Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Boris]

4 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Also just to check are you saying Hobson was neither racist nor anti-Semitic in his views? 

 

Of course I'm not.

 

Context is everything, of course.  One can view Hobson's critique of imperialism and agree with parts of it, whilst not condoning anti-semitic allusions.

[Boris]

10 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Yeah i often find this is a good subject to make fun of too.  

 

Anti-semitism is no joke.

 

Is Corbyn anti-jewish?  Personally, I don't think so. 

 

Is he critical of Israel?  Yes.

 

Is being critical of Israel anti-semitic?  Personally, I don't think so.

 

 

[Governor Tarkin]

29 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I have actually met him and I hate him too! 

 

Good lad.

 

p.s. I'm not convinced that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, but I do think he refused to understand just how persistent the accusations would be and how they would continue to be used against him.

He has handled the whole situation incredibly poorly.

 

I can understand why he refuses to pander to the accusers, as in his own ken he is innocent of all charges, but he can be his own worst enemy, and this lack of understanding/naivety should probably rule him out of leading the country. 

[Brighton Jambo]

Just now, Boris said:

 

Anti-semitism is no joke.

 

Is Corbyn anti-jewish?  Personally, I don't think so. 

 

Is he critical of Israel?  Yes.

 

Is being critical of Israel anti-semitic?  Personally, I don't think so.

 

 

Let’s just agree to disagree, I think he is anti-Semitic too much smoke without fire, whilst agreeing he is critical of Israel (which is fair enough view to have) 

 

i also agree being critical of Israel is not anti semitism.  

[XB52]

38 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

If a whole bunch of senior labour officials, MP’s and peers saying so isn’t evidence I don’t know what is. The foreword he wrote to that book isn’t bad evidence either,  the liking of the anti-Semitic mural also.

 

how about refusing to resign from patron of the pro Palestinian group despite being made aware of anti Semitic cartoons, propaganda and imagery being circulated by said group.  

 

You will no doubt pass all these off as misunderstandings, over dramatisation etc.

 

you are an apologist for anti semitism.  

Absolute garbage and truly indicative of the Israeli propaganda machine where any pro Palestinian leanings are said to be anti semitic. Once again you have not shown one bit of evidence of anti semitism, just more smears. Absolutely pathetic

[Boris]

Just now, Brighton Jambo said:

Let’s just agree to disagree, I think he is anti-Semitic too much smoke without fire, whilst agreeing he is critical of Israel (which is fair enough view to have) 

 

i also agree being critical of Israel is not anti semitism.  

 

Fair enough.

 

For the record, just as some conflate anti israel with anti semitism, I do think that there are some who do it in reverse i.e. associate all Jews with Israel, so if Israel does something bad, then all Jews are tarred with that brush.  I don't doubt that this mentality exists among some within the Labour Party. (or other parties for that matter).

[Mysterion]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

Anti-semitism is no joke.

 

Is Corbyn anti-jewish?  Personally, I don't think so. 

 

Is he critical of Israel?  Yes.

 

Is being critical of Israel anti-semitic?  Personally, I don't think so.

 

 

This is how is see it.

Too many people squeal at the first sign of criticism of Israel.
 

That said - I think Corbyn and Labour leaders have badly handled the fall out of anti semitism claims, debating the issue left them prone to further claims which reinforces the idea that they do not condone it.

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, annushorribilis III said:

Indeed they did - but no one said it was a conspiracy theory. Those parties - widely named - shorted the pound and backed the Leave campaign AND paid for advisors for BJ & Gove plus others. 

 

So just to be clear : it's not a conspiracy theory it's a fact - Crispin Odey & his ilk bet on Leave winning, funded the Leave campaign and stand to make millions/billions if/when UK leaves. . Or more importantly, stand to LOSE even more. 

 

But you know that. 

 

PS  Each side believes what it wants to believe ?  - No , it doesn't. But you do. 

 

PPS criminal breach of campaign funding rules by the Leave campaign is a "fact" -  check out the court case - the judge said BECAUSE it was an advisory referendum he had no powers to act because it did not bind the govt to act. HAD it been a binding referendum he would have decided  differently. How come you don't know this FA ? 

The FT dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. But maybe the Byline Times trumps the FT.

