Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[RobboM]

15 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

True. Although--idiocy, or just sheer, unbridled arrogance?

 

 

Doubt that, it's probably penalties in the contract. Then again, 50ps are 75% copper, so I guess anything's possible.

It's not like it is the first time we have gone past a Brexit date promised by aTory government. Why the **** wouldn't they adjust for that in the contract?

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Tories have realised Farage could feck them up. SNP to wipe them out in Scotland, Libdems to wipe them out in remain constituencies and London. Not so confident after all.

 

Yes

 

Opposition haven't played their game

 

Bercow's last stand too

[RobboM]

50 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Huh. I thought austerity was necessary because there's no money for anything.

 

I've looked on Jon Snow's twitter and can't find this tweet anywhere back to start of September

Fake News?

[RobboM]

From the FT article which also talks about the cancellation of the 50p it talks about the ferry contract. Really pisses me off. There's enough real shit news about Brexit without making up bullshit

https://www.ft.com/content/3c0e00fc-f73f-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654

The Department for Transport may also have to change its plans for a potential no-deal exit. Earlier this month, an £86.6m contract was signed for ferries in the event of such a departure. Four companies were commissioned to deliver extra capacity in order to secure vital medicines. Recommended Camilla Cavendish Now Britain has a deal in sight, what comes next? The Financial Times reported that the contract has a cancellation fee of £11.5m. The status of the contract has not currently changed; it is unknown whether the ferries will continue to be kept on hold while the government tries to pass Mr Johnson’s deal or hold a general election.

[ri Alban]

8 minutes ago, RobboM said:

I've looked on Jon Snow's twitter and can't find this tweet anywhere back to start of September

Fake News?

Did you read the Peter Foster one.

[RobboM]

8 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Did you read the Peter Foster one.

Aww ffs ri Alban!
That is ****ing brutal
Why can't that type of real news make it through though? Is it because of 50p bullshit and other nonsense?

[ri Alban]

7 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Aww ffs ri Alban!
That is ****ing brutal
Why can't that type of real news make it through though? Is it because of 50p bullshit and other nonsense?

You're not wrong!

[dobmisterdobster]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Tories have realised Farage could feck them up. SNP to wipe them out in Scotland, Libdems to wipe them out in remain constituencies and London. Not so confident after all.

Boris hasn't betrayed Brexiteers, I don't see why we would turn our backs on him.

[The Mighty Thor]

20 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Boris hasn't betrayed Brexiteers, I don't see why we would turn our backs on him.

Boris hasn't betrayed the Brexiteers?Depends on which flavour of Brexit you believe in. Ask the DUP  or the ERG once his shit deal is firstly dissected then amended to within an inch of its life. 

 

Farage's fantastical 'clean break' version will appeal to a lot of people, which may split the Brexit vote. 

[dobmisterdobster]

29 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Boris hasn't betrayed the Brexiteers?Depends on which flavour of Brexit you believe in. Ask the DUP  or the ERG once his shit deal is firstly dissected then amended to within an inch of its life. 

 

Farage's fantastical 'clean break' version will appeal to a lot of people, which may split the Brexit vote. 

Boris' deal is acceptable. Every Tory MP is on board including the ERG.

No Deal is not feasible or desirable and not worth risking a Labour-SNP coalition.

[RobboM]

45 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Boris' deal is acceptable. Every Tory MP is on board including the ERG.

No Deal is not feasible or desirable and not worth risking a Labour-SNP coalition.

You do realise that Boris's deal keeps No Deal on the table?

[gashauskis9]

Labour now calling themselves the only party committed to a People’s Vote, despite abstaining on it back in March.

 

I’ve said before, history will reflect very poorly on this Labour regime (they make Foot’s Labour Party of the late 70s/early 80s look good).  At least the SNP, Lib Dems and (forgive me) the Brexit Party have a stance to vote on and support.  I wouldn’t trust this Labour Party to put the right coloured bins out let alone hold a consistent view. 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Boris' deal is acceptable. Every Tory MP is on board including the ERG.

