Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Mikey1874]

39 minutes ago, Cade said:

Hammond admits that the UK will be worse off whatever kind of Brexit is agreed.

 

 

 

The whole Brexit argument - same as independence is that is short term only as freedom allows better development and growth. 

 

Whether 'short term' is a year, 5 years, 20 years is another matter. 

[Victorian]

21 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Not how referendums work. Unfortunately can't just keep having them until the results come back the way you want them. 

 

As much as I would love this process to be halted It won't happen. Would be political suicide and a big two fingers up to democracy and the people that voted to leave. 

 

In a very narrow sense.    But there are exceptional circumstances surrounding this referendum that warrant having another one.

 

Unsatisfactory campaign during the last one.

Badly botched negotiations.

Political / public opinion impasse.

Known and accepted economic harm.

 

Are we just compelled to cause economic vandalism in order to uphold some notional sense of democratic dogma?

 

If explained carefully,   the case for a legitimate further vote is there to be made.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Victorian

[Boris]

26 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Not how referendums work. Unfortunately can't just keep having them until the results come back the way you want them. 

 

As much as I would love this process to be halted It won't happen. Would be political suicide and a big two fingers up to democracy and the people that voted to leave. 

 

But if there were another referendum and the majority voted to remain, why would remaining then be undemocratic?

[The Mighty Thor]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

In a very narrow sense.    But there are exceptional circumstances surrounding this referendum that warrant having another one.

 

Unsatisfactory campaign during the last one.

Badly botched negotiations.

Political / public opinion impasse.

Known and accepted economic harm.

 

Are we just compelled to cause economic vandalism in order to uphold some notional sense of democratic dogma?

 

If explained carefully,   the case for a legitimate further vote is there to be made.

Reasonable arguments which pale against the self interest groups and snouts in the trough, all cheerled by the BBC, mail, express, sun and resonating with the base instincts of swathes of easily led, intellectually challenged, racist and xenophobic little Englanders and the types that think Britannia rules anything other than her own accelerated demise.

 

 

 

[Victorian]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

Reasonable arguments which pale against the self interest groups and snouts in the trough, all cheerled by the BBC, mail, express, sun and resonating with the base instincts of swathes of easily led, intellectually challenged, racist and xenophobic little Englanders and the types that think Britannia rules anything other than her own accelerated demise.

 

 

 

 

Hence the sudden rush to get out amongst the public to sell the deal.

 

Parliament cannot be conned so she has to con the public.

[Mikey1874]

If Brexit is a disaster and badly impacts areas which voted Leave then presumably there would be demands to rejoin the EU. 

 

Which is another argument for a vote on the final deal before we leave. 

 

Again it isn't reasonable to leave without a full deal so everyone knows what is agreed. Currently it's just a stage. Leaving without knowing what it will look like because of the transition. 

 

That is completely unsatisfactory. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Unknown user]

38 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Not how referendums work. Unfortunately can't just keep having them until the results come back the way you want them. 

 

As much as I would love this process to be halted It won't happen. Would be political suicide and a big two fingers up to democracy and the people that voted to leave. 

 

It's not about referendums, it's about gauging public opinion, something that changes all the time.

If it legitimately appears that public opinion may have moved, why wouldn't you want to gauge that and react democratically to the will of the people?

[The Mighty Thor]

Shes an artisan at talking plenty while saying nothing

 

Dodge - she's only prepared to release an executive summary of the legal advice on her deal. 

 

Deflect - shitting herself from a full tv debate with anyone other than the weakest opposition leader in world politics 

 

 

 

[Cade]

Parliament planning to force through a binding vote to force the Government to publish their full legal advice.

 

Govt states that it will not do so, even in the face of a binding Commons vote.

 

Govt could be found in contempt of Parliament(!)

[Mikey1874]

11 minutes ago, Cade said:

Parliament planning to force through a binding vote to force the Government to publish their full legal advice.

 

Govt states that it will not do so, even in the face of a binding Commons vote.

 

Govt could be found in contempt of Parliament(!)

 

What then are they wanting to hide? 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

What then are they wanting to hide? 

 

It is said that the Attorney General explicitly advised that there was no way the UK could exit the backstop arrangements without being allowed to by the EU.      They're trying to hide it.

[JamboX2]

50 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

But if there were another referendum and the majority voted to remain, why would remaining then be undemocratic?

