Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Justin Z]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Tell that to physics, genetics, economics, measles &c.

 

Yeah English is funny, isn't it? I view all of those as singular, e.g., "Physics is my favourite science subject" or "Measles is caused by a virus."

 

Edit: Also for what it's worth, Yanks abbreviate "economics" as "econ".

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Justin Z

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just now, Boris said:

 

No one is talking about remaining though, this is about the deal put to Parliament.

 

Oh but they are and have been for many months now.

 

Parliament will never allow/vote for a 'no deal', and Parliament will not vote for this deal either, so tell me what other options are there left.

As some of the hard remainers have put it, if Parliament can't agree on a deal, then either we go back to the people or just scrape the whole thing and stay in the EU.

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

It's not impossible to leave. It's impossible to leave with the exact same goodies you had. 

Just leave and then deal once left, don't try to make the EU out to be the bad one. 

Isn't that pretty much what the proposed withdrawal agreememt does? Negotiation of the future relationship hssn't begun but the Hard Remainers don't want that to happen.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Boris]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Oh but they are and have been for many months now.

 

Parliament will never allow/vote for a 'no deal', and Parliament will not vote for this deal either, so tell me what other options are there left.

As some of the hard remainers have put it, if Parliament can't agree on a deal, then either we go back to the people or just scrape the whole thing and stay in the EU.

 

Agree re Parliament and no deal.

 

If they don't take this deal, then the Govt goes back to the EU to see what it can re-negotiate (I'm not holding my breath!)

 

So, looks like we go back to the people.  And if the people still want out, then it's the deal or it's no deal.  If no deal, then hell mend them!

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Isn't that pretty much what the proposed withdrawal agreememt does? Negotiation of the future relationship hssn't begun but the Hard Remainers don't want that to happen.

 

No, because of the backstop and continued membership of the CU for the period of negotiation.  Don't some leavers want a clean break first?

[Thunderstruck]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

When the actual realities of the agreement are set out it might be harder to oppose. 

 

I'm still struggling to grasp the actual objections/ alternatives. 

 

You are not alone. It is astonishing that the Shadow Attorney General told us earlier that she doesn’t fully understand the Agreement. She is a Barrister, is she not - 500 pages should be light reading for her. 

 

Funny thing is that she told us, in the same interview, that the Agreement ‘doesn’t meet Labour’s tests’. 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Oh but they are and have been for many months now.

 

Parliament will never allow/vote for a 'no deal', and Parliament will not vote for this deal either, so tell me what other options are there left.

As some of the hard remainers have put it, if Parliament can't agree on a deal, then either we go back to the people or just scrape the whole thing and stay in the EU.

I think a large part of the problem is that although parliament voted by an overwhelming majority of 85% to hold the referendum there is no majority in parliament for any method of leaving. Someone said Brexit means Brexit was a fatuous slogan.Brexit doesn't mean Brexit is pretty meaningless too but looks like being more accurate.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Agree re Parliament and no deal.

 

If they don't take this deal, then the Govt goes back to the EU to see what it can re-negotiate (I'm not holding my breath!)

 

So, looks like we go back to the people.  And if the people still want out, then it's the deal or it's no deal.  If no deal, then hell mend them!

 

The door has been shut for going back to the EU to re-negotiate, which isn't a surprise, the EU was always going to say take it or leave it.

 

The Austrian PM this morning effectivly said this this morning, that there will be no renegotiation, it's a take it or leave it deal.

Several jounalists have said that their sources within the EU are also of that opinion.

 

So, yes back to the people is now looking at being the most likely outcome, but as nearly all of the latest opinion polls seem to indicate that the vote would still be very close, even after all that is now known about leaving the EU, the opinion polls whilst shifting more to remain haven't seem a huge shift to the remain side and that must be of huge concern to the remainers because a second vote looks like it could go either way, if the opinion polls can be believed. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

I think a large part of the problem is that although parliament voted by an overwhelming majority of 85% to hold the referendum there is no majority in parliament for any method of leaving. Someone said Brexit means Brexit was a fatuous slogan.Brexit doesn't mean Brexit is pretty meaningless too but looks like being more accurate.