No Deal is not feasible or desirable and not worth risking a Labour-SNP coalition.

That's not true though is it. 

Not every tory mp is on board, just as they weren't on board with May's superior deal. 

 

No deal is still the desired destination for a huge swathe of the Tory/ERG group. 

[John Findlay]

38 minutes ago, Gashauskis9 said:

Labour now calling themselves the only party committed to a People’s Vote, despite abstaining on it back in March.

 

I’ve said before, history will reflect very poorly on this Labour regime (they make Foot’s Labour Party of the late 70s/early 80s look good).  At least the SNP, Lib Dems and (forgive me) the Brexit Party have a stance to vote on and support.  I wouldn’t trust this Labour Party to put the right coloured bins out let alone hold a consistent view. 

Foot was labour leader for the 1983 general election. Margaret Thatcher defeated a James Callaghan led Labour Party in the general election of May 1979. This was after the winter of discontent and Denis Healey the labour chancellor of the exchequer going cap in hand to the IMF. 

[gashauskis9]

10 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Foot was labour leader for the 1983 general election. Margaret Thatcher defeated a James Callaghan led Labour Party in the general election of May 1979. This was after the winter of discontent and Denis Healey the labour chancellor of the exchequer going cap in hand to the IMF. 

That’s what I was eluding to, the fact that the 1983 GE was an absolute abomination for them.

[jamb0_1874]

On 18/10/2019 at 07:27, ri Alban said:

Listen bud. We're all entitled to our beliefs. But please answer me this. Why is ok for England to take back control and not Scotland. Why is ok for a country 10 times the size of its partner, to have the sovereignty held at its parliament, have full control over its partner, for example freedom of movement, currency, and trade. But... No, no way that its bigger partner, which happens to be 10 times bigger than it, can have such things, no they can GTF? 

I don't really understand the second part of this question. However to answer your first question, it's because there was an agreement made a long time ago where the United Kingdom was born and all corners of the UK vote as one, so there is no Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland during this voting, we only have the UK and as such whatever is voted for by the majority of the UK is what is declared as the result. It's very similar to the agreements in place by the EU member countries. There are lots of examples of the smaller/weaker countries in the EU being shafted for the greater good of Germany, France and the UK. I guess the reality is the wee guys are always the guys that get trampled over to suit the bigger more powerful partners. 

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, jamb0_1874 said:

I don't really understand the second part of this question. However to answer your first question, it's because there was an agreement made a long time ago where the United Kingdom was born and all corners of the UK vote as one, so there is no Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland during this voting, we only have the UK and as such whatever is voted for by the majority of the UK is what is declared as the result. It's very similar to the agreements in place by the EU member countries. There are lots of examples of the smaller/weaker countries in the EU being shafted for the greater good of Germany, France and the UK. I guess the reality is the wee guys are always the guys that get trampled over to suit the bigger more powerful partners. 

But there is an England, it goes by the name of Britain to appease its people.

 

Oh and that agreement of 300 years ago. That was before one partner became 10 times the size of the other. How does that even happen?

Edited October 27, 2019 by ri Alban

[John Findlay]

52 minutes ago, Gashauskis9 said:

That’s what I was eluding to, the fact that the 1983 GE was an absolute abomination for them.

Opposing the Falklands War didn't help Foote.

[gashauskis9]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

Opposing the Falklands War didn't help Foote.

Indeed it didn’t.  The Falklands gave Maggie a longer premiership than most bargained for.

[jamb0_1874]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

But there is an England, it goes by the name of Britain to appease its people.

 

Oh and that agreement of 300 years ago. That was before one partner became 10 times the size of the other. How does that even happen?

 

So are you implying that its the English fault that Scotland's population is only five times the size it was when they signed the agreement, while the English population is now ten times it's size or that it was ok to sign the agreement when your partner was five times your size but now they are ten times bigger it's out of order. 

 

As for the lack of population growth, there are various answers to this but clearing vast areas of land to make way for sheep certainly didn't help the cause. Especially when the majority of the Scottish population lived in these areas. It's a dark stain on Scotland's history and definitely something to get worked up and angry about.