 

It wouldn't. In fact democracy can be the only legitimate means of undoing a previous democratic outcome.

 

The issue we face in this country is there is no need to have them. Other nations have them as a constitutional requirement. But we use them as a political fix. There in lies the issue. They are being used as a political fix than a democratic or legal necessity. And to that end we use them immaturely. 

 

No referendum held in the UK has ever been necessary. The first vote and early devolution votes were used as a means of doing controversial things in a minority parliament. The ones held by Labour and the coalition on constitutional changes were again unnecessary as these parties had been elected to do what they proposed. Now again we've had a political fix vote and another is mooted.

 

After this I'd argue we consign them to the dustbin or pass an Act regulating their usage very strictly like in Ireland.

Edited November 28, 2018 by JamboX2

[Mikey1874]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It is said that the Attorney General explicitly advised that there was no way the UK could exit the backstop arrangements without being allowed to by the EU.      They're trying to hide it.

 

Okay

 

Thought that was obvious anyway

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

But if there were another referendum and the majority voted to remain, why would remaining then be undemocratic?

 

I think the more pertinent question is if a second referendum brought a different result, why would anyone on the losing side accept it?

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

I think the more pertinent question is if a second referendum brought a different result, why would anyone on the losing side accept it?

 

Accepting the result doesn't mean giving up on the argument though.  Winners shouldn't expect losers to do so, and vice versa.

[Thunderstruck]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Reasonable arguments which pale against the self interest groups and snouts in the trough, all cheerled by the BBC, mail, express, sun and resonating with the base instincts of swathes of easily led, intellectually challenged, racist and xenophobic little Englanders and the types that think Britannia rules anything other than her own accelerated demise.

 

 

 

 

I’m sure everyone looks at things through the prism of their own prejudices but the BBC as pro-Leave. Really?

 

Perhaps that is a measure of its impartiality. 

 

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

59 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

I’m sure everyone looks at things through the prism of their own prejudices but the BBC as pro-Leave. Really?

 

Perhaps that is a measure of its impartiality. 

 

 

 

The BBC impartial? 

I know you like to stir the pot but that's a stretch even for you.

 

The BBC is far from impartial and the Brexit shambles has highlighted how poor a news reporting organisation it's become. 

You can't objectively say otherwise, whichever prism you chose to look through. 

[Cruyff Turn]

The Fraser of Allander institute seem to have got their predictions a couple of years back absolutely spot on about the damage this would do to Scotland, 9billion a year was their projection. That simply cannot be allowed to happen here. 

 

A 2nd Referendum is probably the only way forward now but it’s not without it’s problems. It it would be fecking hilarious if England votes to leave again and Scotland tips the balance to remain.  They’d be fecking fuming and it would further fan the  constitutional flames. 

[ri Alban]

33 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

The Fraser of Allander institute seem to have got their predictions a couple of years back absolutely spot on about the damage this would do to Scotland, 9billion a year was their projection. That simply cannot be allowed to happen here. 

 

A 2nd Referendum is probably the only way forward now but it’s not without it’s problems. It it would be fecking hilarious if England votes to leave again and Scotland tips the balance to remain.  They’d be fecking fuming and it would further fan the  constitutional flames. 

70 %  of Scotland would vote remain in euref2. 

[The Old Tolbooth]

[Thunderstruck]

41 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The BBC impartial? 

I know you like to stir the pot but that's a stretch even for you.

 

The BBC is far from impartial and the Brexit shambles has highlighted how poor a news reporting organisation it's become. 

You can't objectively say otherwise, whichever prism you chose to look through. 

 

If you are suggesting that the BBC is pro-Brexit, I must disagree. I am a ‘Remainer’ and would say that, if it leans in any direction, it is towards Remain. 

 

 

[Cruyff Turn]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

70 %  of Scotland would vote remain in euref2. 

Aye, read that. I think England would vote to leave again. Scotland remain by a bigger number, N.Ireland remain by a bigger number and Wales could be either. Might be enough to turn the tables and hold England against their will. They’d be spitting feathers. 

[The Old Tolbooth]

The difference is amazing between reality and what's portrayed, flawed to the bitter end for these parasites. 