 

No, the 85% was in reference to the electorate which voted either Tory or Labour at the last GE, this figure has been widely quoted in the media.

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

No, because of the backstop and continued membership of the CU for the period of negotiation.  Don't some leavers want a clean break first?

Hard leavers oppose the deal. They are a minority of those who voted leave. Hard remainers don't want any deal. I am not sure they are a.minority 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

No, the 85% was in reference to the electorate which voted either Tory or Labour at the last GE, this figure has been widely quoted in the media.

82.4% in total, going by wikipedias General election 2017 page.

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The door has been shut for going back to the EU to re-negotiate, which isn't a surprise, the EU was always going to say take it or leave it.

 

The Austrian PM this morning effectivly said this this morning, that there will be no renegotiation, it's a take it or leave it deal.

Several jounalists have said that their sources within the EU are also of that opinion.

 

So, yes back to the people is now looking at being the most likely outcome, but as nearly all of the latest opinion polls seem to indicate that the vote would still be very close, even after all that is now known about leaving the EU, the opinion polls whilst shifting more to remain haven't seem a huge shift to the remain side and that must be of huge concern to the remainers because a second vote looks like it could go either way, if the opinion polls can be believed. 

 

Again, I don't disagree with your comments above.  Should there be a leave vote again, then it would appear that we are in line for a no deal.

[Adam Murray]

Kate Hoey's take on the 'hard border'

 

https://labourlist.org/2018/11/kate-hoey-i-wont-vote-for-a-brexit-deal-that-panders-to-the-irish-governments-hypocrisy/

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Hard leavers oppose the deal. They are a minority of those who voted leave. Hard remainers don't want any deal. I am not sure they are a.minority 

 

Yeah, that was my point.  Some leavers want a clean break from the off.

 

Some leavers would be happy with the deal on offer.

 

I can't imagine many remainers wanting to leave at all!

[JamboX2]

14 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Are there not constitutional issues with JRM becoming PM?

 

I don't think a Pam's faith comes into it anymore - if that's what you're getting at.

 

Imo he doesn't want to be PM.

[Don Dan]

The UK is fractured over this issue and it’s not a clean fracture either. There are splinters within parties as there are in the electorate. Even going back to the people won’t be easy as discussed yesterday. Even in my mind I’m unsure of the best outcome. I have a selfish view that as I spend and will spend more time in future in Tenerife the current set up suits me fine. However I don’t like the way we are governed by in some cases unelected people from the EU amongst other things. So when I look at it staying ultimately suits me just fine. 

And that is where the problems lie imo, selfish wants are the stumbling block and there are lots of them. 

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

No, the 85% was in reference to the electorate which voted either Tory or Labour at the last GE, this figure has been widely quoted in the media.

I understood that and it is a good indeed knock-down response  to the claim that parliament would represent the will of the people on this issue just because of the general election after the brexit vote

By coincidence the vote in parliament for holding the referendum was also an 85 % majority which is what my post was about.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

What will be the question in the proposed "People's Vote"?

 

 

No deal or stay in the EU.

 

The deal she's got is all she'll get as a transitional agreement. EU are done negotiating. If it gets beaten in parliament it's no deal or staying in.

[Boris]

1 minute ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I don't think a Pam's faith comes into it anymore - if that's what you're getting at.

 

Imo he doesn't want to be PM.

 

Blair is an RC, iirc, and when IDS was leader of the Tories, had he become PM he is also an RC.