Edited October 27, 2019 by jamb0_1874

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Gashauskis9 said:

Labour now calling themselves the only party committed to a People’s Vote

 

Which they are. Well, them and the SNP. 

[gashauskis9]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Which they are. Well, them and the SNP. 

Why did they abstain then?

[shaun.lawson]

19 minutes ago, Gashauskis9 said:

Why did they abstain then?

 

Here's a statement from, ahem, the People's Vote campaign, regarding that vote.

 

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/today_s_debate_in_parliament

 

"We do not think today is the right time to test the will of the House on the case for a new public vote".

 

Oh, and beyond that...

 

 

So Labour have both tried to find a compromise protecting people's jobs, living and environmental standards AND tried to implement a second referendum on numerous occasions. In terms of UK-wide parties, the Tories want Brexit at all costs (including No Deal). The Lib Dems want Remain at all costs, meaning they're now against a 2nd referendum. Labour have guaranteed a 2nd referendum. 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, jamb0_1874 said:

 

So are you implying that its the English fault that Scotland's population is only five times the size it was when they signed the agreement, while the English population is now ten times it's size or that it was ok to sign the agreement when your partner was five times your size but now they are ten times bigger it's out of order. 

 

As for the lack of population growth, there are various answers to this but clearing vast areas of land to make way for sheep certainly didn't help the cause. Especially when the majority of the Scottish population lived in these areas. It's a dark stain on Scotland's history and definitely something to get worked up and angry about.

Successive London governments, Yes.

 

I didn't mention Wales btw. But since you have, they're 11x the size of Scotland. It wasn't right back then(60 years of riots) and now it's worse. But as I say, good on The UK for taking back the sovereignty they always had, but hey, we can sit down and shut it.

Edited October 28, 2019 by ri Alban

[The Real Maroonblood]

Extension granted Until 31st January 20.......

[Don Dan]

Now back to Boris et al. Still a bloody shambles as Brexit (if it happens) could be any day!!!!! 🤪 

[AlimOzturk]

10 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Here's a statement from, ahem, the People's Vote campaign, regarding that vote.

 

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/today_s_debate_in_parliament

 

"We do not think today is the right time to test the will of the House on the case for a new public vote".

 

Oh, and beyond that...

 

 

So Labour have both tried to find a compromise protecting people's jobs, living and environmental standards AND tried to implement a second referendum on numerous occasions. In terms of UK-wide parties, the Tories want Brexit at all costs (including No Deal). The Lib Dems want Remain at all costs, meaning they're now against a 2nd referendum. Labour have guaranteed a 2nd referendum. 

 

They have never stuck to one policy throughout Corbyns tenure. They have went back and forth more than an hooker giving a gammy. 

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

3 minutes ago, Barack said:

 

Now...let's see if the SNP & Lib Dems are going to go for a wee article tweak, & a GE on the 9th of December...

It’ll certainly be interesting today.

[The Real Maroonblood]

4 minutes ago, Barack said:

Don't really understand why 3 days makes a difference. Can't they just call for the same Bill, for the 12th of December, like Johnson has. Now the EU has agreed to a 3 month limit like they wanted?

 

Am I missing an article trigger?🤔

Hopefully the posters who have more knowledge on this than me will enlighten us.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

This is why I stick to USA politics nowadays.

 

Shit-show here. Comedy show there.

👍

[Cade]

Benn Act: Section 3, clause 1.

 

If the European council decides to agree an extension of the period in article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019 to the period ending at 11.00pm on 31 January 2020, the prime minister must, immediately after such a decision is made, notify the president of the European council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension.

 

[gjcc]

15 minutes ago, Cade said:

Benn Act: Section 3, clause 1.

 

If the European council decides to agree an extension of the period in article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019 to the period ending at 11.00pm on 31 January 2020, the prime minister must, immediately after such a decision is made, notify the president of the European council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension.

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Benn Act: Section 3, clause 1.

 

If the European council decides to agree an extension of the period in article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019 to the period ending at 11.00pm on 31 January 2020, the prime minister must, immediately after such a decision is made, notify the president of the European council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension.

