Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Unknown user]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

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?

 

 

 

 

None of these are good enough reasons not to be really really sure we want to do this. It's a huge thing to undertake and no one could seriously argue that the landscape hasn't changed since the initial referendum. 

Me, I don't actually particularly want another referendum, I just want the whole process stopped. If a referendum was needed to do that then fair enough, but I think this is a terrible idea. Don't get me wrong, I accept what's happening, I'm not getting the screaming abdabs at it, but in my opinion this is a really stupid idea. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Smithee

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

None of these are good enough reasons not to be really really sure we want to do this. It's a huge thing to undertake and no one could seriously argue that the landscape hasn't changed since the initial referendum. 

Me, I don't actually particularly want another referendum, I just want the whole process stopped. If a referendum was needed to do that then fair enough, but I think this is a terrible idea. Don't get me wrong, I accept what's happening, I'm not getting the screaming and abdabs at it, but in my opinion this is a really stupid idea. 

Fair enough.

But to pursue the indyref analogy, a lot of people think Scottish Independence is a stupid idea and would like the idea to go away. 

I have no say on that but think the Scottish people should be free to pursue  it however many experts tell them it is "self harming".

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Fair enough.

But to pursue the indyref analogy, a lot of people think Scottish Independence is a stupid idea and would like the idea to go away. 

I have no say on that but think the Scottish people should be free to pursue  it however many experts tell them it is "self harming".

Yeah, but that's democracy for you. What I want to happen and what I know people are entitled to do aren't the same thing. 

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Yeah, but that's democracy for you. What I want to happen and what I know people are entitled to do aren't the same thing. 

I think we may be close to agreeing. I am not a fan of referendums either. Leaving the EU should have been based on a party campaigning on a Brexit platform, and having enough votes in parliament to secure it. 

Similarly Scottish independence should be a devolved matter (consistent with the principle that as in the indyref it is a matter for Scots only) and a party campaigning for independence forming a Holyrood Government securing a majority in parliament for independence should be enough. (Whether the SNP would have enjoyed as much success at Holyrood in this scenario is highly debatable).

In both cases the government concerned should clearly negotiate the terms before putting it to the respective parliament.

Referenda are simplistic tools invariably used by those with self or party interest at heart . 

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I think we may be close to agreeing. I am not a fan of referendums either. Leaving the EU should have been based on a party campaigning on a Brexit platform, and having enough votes in parliament to secure it. 

Similarly Scottish independence should be a devolved matter (consistent with the principle that as in the indyref it is a matter for Scots only) and a party campaigning for independence forming a Holyrood Government securing a majority in parliament for independence should be enough. (Whether the SNP would have enjoyed as much success at Holyrood in this scenario is highly debatable).

In both cases the government concerned should clearly negotiate the terms before putting it to the respective parliament.

Referenda are simplistic tools invariably used by those with self or party interest at heart . 

I can't argue with much there

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

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

Doesn't seem to bother you when it's Nicola Sturgeon. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by ri Alban

[SE16 3LN]

7 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Bloomberg's summary of BoE report

 

 

It's all project fear though.

Its worse case scenario financial planning, but don't let the truth get in the way of project fear though.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, SE16 3LN said:

Its worse case scenario financial planning, but don't let the truth get in the way of project fear though.

 

It's Remain supporting Parliament that forced the release of these papers which would otherwise have been private documents used to plan by Bank of England. 

[SE16 3LN]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's Remain supporting Parliament that forced the release of these papers which would otherwise have been private documents used to plan by Bank of England. 

They've been doing it every year for decades mate, a long time before Brexit. The hysteria is a joke. From a personal point of view, if you ain't got nothing you've got nothing to lose. Hold on, who's serving the beer in London pubs... aaaaaaargh

[The Continental Op]

4 hours 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.   

Have the debate in the ******* House of Commons then

[The Mighty Thor]

5 hours 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. 

Perhaps a way to look at this would be that the last great financial correction in 2008 was a shift in GDP of less than 2%. I think we all know how that played out and indeed we have until very recently been living through the austerity to rebalance that 2% drop. 

Fancy going round again at 2,3,4 or 8% on a roll of the dice, just to settle some internal political grudge or indeed to satisfy the misconception of racist and xenophobic little Englanders?

 

Nah me neither.

[The Mighty Thor]

36 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Its worse case scenario financial planning, but don't let the truth get in the way of project fear though.

I wish this government had some worst case planning in place. They haven't. We've got 4 months left and it's deal or no deal with May holding an empty box and the banker sitting with an IOU for 39 billion. 

Project fear is rapidly becoming project fact.

[Francis Albert]

23 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Perhaps a way to look at this would be that the last great financial correction in 2008 was a shift in GDP of less than 2%. I think we all know how that played out and indeed we have until very recently been living through the austerity to rebalance that 2% drop. 

Fancy going round again at 2,3,4 or 8% on a roll of the dice, just to settle some internal political grudge or indeed to satisfy the misconception of racist and xenophobic little Englanders?

