any more time on you. 

I apologise. What point would you like me to answer?

[Boris]

33 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Parliament might be supreme whatever that means but they cannot govern. Only the government can govern.

 But only with Parliament’s support.

[Boris]

15 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

What do you mean "by default"? Parliament voted for the Article 50 legislation. They played themselves.

Boris does have the support of parliament, hence why JC has delayed his vote of no confidence.

You seem to be conflating leaving the eu and a no deal as the same thing. 

 

Parliament may may well have triggered article 50, but parliament has also spoken regards no deal. 

 

Square that circle!

[Cade]

Govt keeps being defeated in both the Commons and the Lords.

 

They don't have anything like the support of Parliament.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

I thought Brexit supporters were all about the sovereignty of parliament, or was that just a buzz phrase to be used when it suited?

 

There are plenty within the government who don't want this to happen. Proroguing parliament to get it through by default against the will of parliament and many in government is a very dangerous precedent and bad faith in the extreme. 

 

 

I worry a bit about a "supreme" parliament that votes 80% to hold the Brexit referendum,  is then elected by a similar margin to "respect the vote" but  is unable to deliver Brexit and seems likely to frustrate it altogether.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

You seem to be conflating leaving the eu and a no deal as the same thing. 

 

Parliament may may well have triggered article 50, but parliament has also spoken regards no deal. 

 

Square that circle!

They refused to support a deal three times. Therefore no deal.

48 minutes ago, Cade said:

Govt keeps being defeated in both the Commons and the Lords.

 

They don't have anything like the support of Parliament.

Huge difference between being defeated on legislation and in a no confidence vote.

[Victorian]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I worry a bit about a "supreme" parliament that votes 80% to hold the Brexit referendum,  is then elected by a similar margin to "respect the vote" but  is unable to deliver Brexit and seems likely to frustrate it altogether.

 

Parliament supported the government in order to enact leaving the EU as mandated by the referendum.    It was the right and democratic path based on the government acting in best faith to leave on reasonable terms (avoiding economic self harm,  etc).      Eventually the penny dropped that the government never have conducted this process in best faith and parliament quite righly withdrew their consent.

 

Easy concept to understand.    Or easy to ignore.    You choose.

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Parliament supported the government in order to enact leaving the EU as mandated by the referendum.    It was the right and democratic path based on the government acting in best faith to leave on reasonable terms (avoiding economic self harm,  etc).      Eventually the penny dropped that the government never have conducted this process in best faith and parliament quite righly withdrew their consent.

 

Easy concept to understand.    Or easy to ignore.    You choose.

So why did parliament vote against every leave option? Even the one the EU went along with. And you could even say dictated.