 

[Cade]

2 hours ago, Barack said:

Don't really understand why 3 days makes a difference. Can't they just call for the same Bill, for the 12th of December, like Johnson has. Now the EU has agreed to a 3 month limit like they wanted?

 

Am I missing an article trigger?🤔

The 3 days matters because there has to be a five-week campaign period.

This means that if there was to be an election on the 9th, the vote must be held this week.

If it was the 12th, that would give the government another weekend of maneuvering before any vote.

[Cade]

5 minutes ago, Barack said:

Righty-o. Assumed it was something obvious/devious.

 

Cheers, Cade.

Also, parliament isn't sitting on friday this week and wednesday is reserved for the Grenfell report, so any vote would have to be tomorrow or thursday.

LibDems and SNP think they can use this to their advantage by having a confirmatory referendum added in return for voting for an election.

[frankblack]

46 minutes ago, Cade said:

Also, parliament isn't sitting on friday this week and wednesday is reserved for the Grenfell report, so any vote would have to be tomorrow or thursday.

LibDems and SNP think they can use this to their advantage by having a confirmatory referendum added in return for voting for an election.

 

Does that mean the SNP are going to accept a confirmatory referendum on Indy 2 as well if the government granted a first referendum?

 

Said it before but that would make the odds of winning Independence extremely remote if the severance deal negotiated from the UK was poor.  Look at where we are with Brexit.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

Does that mean the SNP are going to accept a confirmatory referendum on Indy 2 as well if the government granted a first referendum?

 

Said it before but that would make the odds of winning Independence extremely remote if the severance deal negotiated from the UK was poor.  Look at where we are with Brexit.

 

Why wouldn't they? As I've said before I'm not particularly SNP but they're not about ramming something through against democratic will, more about persuading people that we can do better.

[dobmisterdobster]

The so called "People's Vote" is dead in the water.

The official campaign group is collapsing through infighting.

Lib Dems have pretty much thrown in the towel and have opted for an election.

[ri Alban]

[Mikey1874]

Government has lost one of its supporters with John Mann joining House of Lords tomorrow. 

[Captain Sausage]

So are we having an election in December? Or has Corbyn shitting it caused this gridlock to continue?

[Cade]

1 minute ago, Captain Sausage said:

So are we having an election in December? Or has Corbyn shitting it caused this gridlock to continue?

Labour say they're abstaining, and if SNP and LibDems vote for an election along with the Tories, we'll have an election.

[Captain Sausage]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

Labour say they're abstaining, and if SNP and LibDems vote for an election along with the Tories, we'll have an election.

Cheers Cade. Always got your finger on the pulse!

[Cade]

Boris asked if he's actually going to stand in his own (shaky) constituency or parachute himself into a safe Tory seat.

 

Boris refuses to answer.

 

[Don Dan]

Election bid lost, despite 299 yes 70 No. all down to failing to meet the percentage required. What we doing New Years Eve? 

[Captain Sausage]

So election rejected. 
 

You simply cannot defend Corbyn, the utter charlatan. 
 

We need to unlock parliament, one way or another. His desperation to shaft the tories means we have more of this absolute chaos. 
 

Simply put - he clearly doesn’t back his own policies to do well enough. Coward. 
 

disclaimer - it goes without saying that Johnson and the Conservatives remain the  instigators of this shambles and are complete arseholes. 

[sadj]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

Election bid lost, despite 299 yes 70 No. all down to failing to meet the percentage required. What we doing New Years Eve? 

ushering in the decade of decimation and despair

[Pans Jambo]

Boris lost yet another vote again?

 

Dead in a ditch

 

Come what may

 

Shame. 

 

 

[Don Dan]

Just now, sadj said:

ushering in the decade of decimation and despair

you read my mind.

[Don Dan]

Posted at 19:0019:00

BREAKINGMPs reject early election motion

MPs have rejected Boris Johnson’s call for an early election on 12 December. 

299 MPs backed the motion for a snap poll, short of the two-thirds majority of 434 votes required for it to pass under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.