 

The two things that fuelled the illegal campaign funding claims (and still does) were the conviction and £20000 fine of Darren Grimes, overturned on appeal (though perhaps unfavourable appeal court judgments don't count?) and the Electoral Commission's concerns about Arron Banks, for which a lengthy criminal investigation found no evidence whatsoever of illegality What is the basis for your belief that criminal breach of campaign funding rules is a "fact" other than wanting to believe it? Shorting the pound may be reprehensible (I hate the whole hedge funding business) but it is not illegal at least until Jeremy gains power. 

 

Big business not only heavily funded the e Remain campaign but helped it by attributing every bad bit of business news to Brexit fears , however implausibly. But there was nothing illegal about it. 

 

[Mikey1874]

46 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

If a whole bunch of senior labour officials, MP’s and peers saying so isn’t evidence I don’t know what is. The foreword he wrote to that book isn’t bad evidence either,  the liking of the anti-Semitic mural also.

 

how about refusing to resign from patron of the pro Palestinian group despite being made aware of anti Semitic cartoons, propaganda and imagery being circulated by said group.  

 

You will no doubt pass all these off as misunderstandings, over dramatisation etc.

 

you are an apologist for anti semitism.  

 

I must be an apologist for anti-semitism too. Which would be interesting. 

 

Or you are risking losing your good arguments. 

 

Something you might not know is in his first year as leader he got no resources or support from his own party. Part of the reason he set up his own group and why Momentum got in. 

 

Another thing you might not know is when Jeremy Corbyn was a simple backbench MP he supported Margaret Hodge locally and was praised by her as a friend of Jews. 

 

But anyway anti Labour, anti Corbyn people will continue to use this. Instead of arguing against their policies. 

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

This is how is see it.

Too many people squeal at the first sign of criticism of Israel.
 

That said - I think Corbyn and Labour leaders have badly handled the fall out of anti semitism claims, debating the issue left them prone to further claims which reinforces the idea that they do not condone it.

 

Labour is pretty backward in a lot of its procedures. Hence badly caught out and seeming to be indecisive. 

[Mikey1874]

Anyone listening to Boris?

[Mysterion]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The two things that fuelled the illegal campaign funding claims (and still does) were the conviction and £20000 fine of Darren Grimes, overturned on appeal (though perhaps unfavourable appeal court judgments don't count?)

 

Given the volume of money spent its not unreasonable to suggest that Grimes was either ignorant, stupid or deceitful not to register correctly. He got lucky in the end.

[Brighton Jambo]

12 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I must be an apologist for anti-semitism too. Which would be interesting. 

 

Or you are risking losing your good arguments. 

 

Something you might not know is in his first year as leader he got no resources or support from his own party. Part of the reason he set up his own group and why Momentum got in. 

 

Another thing you might not know is when Jeremy Corbyn was a simple backbench MP he supported Margaret Hodge locally and was praised by her as a friend of Jews. 

 

But anyway anti Labour, anti Corbyn people will continue to use this. Instead of arguing against their policies. 

You can’t level that accusation at me though about policies!! I’m sure you and I have had a right ding dong about the affordability of the current manifesto and how undeliverable I believe it is! 

[Boris]

11 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Anyone listening to Boris?

 

If you're not, then you should!

 

[JyTees]

3 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

😂😂😂

 

Ah, great comedy writing to start the day with, cheers Jy.

 

You're very welcome Jonny.

[Francis Albert]

24 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

Given the volume of money spent its not unreasonable to suggest that Grimes was either ignorant, stupid or deceitful not to register correctly. He got lucky in the end.

But not guilty. And the judge said that even if he had been the £20k fine was excessive. We aren't even talking alleged serious crime but enough for the remainer excuse engine to go into overdrive. It's a bit like a Craig post match interview at times.

[A Boy Named Crow]

1 hour ago, Brighton Jambo said:

If a whole bunch of senior labour officials, MP’s and peers saying so isn’t evidence I don’t know what is. The foreword he wrote to that book isn’t bad evidence either,  the liking of the anti-Semitic mural also.

 

how about refusing to resign from patron of the pro Palestinian group despite being made aware of anti Semitic cartoons, propaganda and imagery being circulated by said group.  

 

You will no doubt pass all these off as misunderstandings, over dramatisation etc.

 

you are an apologist for anti semitism.  

The whole premise of this post seems to be that if that if you criticise the state of Israel, you are anti Semitic (at this stage I’ll assume this means anti Jewish, but we’ll get to that), which is nonsense, firstly because there are many Jews who do not identify with the actions of the state of Israel, but secondly (and this bit really annoys me) to say they are anti Semitic because you perceive someone to be anti Jewish because they support Palestine is just downright lazy use of language. Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages, so to call someone anti Semitic because they favour Palestine over Israeli s just daft!