 

Nah me neither.

You are not remotely comparing like with like. The 2% or thereabouts was the ansolute reduction in GDP in one year. The impact of the recession compared to what GDP growth over time would have been in the ansence of recession was far higher than the 2,3,4 or 8% you quote. The best efforts Project fear has been able to come up with   show an impact on GDP growth far lower than the 2008 "financial correction". The 15 year forecast of the impact of May vs Remain , consisting of lower not negative growth, doesn't even total two years of actual GDP absolute decline post 2008. Even a no deal leave vs remain does not come close to the long trrm impact of 2008.

 

 

. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Francis Albert

[SE16 3LN]

17 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I wish this government had some worst case planning in place. They haven't. We've got 4 months left and it's deal or no deal with May holding an empty box and the banker sitting with an IOU for 39 billion. 

Project fear is rapidly becoming project fact.

In truth, you're not wrong.

[Cade]

Run-up to Referendum:
MPs from almost every Westminster party create a variety of Leave campaigns.

Left-wing and right-wing cases to leave the EU are made.

Tory and UKIP run campaigns shout the loudest and get the most airtime.

Brexit becomes associated with their right wing version of the future.

 

Referendum day:

Brexit wins.

Cameron runs away. Tory in-fighting begins immediately.

Labour collectively crap their pants and go silent for months.

Farage fecks off to rim Trump and spout pish on the radio.

 

After Tory leadership contest:

Instead of forming a cross-party national convention on Brexit in order to work out what we as a nation want and how to make it work before starting the leaving process, Treeza triggers article 50 as soon as she can, without consulting Parliament, her own party or even anybody in her Cabinet.

 

Negotiations begin:

Tory in-fighting continues.

Soft brexiters within the Tory are increasingly sidelined and odious turds like Boris and Rees-Mogg get increasing airtime.

Brexit moves idealogically more to the right.
Labour are still silent.

 

Negotiations stall:

Minister after minister resigns or is fired.

Nobody has a clue what they are doing.

A small cabal of hardcore cliff-edge Brexiters has almost total control of the narrative.
Labour are still silent.

 

Deal breakthrough(?):

Ignoring all previous negotiations to this point, Treeza dreams up a deal with the EU all on her own and rams it down the necks of the hardcore Brexiters.

More ministers resign, including the Brexit minister.

The deal has almost no chance of getting through the UK Parliament, never mind the EU Parliament.
Labour make some confused mewling noises.

 

So we started with cross-political, cross-party arguments that leaving the EU may perhaps be a good thing to pursue, to one party taking ownership of the process, to a small faction within that party taking control of it and ending up with the PM taking control of it personally, with no chance of anything actually being agreed.

 

 

[Cruyff Turn]

I’ve noticed they are trying to remove all debate surrounding this deal with project fear once again. The BBC, the biggest culprits in Mays propaganda tour to get this deal passed. What a joke if it does pass. The fact is, it isn’t this deal or nothing, there is a myriad of options yet they are relentlessly pushing this. 

[Mikey1874]

Not totally sure if this is the Labour favoured option 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Not totally sure if this is the Labour favoured option 

 

 

You are not sure what the Labour position is? Neither is Labour.

[Francis Albert]

31 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

I’ve noticed they are trying to remove all debate surrounding this deal with project fear once again. The BBC, the biggest culprits in Mays propaganda tour to get this deal passed. What a joke if it does pass. The fact is, it isn’t this deal or nothing, there is a myriad of options yet they are relentlessly pushing this. 

What are just a few of these myriad options?

[Cruyff Turn]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What are just a few of these myriad options?

Staying in the EU. Norway deal ETA, Canada deal, no deal, another Referendum, or, a General Election. 

 

Yes, there are options. 

 

I’d also add there are no doubt other deals possible but due to the awful negotiating on the U.K. govts part and their one party autocratic approach, they have well and truly ****ed things up and have tried to fudge something together in a desperate attempt to look competent. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Cruyff Turn

[manaliveits105]

Why would Krankie think she should be at the debate - she isn’t even a real MP 

[Victorian]

Seems to me that the so-called TV debate will be engineered to exclude the remain or remain in the single market options,    concentrating on a straight fight between the deal (with threat of no deal) versus vote the deal down and geez a general election.

 

An engineered,  manipulated debate for the sole purpose of generating a nationwide public opinion poll to suit the agenda of May.    To pressurise and scare MPs into voting for a deal that they don't want.

 

The public are not getting a further opportunity to provide an up to date say on whether we should remain.    It probably wont even get an option of expressing that wish in a poll.

 

This is not democracy.     

Edited November 29, 2018 by Victorian

[AlimOzturk]

5 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Why would Krankie think she should be at the debate - she isn’t even a real MP 

 

She's the first minister of Scotland and the leader of the third largest party in the UK. 

 

Think she has a right to be in the TV debate 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

She's the first minister of Scotland and the leader of the third largest party in the UK. 