 

 

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

The UK is fractured over this issue and it’s not a clean fracture either. There are splinters within parties as there are in the electorate. Even going back to the people won’t be easy as discussed yesterday. Even in my mind I’m unsure of the best outcome. I have a selfish view that as I spend and will spend more time in future in Tenerife the current set up suits me fine. However I don’t like the way we are governed by in some cases unelected people from the EU amongst other things. So when I look at it staying ultimately suits me just fine. 

And that is where the problems lie imo, selfish wants are the stumbling block and there are lots of them. 

 

Can you give an example of this?  Genuine question!

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, Adam Murray said:

Kate Hoey's take on the 'hard border'

 

https://labourlist.org/2018/11/kate-hoey-i-wont-vote-for-a-brexit-deal-that-panders-to-the-irish-governments-hypocrisy/

 

She's right about the EU using this to back UK into a corner.

 

But no one is going to put in a hard border. 

[Shanks said no]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

Blair is an RC, iirc, and when IDS was leader of the Tories, had he become PM he is also an RC.

 

 

Blair didn’t come out until leaving office and IDC wasn’t in government advicing HM

 

and before it’s raised Disraeli was not a Jew, he had anglicised 

[Boris]

Just now, The Frenchman Returns said:

Blair didn’t come out until leaving office and IDC wasn’t in government advicing HM

 

and before it’s raised Disraeli was not a Jew, he had anglicised 

 

But IDS might have!  And he was also leader of the opposition and same rules may have applied?  I think this is linked to the Act of Succession? But has since been repealed?  or Amended regards religious scrutiny?

[Shanks said no]

4 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

But IDS might have!  And he was also leader of the opposition and same rules may have applied?  I think this is linked to the Act of Succession? But has since been repealed?  or Amended regards religious scrutiny?

He would have had to recuse himself from some cabinet matters, you are right it is permitted but there are constitutional issues (such as archbishop selection) and for example the Lord Chancellor cannot be one.

 

i’m not agreeing that in this day and age that it’s right but on matters where the PM is advising HM or selecting her ministers it does cause issues. The opposition less so as they wield no real power

Edited November 16, 2018 by The Frenchman Returns

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

He would have had to recuse himself from some cabinet matters, you are right it is permitted but there are constitutional issues (such as archbishop selection) and for example the Lord Chancellor cannot be one.

 

i’m not agreeing that in this day and age that it’s right but on matters where the PM is advising HM or selecting her ministers it does cause issues. The opposition less so as they wield no real power

 

Re Archbishops, what would Gordon Brown have done, for example?  He's CoS not CoE.  Barmy!

[Brighton Jambo]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

When the actual realities of the agreement are set out it might be harder to oppose. 

 

I'm still struggling to grasp the actual objections/ alternatives. 

This is where I am, when I heard May laying out everything that's in the deal I actually thought it sounded pretty good. 

[Don Dan]

7 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Can you give an example of this?  Genuine question!

 

Imo The EU's law making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws, in secret, to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises or so it appears. (Not much different to the UK in some ways,!) The EU Commision It is led by  President Jean-Claude Juncker and the College of Commissioners, a group of 28 unelected politicians. We in the UK have very little say in how this operates as we are/were only one of the 28. The Commission has two main roles,  to devise policies and to run the day-to-day business of the EU. If a country disagrees with a particular policy, being only one voice amongst the 28 it’s often very difficult to avoid an unwanted policy being imposed especially if it’s not suitable for that country. 

 

[Francis Albert]

19 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

No deal or stay in the EU.

 

The deal she's got is all she'll get as a transitional agreement. EU are done negotiating. If it gets beaten in parliament it's no deal or staying in.

Neatly splitting the leave vote with the remain vote undivided, leaving a clear run for remain.

The same would apply if it was this deal or remain, which would also split the leave vote.

The only fair vote respecting the first vote  would be this deal or no deal.

The remainers early argument post the first vote was about opposing a hard Brexit with the implication that a soft Brexit could be acceptable.

Now a soft Brexit option is available they are going for straightforward remain, what they wanted all along.