 

Just because sections of the Labour Party find it politically expedient to say it is so, doesn’t make it so...you might owe the poster you called an apologist for anti Semitism an apology...but that’s between y’all!

Edited October 2, 2019 by A Boy Named Crow

[Cade]

So Boris' replacement for the Backstop is TWO hard borders on the island of Ireland AND a third border down the middle of the Irish Sea, but only for 4 years but there is no plan for what will replace these three borders at the end of that time?

 

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

So Boris' replacement for the Backstop is TWO hard borders on the island of Ireland AND a third border down the middle of the Irish Sea, but only for 4 years but there is no plan for what will replace these three borders at the end of that time?

 

 

They will all have nodded along in cabinet... the ones he told anyway... to it all.    Compromise,   reasonable and fair,   can't offer any more,   bent over backwards,   take it or leave it,   must get Brexit done.     

 

All total bollocks.

 

They'll need to get their shit together and form a coalition government that can win a confidence majority because it's also more than obvious that there's a move to get around the Benn act.    It can't be relied upon.

 

Or it's no deal 100%.

[AlimOzturk]

Surely that's worse than backstop what  boris is proposing?

 

What ****ing planet does that guys live on?

[Mikey1874]

28 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Surely that's worse than backstop what  boris is proposing?

 

What ****ing planet does that guys live on?

 

The question is whether any of this is new. 

 

But we shall see. 

[Mikey1874]

Boris and others said they had to threaten No Deal for this very stage of the negotiations. So EU knew they were serious etc. 

 

Presumably then if EU rejects the offer and they can't find an agreement in next 2/3 weeks they can agree with Parliament to request an extension. 

[Brighton Jambo]

1 hour ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

The whole premise of this post seems to be that if that if you criticise the state of Israel, you are anti Semitic (at this stage I’ll assume this means anti Jewish, but we’ll get to that), which is nonsense, firstly because there are many Jews who do not identify with the actions of the state of Israel, but secondly (and this bit really annoys me) to say they are anti Semitic because you perceive someone to be anti Jewish because they support Palestine is just downright lazy use of language. Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages, so to call someone anti Semitic because they favour Palestine over Israeli s just daft!

 

Just because sections of the Labour Party find it politically expedient to say it is so, doesn’t make it so...you might owe the poster you called an apologist for anti Semitism an apology...but that’s between y’all!

See rather than joining a conversation half way through and missing the point why not read my previous posts from this morning where I very clearly define what I mean by anti-Semitic and it’s has nothing to do with people being critical of the state of Israel.  

 

 

[Brighton Jambo]

9 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Boris and others said they had to threaten No Deal for this very stage of the negotiations. So EU knew they were serious etc. 

 

Presumably then if EU rejects the offer and they can't find an agreement in next 2/3 weeks they can agree with Parliament to request an extension. 

 That’s the bit I don’t get.  How, despite clear legal requirements to ask for an extension he is adamant he won’t.  People don’t even seem to be challenging him on it anymore.  What are we missing?!

[Victorian]

There must be a plan to pie the Benn act.    If he couldn't then there would be no purpose to this latest offer with menaces to the EU.     

 

The EU appear to be going to sit out the 'offer' to see what happens in parliament with a confidence motion and the Benn act.    Parliament might as well treat the Benn act as leaky as a sieve and not rely on it.     There must be an agreed strategy confidence motion and an interim government put in.      I think,   although wrong,   Corbyn will ultimately have to allow someone else to lead it.

[Mikey1874]

UK Government proposals have been published

 

 

[Mikey1874]

 

[...a bit disco]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

UK Government proposals have been published

 

 

 

A whole lotta nothin' going on.

 

Laughable.

[...a bit disco]

19 minutes ago, Victorian said:

There must be a plan to pie the Benn act.    If he couldn't then there would be no purpose to this latest offer with menaces to the EU.     

 

The EU appear to be going to sit out the 'offer' to see what happens in parliament with a confidence motion and the Benn act.    Parliament might as well treat the Benn act as leaky as a sieve and not rely on it.     There must be an agreed strategy confidence motion and an interim government put in.      I think,   although wrong,   Corbyn will ultimately have to allow someone else to lead it.