 

[Cruyff Turn]

8 minutes ago, The Old Tolbooth said:

 

[ri Alban]

14 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Aye, read that. I think England would vote to leave again. Scotland remain by a bigger number, N.Ireland remain by a bigger number and Wales could be either. Might be enough to turn the tables and hold England against their will. They’d be spitting feathers. 

Who needs Indyref2.

[Thunderstruck]

33 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

70 %  of Scotland would vote remain in euref2. 

 

Does that suggest that the 400,000 SNP adherents who voted to Leave the EU might be changing their minds?

 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Does that suggest that the 400,000 SNP adherents who voted to Leave the EU might be changing their minds?

 

No, but maybe a million no voters changing theirs. 

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Does that suggest that the 400,000 SNP adherents who voted to Leave the EU might be changing their minds?

 

 

Maybe.    But then,   changing your mind is what realists sometimes do.     

 

There seems to be a climate of opposition to the very concept of changing your mind in this country.    Like it's some kind of heresy.    A lot of people appear to favour sticking to the same view or sticking with the previous result,   even in the face of compelling evidence of it's folly.     Often in the myopic,  dogmatic name of democratic integtity.

 

**** having a job.   Don't care if my house value tanks by 20%.    A referendum result was respected and that's what matters.     Just off to the food bank,   cheerio.   

[Seymour M Hersh]

6 hours ago, Cade said:

Parliament planning to force through a binding vote to force the Government to publish their full legal advice.

 

Govt states that it will not do so, even in the face of a binding Commons vote.

 

Govt could be found in contempt of Parliament(!)

 

Parliament is certainly in contempt of the electorate! 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes from me today in brig a weir, if I only knew. Witch! 

[Pans Jambo]

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

8 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Accepting the result doesn't mean giving up on the argument though.  Winners shouldn't expect losers to do so, and vice versa.

 

But don’t we go round in circles though?

[CJGJ]

If people were stupid enough to vote for a principle and not an agreement then they deserve everything they get

 

The real issue that those who did vote for Brexit are dragging the rest of us down with them and aligning us with idiots like Boris and co.

 

No sympathy for the 'poor' fishermen who thought they would get it good,  voted on mass to leave and now find things not quite what they imagined

If things proceed down the predicted route I'll await an apology from those leave voters who promised the world and delivered the moon instead

[Cade]

Japan on the verge of relaxing immigration laws to attract more outside workers to jump-start their stagnant economy.

 

[Boris]

55 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

But don’t we go round in circles though?

 

Thats politics!

[ri Alban]

The PM TM banned reporters from the National from her press conference. Pathetic. 

[The Mighty Thor]

Bloomberg's summary of BoE report

 

 

It's all project fear though.

[Mikey1874]

Politicians are wanting to talk about No Deal now.

 

May sticking to the vote on the Deal. 

[Francis Albert]

There is a lot of talk of a second "peoples vote" being in knowledge of the "facts". Since we don't know in any detail what the trading relationship will be after the transition period I think that is flawed.

But even leaving that aside , to take one "fact" presented in the BBC News last night, The Government forecast is that after 15 years UK GDP under the May deal will be 3.9% lower than if we remain. This was accompanied by an assertion as fact that "we would  be poorer".

Now you just have to think about the huge uncertainties about any forecast that far out - possible world wide financial crises, impact of a Corbyn government, collapse or break up of the Euro etc to be sceptical.

Then translate it into a 0.25% reduction in GDP per annum. The OECD has just increased its forecasts of GDP growth next year from 1.1% to 1.4%. Changes of forecast of GDP of the order of 0.25% or more within year are routine. Even retrospective changes of that order can occur. But a forecast over 15 years is presented as a fact..

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

There is a lot of talk of a second "peoples vote" being in knowledge of the "facts". Since we don't know in any detail what the trading relationship will be after the transition period I think that is flawed.

But even leaving that aside , to take one "fact" presented in the BBC News last night, The Government forecast is that after 15 years UK GDP under the May deal will be 3.9% lower than if we remain. This was accompanied by an assertion as fact that "we would  be poorer".

Now you just have to think about the huge uncertainties about any forecast that far out - possible world wide financial crises, impact of a Corbyn government, collapse or break up of the Euro etc to be sceptical.

Then translate it into a 0.25% reduction in GDP per annum. The OECD has just increased its forecasts of GDP growth next year from 1.1% to 1.4%. Changes of forecast of GDP of the order of 0.25% or more within year are routine. Even retrospective changes of that order can occur. But a forecast over 15 years is presented as a fact..