 

Oh but of course everyone "respects" the first vote, as they (except maybe the Lib Dems) said in the general election.

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

This is where I am, when I heard May laying out everything that's in the deal I actually thought it sounded pretty good. 

When I read the details I too was surprised that it seemed not unreasonable. The reaction of Mogg and his Hard Brexit mates ( I suspect before they had even read it) had led me to believe it was a meek surrender to the EU that binds us forever to accepting EU rules. It isn't and it doesn't.

As posted earlier even  the once ultra-remainer Daily Mail thought it was a reasonable way forward.

[Sidelight]

40 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

The UK is fractured over this issue and it’s not a clean fracture either. There are splinters within parties as there are in the electorate. Even going back to the people won’t be easy as discussed yesterday. Even in my mind I’m unsure of the best outcome. I have a selfish view that as I spend and will spend more time in future in Tenerife the current set up suits me fine. However I don’t like the way we are governed by in some cases unelected people from the EU amongst other things. So when I look at it staying ultimately suits me just fine. 

And that is where the problems lie imo, selfish wants are the stumbling block and there are lots of them. 

Strong independent nations are a good thing.

But not so for the global elites.

Tower of Babel et al.

EEC fine, but not a European Super State, with European Army.

That's what's in line and Britain will be part. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by alfajambo

[Jambo-Jimbo]

41 minutes ago, Boris said:

82.4% in total, going by wikipedias General election 2017 page.

 

So still a overwhelming majority of the electorate who voted for parties which didn't openly campaign for remaining within the EU at the last GE.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

42 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I understood that and it is a good indeed knock-down response  to the claim that parliament would represent the will of the people on this issue just because of the general election after the brexit vote

By coincidence the vote in parliament for holding the referendum was also an 85 % majority which is what my post was about.

 

No offence intended. ?

 

Wasn't aware that 85% of MP's etc etc.

[Boris]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

So still a overwhelming majority of the electorate who voted for parties which didn't openly campaign for remaining within the EU at the last GE.

 

True.  I can't remember what these parties lines were regards Brexit and what deal/outcome they wanted.

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

True.  I can't remember what these parties lines were regards Brexit and what deal/outcome they wanted.

 

"Respect the vote" was about it 

[scott herbertson]

15 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

"Respect the vote" was about it 

 

 

Yep - neither campaigned for remain or even a second referendum (Lib Dems went for the second chance option)

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

12 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

True.  I can't remember what these parties lines were regards Brexit and what deal/outcome they wanted.

 

IIRC pretty much along these lines.

 

Tories - Would deliver the will of the people and leave the EU.

Labour - Respect the vote, negotiate a better deal than the Tories would for leaving the EU.

Lib Dems - Remain in the EU.

 

So it could be said that there has already been a so called 'people's vote' and the electorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU.

If people wanted to stay in the EU, the Lib Dems offered that option, the electorate choose not to take it.

 

OK that was over a year ago and lots have happened since then, but the fact remains that if people wanted to remain in the EU they could have voted for the Lib Dems, and whilst they did see an increase in their share of the vote, it wasn't anything near like they had hoped for.

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

IIRC pretty much along these lines.

 

Tories - Would deliver the will of the people and leave the EU.

Labour - Respect the vote, negotiate a better deal than the Tories would for leaving the EU.

Lib Dems - Remain in the EU.

 

So it could be said that there has already been a so called 'people's vote' and the electorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU.

If people wanted to stay in the EU, the Lib Dems offered that option, the electorate choose not to take it.

 

OK that was over a year ago and lots have happened since then, but the fact remains that if people wanted to remain in the EU they could have voted for the Lib Dems, and whilst they did see an increase in their share of the vote, it wasn't anything near like they had hoped for.

 

Not in Scotland!  But we don't count...

 

And not in Northern Ireland, yet, ironically, the fate of this lies in the (red) hands of the DUP!