 

As long as it's not Shifty Swinson, her of the messiah complex, fine and dandy.

[annushorribilis III]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The FT dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. But maybe the Byline Times trumps the FT.

 

The two things that fuelled the illegal campaign funding claims (and still does) were the conviction and £20000 fine of Darren Grimes, overturned on appeal (though perhaps unfavourable appeal court judgments don't count?) and the Electoral Commission's concerns about Arron Banks, for which a lengthy criminal investigation found no evidence whatsoever of illegality What is the basis for your belief that criminal breach of campaign funding rules is a "fact" other than wanting to believe it? Shorting the pound may be reprehensible (I hate the whole hedge funding business) but it is not illegal at least until Jeremy gains power. 

 

Big business not only heavily funded the e Remain campaign but helped it by attributing every bad bit of business news to Brexit fears , however implausibly. But there was nothing illegal about it. 

 

FA,I'm not your secretary. If you know about Grimes & Banks you will know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You're well informed about points that suit you're agenda so i don't believe for one second you don't know what I'm referring to. 

 

I never said shorting the pound was reprehensible or anything else. I mentioned the facts around who was shorting, who funded Leave campaign and who subsequently funded PAs for BJ & Gove among others - ie the same group. . Dismissing the idea of a "conspiracy" (dis)proves nothing - it's not a conspiracy.

 

Your last para is utter nonsense - I never said any party funding Leave /Remain was illegal. You just rant on with disregard to what is posted so you can put your own agenda forward. 

[annushorribilis III]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

They will all have nodded along in cabinet... the ones he told anyway... to it all.    Compromise,   reasonable and fair,   can't offer any more,   bent over backwards,   take it or leave it,   must get Brexit done.     

 

All total bollocks.

 

They'll need to get their shit together and form a coalition government that can win a confidence majority because it's also more than obvious that there's a move to get around the Benn act.    It can't be relied upon.

 

Or it's no deal 100%.

From the interviews given yesterday , the Cabinet isn't being told about it. Rees-Mogg admitted on C4 News even he didn't know what was in the proposal and he wasn't the only one who said so. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by annushorribilis III

[Mikey1874]

Just now, annushorribilis III said:

From the interviews given yesterday , the Cabinet isn't being told about it. Rees-Mogg admitted on C4 News even he didn't now what was in the proposal and he wasn't the only one who said so. 

 

I thought the proposal was meant to be secret.

 

But they have published it?

[annushorribilis III]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

I thought the proposal was meant to be secret.

 

But they have published it?

How can you have a proposal from government which the government (ie cabinet) has not seen let alone agreed to ? Apparently Cummings is keen to keep things secret for fear of leaks (bit strange when you see the pro brexit idealogues who have been stuffed into cabinet positions) but for Rees-Mogg not to have been told seems to me incredible. 

I don't know what's been published , if anything, I'll have a look at C4 News tonight. 

[...a bit disco]

2 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

How can you have a proposal from government which the government (ie cabinet) has not seen let alone agreed to ? Apparently Cummings is keen to keep things secret for fear of leaks (bit strange when you see the pro brexit idealogues who have been stuffed into cabinet positions) but for Rees-Mogg not to have been told seems to me incredible. 

I don't know what's been published , if anything, I'll have a look at C4 News tonight. 

 

Whole thing's been published, as per...

 

https://t.co/xxtA2K4OXo

[annushorribilis III]

1 minute ago, ...a bit disco said:

 

Whole thing's been published, as per...

 

https://t.co/xxtA2K4OXo

cheers,just catching up on twitter. 

[...a bit disco]

... and the DUP response.

 

 

[...a bit disco]

Just now, annushorribilis III said:

cheers,just catching up on twitter. 

 

[Mikey1874]

It was clear for a while he would do this at the Tory Party conference.

 

But that has just wasted time. If they agree a deal they will need an extension to pass the legislation etc.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Mikey1874

[annushorribilis III]

4 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

 

Whole thing's been published, as per...

 

https://t.co/xxtA2K4OXo

I'd say it will fail because,amongst other things, the "fourth" para is crazy - BJ wants Stormont approval - but Stormont hasn't sat since when ? I can't see this flying. 

 

If your on twitter this guy is worth a follow. 