 

No matter how relevant or accurate you feel the information being presented is, when there's a decent argument that there's been an apparent shift in public opinion, why would we not want to check that out if the democratic will of the people really is the concern?

[Thunderstruck]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Bloomberg's summary of BoE report

 

 

It's all project fear though.

 

It is troubling and that is the aim but that has to be put against Mark Carney’s record in forecasting which is far from stellar. Remember his ‘immediate and profound’ shock to the U.K. economy that would follow the Leave vote?

 

The bottom line is we don’t know what will happen. Nobody does. That is what happens when you vote first and ask questions later. Proponents of a similar approach to any future Scottish referendum should take careful note. 

[...a bit disco]

[Mysterion]

27 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

It is troubling and that is the aim but that has to be put against Mark Carney’s record in forecasting which is far from stellar. Remember his ‘immediate and profound’ shock to the U.K. economy that would follow the Leave vote?

 

The bottom line is we don’t know what will happen. Nobody does. That is what happens when you vote first and ask questions later. Proponents of a similar approach to any future Scottish referendum should take careful note. 

 

Good point. 

I am not for Brexit but even I have doubts over the figures quoted would come to fruition. I don't think (for a start) that house prices will drop 30% (maybe 5-10%).

[Mysterion]

13 hours ago, CJGJ said:

If people were stupid enough to vote for a principle and not an agreement then they deserve everything they get

 

The real issue that those who did vote for Brexit are dragging the rest of us down with them and aligning us with idiots like Boris and co.

 

No sympathy for the 'poor' fishermen who thought they would get it good,  voted on mass to leave and now find things not quite what they imagined

If things proceed down the predicted route I'll await an apology from those leave voters who promised the world and delivered the moon instead

 

Even with an ideal outcome for fisherman (after Brexit) replacing billions from the services industries with fish is next level stupid. Quite incredible the country is getting fecked over for a shoal of haddock.

[Victorian]

May kyboshes any debates involvement for SNP, Plaid, LD and Greens,   stating that Con and Lab represent 90% of parliament.

 

Great.   No other ***** counts then.   

[Mikey1874]

Just now, Victorian said:

May kyboshes any debates involvement for SNP, Plaid, LD and Greens,   stating that Con and Lab represent 90% of parliament.

 

Great.   No other ***** counts then.   

 

I do think debates with lots of people become unwieldy and like "what was the point of that". 

 

I do think 3 with May, Corbyn and a  Brexiteer like Boris Johnson would allow the public to hear the main points. 

 

The Brexiteers need to get their act together. The way it's looking the Parliament debate and vote will be a face off between May's Deal and a Labour amendment asking Parliament to vote to block No Deal and pursue a meaningful option with all options on the table.  Labour are trying to take control of the process.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

No matter how relevant or accurate you feel the information being presented is, when there's a decent argument that there's been an apparent shift in public opinion, why would we not want to check that out if the democratic will of the people really is the concern?

I am not sure polls have yet shown a dramatic shift. And what if it shifts back again?

As has been said a scottish indyref will (and was) also be based on an absence of "facts". Will a yes vote also be revisited if public opinion shifts?

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

May kyboshes any debates involvement for SNP, Plaid, LD and Greens,   stating that Con and Lab represent 90% of parliament.

 

Great.   No other ***** counts then.   

Of course, her being torn a new one by several determined politicians who think she's an idiot is very different to a one on one with a guy of equally weak credibility.

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I do think debates with lots of people become unwieldy and like "what was the point of that". 

 

I do think 3 with May, Corbyn and a  Brexiteer like Boris Johnson would allow the public to hear the main points. 

 

The Brexiteers need to get their act together. The way it's looking the Parliament debate and vote will be a face off between May's Deal and a Labour amendment asking Parliament to vote to block No Deal and pursue a meaningful option with all options on the table.  Labour are trying to take control of the process.

 

What does all options on the table actually mean? Is a deal with the EU meeting Corbyn's 6 tests an option? Does even Corbyn believe so for one minute?

[Mikey1874]

Just now, Smithee said:

Of course, her being torn a new one by several determined politicians who think she's an idiot is very different to a one on one with a guy of equally weak credibility.

 

All the others will just confuse the issue. Ganging up on May would not be a debate.