[Victorian]

Attourney General tipped to be the next Brexit Spokesman... sorry,   Secretary.

 

Hoorah!!!    An expert lawyer to help navigate the treacherous waters of EU law.

 

But... he's "not an expert in EU law".

 

 

Why is he the Attourney General then?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

12 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Not in Scotland!  But we don't count...

 

And not in Northern Ireland, yet, ironically, the fate of this lies in the (red) hands of the DUP!

 

True, but that's been like that for, well since the year dot.

[Victorian]

In other legal news,    the government are attempting to subvert Scottish legal proceedures by getting the UK Supreme Court to review the Court of Session's submission to the ECJ regarding whether or not MPs can halt Brexit.

 

An abuse of the Supreme Court and it's functions.    

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Attourney General tipped to be the next Brexit Spokesman... sorry,   Secretary.

 

Hoorah!!!    An expert lawyer to help navigate the treacherous waters of EU law.

 

But... he's "not an expert in EU law".

 

 

Why is he the Attourney General then?

 

That's why they (he) have advisors. Just like being Brexit Secretary. Thats not saying the advice he would get would be correct though as many politicians have found out in the past.

[ri Alban]

9 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

True, but that's been like that for, well since the year dot.

Do u think it's alright to give NI special treatment, but feck Scotland? If they can stay in the Single market so can we. Regardless of borders. Once folk cross into NI they can go anywhere. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Do u think it's alright to give NI special treatment, but feck Scotland? If they can stay in the Single market so can we. Regardless of borders. Once folk cross into NI they can go anywhere. 

 

This 'deal' ain't going to get passed.

[Thunderstruck]

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

In other legal news,    the government are attempting to subvert Scottish legal proceedures by getting the UK Supreme Court to review the Court of Session's submission to the ECJ regarding whether or not MPs can halt Brexit.

 

An abuse of the Supreme Court and it's functions.    

 

Isn't, in the first instance, the competency of the ‘attempt’ or whether it amounts to ‘abuse’ a matter for the Supreme Court to decide upon?

 

 

 

[...a bit disco]

23 minutes ago, Victorian said:

In other legal news,    the government are attempting to subvert Scottish legal proceedures by getting the UK Supreme Court to review the Court of Session's submission to the ECJ regarding whether or not MPs can halt Brexit.

 

An abuse of the Supreme Court and it's functions.    

 

They've been fighting the **** out of this case since day one.

 

Scared of the consequences of the result?

 

As Henry, the mild mannered janitor, once stated, "Could be".

[Doogz]

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

 

They've been fighting the **** out of this case since day one.

 

Scared of the consequences of the result?

 

As Henry, the mild mannered janitor, once stated, "Could be".

Penry

[Victorian]

19 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Isn't, in the first instance, the competency of the ‘attempt’ or whether it amounts to ‘abuse’ a matter for the Supreme Court to decide upon?

 

 

 

 

It's being challenged by the government via the Supreme Court for very obvious,  acutely political motives.    That's an abuse of the courts.    The courts are not a political tool.

[Victorian]

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

 

They've been fighting the **** out of this case since day one.

 

Scared of the consequences of the result?

 

As Henry, the mild mannered janitor, once stated, "Could be".

 

There should be no fear of the decision.    It could potentially empower parliament to properly handle the Brexit process.     Parliament is sovereign we are told.

[...a bit disco]

Nick Eardley‏Verified account @nickeardleybbc 7m7 minutes ago

Hearing pro-Brexit ministers are trying to convene a meeting this weekend to discuss concerns over PM's deal. Leadsom, Fox, Mourdant, Grayling and Gove involved a source says. They are "sticking with it to get is in the right place". Main concern remains backstop.

[Victorian]

It seems to involve some tinkering with the wording of the backstop arrangements.    Nothing substantial.    Nothing that will make a blind bit of difference to anything or in the commons vote.     Doing something to justify themselves whilst not achieving a damn thing.