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975

 

Single market : Goods People Services Capital

UK wants goods only C/U :

Wants to leave but no borders / checks v different regulations on goods **if** those trade deals come in- but no one to check

That’s cherry picking on a massive **** off scale

[Mikey1874]

And

 

 

[annushorribilis III]

From Faisal Islam  C4 -

 

Key analytical point - UK clearly wants significantly lower ongoing alignment with EU than under May. “That proposed future relationship is to the goal of the current UK Govt” - therefore the backstop, says the PM not needed and is now a “bridge to nowhere”.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

14 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

I'd say it will fail because,amongst other things, the "fourth" para is crazy - BJ wants Stormont approval - but Stormont hasn't sat since when ? I can't see this flying. 

 

If your on twitter this guy is worth a follow. 

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975

 

Single market : Goods People Services Capital

UK wants goods only C/U :

Wants to leave but no borders / checks v different regulations on goods **if** those trade deals come in- but no one to check

That’s cherry picking on a massive **** off scale

 

So need the transition period till Dec 2020 or longer to get Stormont back on. 

 

No guarantee of that though. Open goal for Sinn Fein to scupper things. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Mikey1874

[RobboM]

17 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

And

 

 

Do you thinkit looks like the DUP are looking for a plausible climb down position given that Brexit has led to an increasing likelihood of a united Ireland?

[Brighton Jambo]

9 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Do you thinkit looks like the DUP are looking for a plausible climb down position given that Brexit has led to an increasing likelihood of a united Ireland?

I think you are right about the climb down as DUP have realised that this is one of Theresa May’s red lines that Boris is prepared to move on.  

[Francis Albert]

34 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

FA,I'm not your secretary. If you know about Grimes & Banks you will know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You're well informed about points that suit you're agenda so i don't believe for one second you don't know what I'm referring to. 

 

I never said shorting the pound was reprehensible or anything else. I mentioned the facts around who was shorting, who funded Leave campaign and who subsequently funded PAs for BJ & Gove among others - ie the same group. . Dismissing the idea of a "conspiracy" (dis)proves nothing - it's not a conspiracy.

 

Your last para is utter nonsense - I never said any party funding Leave /Remain was illegal. You just rant on with disregard to what is posted so you can put your own agenda forward. 

I know that  neither Grimes (after an appeal) nor Banks have been found guilty of any criminal offence, which were allegations that I think were the basis for the oft repeated claim that the referendum vote was therefor invalid. If you are just saying that breach of campaign funding rules is a fact in the sense that it is a criminal offense if it happens and is proven then I apologise for misunderstanding.

 

 

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Despite never having met him, I hate 'Sir' Philip Green.

 

Does that make me an anti-Semite? 

#Metoo

[Governor Tarkin]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Do you thinkit looks like the DUP are looking for a plausible climb down position given that Brexit has led to an increasing likelihood of a united Ireland?

 

They're positively shitting themselves.

[annushorribilis III]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I know that  neither Grimes (after an appeal) nor Banks have been found guilty of any criminal offence, which were allegations that I think were the basis for the oft repeated claim that the referendum vote was therefor invalid. If you are just saying that breach of campaign funding rules is a fact in the sense that it is a criminal offense if it happens and is proven then I apologise for misunderstanding.

 

 

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7a415311-4355-4505-ab81-a3108644f099

 

An extract from the above  (my emphasis ) -

 

Ouseley J refused permission to proceed with the judicial review on the basis of delay and lack of merit. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, finding that the claim was unarguable on the basis that the referendum was advisory and Parliament had retained ultimate control over whether the UK left the EU. The court therefore had no common law power to intervene. Even if the court did have a power to intervene in relation to the results of a non-binding referendum, a minimum requirement for the exercise of any common law power would be that a breach of voting rules was material such as to affect the referendum results. There was no evidence that the result of the referendum would have been different as a result of the overspending

 

 

 

 

A court decided that Leave campaign spending didn't influence the outcome. Which makes you wonder , what is the purpose in Arron Banks for example spending £8 million of his own money ? - he surely  didn't spend all that cash to NOT influence  the outcome? 

 

I accept your apology and will not be debating this point further. 

 

[jake]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I know that  neither Grimes (after an appeal) nor Banks have been found guilty of any criminal offence, which were allegations that I think were the basis for the oft repeated claim that the referendum vote was therefor invalid. If you are just saying that breach of campaign funding rules is a fact in the sense that it is a criminal offense if it happens and is proven then I apologise for misunderstanding.

 

 

But but

[gjcc]

Parliament to be prorogued again...

next Tuesday to the 14th.