 

Think she has a right to be in the TV debate 

 

A party with a distinctly different strategy to the Tories and Labour.     

 

A decent compromise would be to represent the views of the other parties by including Caroline Lucas of the Greens.      She would decimate May in a debate.

[AlimOzturk]

50 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

A party with a distinctly different strategy to the Tories and Labour.     

 

A decent compromise would be to represent the views of the other parties by including Caroline Lucas of the Greens.      She would decimate May in a debate.

 

May won't face Sturgeon or anyone with a degree of talent for debating as should would get roasted. Corbyn is easy bait for her. 

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

Why would Krankie think she should be at the debate - she isn’t even a real MP 

I presume you mean our First Minister. At least she's not a warmongering, Brit establishment, hypocritical, foolhardy Boris Johnson type. Know what I mean guv'nor? 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Roxy Hearts

[pablo]

 

Why would Krankie be involved in a nationalTV debate and not Sadiq Khan for example? 

 

If she wants a TV debate, she should have one with Mundell or Davidson.

 

Any First Minister of Scotland should be nowhere near reserved matters.

Edited November 29, 2018 by pablo

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

She's the first minister of Scotland and the leader of the third largest party in the UK. 

 

Think she has a right to be in the TV debate 

 

So would UKIP, the 4 main Northern Irish parties, Lib Dems, Greens.

 

I would also say should be 2 from each of Labour and Tories- a Remain Labour and Brexiteer Tory

 

So that's 11.

 

How would that debate work? 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Mikey1874

[AlimOzturk]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

So would UKIP, the 4 main Northern Irish parties, Lib Dems, Greens.

 

I would also say should be 2 from each of Labour and Tories- a Remain Labour and Brexiteer Tory

 

So that's 11.

 

How would that debate work? 

 

It is about each country being represented. Wales would be represented by Corbyn as Labour are the their largest party.  Arlene foster should be there as the first minister of Ireland and DUP being in coalition with the Tories. And of course Sturgeon. 

[Roxy Hearts]

26 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Why would Krankie be involved in a nationalTV debate and not Sadiq Khan for example? 

 

If she wants a TV debate, she should have one with Mundell or Davidson.

 

Any First Minister of Scotland should be nowhere near reserved matters.

She represents Scotland in the UK. The second most powerful job in government. Grow up. 

[Mikey1874]

Farage should be there as well

 

And I forgot the Alliance Party in N.Ireland 

 

So that's 13

 

Probably should have someone from EU and Ireland too re border issue.

 

So that's 15.

 

90 minutes - 6 minutes each 

[Cade]

Why would Fromage be there?

 

He's not even in UKIP any more.

 

Just a private citizen who bumps his gums on radio.

[Francis Albert]

19 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

She represents Scotland in the UK. The second most powerful job in government. Grow up. 

That may well be Nicola's estimation. In fact she represents 10% of the UK in relation to certain devolved matters, the UK's membership of the EU not being one.

[Mikey1874]

14 minutes ago, Cade said:

Why would Fromage be there?

 

He's not even in UKIP any more.

 

Just a private citizen who bumps his gums on radio.

Made it happen 

 

Also is one of the few who can discuss the issues plainly using accessible language

 

I do think it should be Corbyn v May as they are the only 2 capable of making a deal happen 

 

But if people are suggesting someone from Scotland who is not even an MP...

Edited November 29, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Roxy Hearts]

13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

That may well be Nicola's estimation. In fact she represents 10% of the UK in relation to certain devolved matters, the UK's membership of the EU not being one.

Better together said equals partners and all that. Ah well back in our box. 

[Victorian]

Nobody even said Sturgeon should be there.     It could just as easily be Blackford if people are incapable of hearing the SNP position unless it's from an MP.       

 

Too many participants probably detracts from a debate on this single issue,   but all viewpoints should be represented.      The SNP, LD, PC and Greens are reasonably close in position so could easily be represented by one person.    Caroline Lucas is perfect as a sensible,  intelligent, articulate person.     Vince Cable would also suit as a better known figure who represents a party of larger vote share.

 

If certainly doesn't need to be the SNP.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Victorian

[pablo]

33 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

She represents Scotland in the UK. The second most powerful job in government. Grow up. 

 

The First Minister heads up the Scottish Government. Their responsibility is to govern us on the matters that Westminster has devolved to it. Mind, the ones that the current one is quite shite at. Anyway, the withdrawal of a member state from the EU isn't one.

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Nobody even said Sturgeon should be there.     It could just as easily be Blackford if people are incapable of hearing the SNP position unless it's from an MP.       

 

Too many participants probably detracts from a debate on this single issue,   but all viewpoints should be represented.      The SNP, LD, PC and Greens are reasonably close in position so could easily be represented by one person.    Caroline Lucas is perfect as a sensible,  intelligent, articulate person.     Vince Cable would also suit as a better known figure who represents a party of larger vote share.

 

If certainly doesn't need to be the SNP.

 

 

 

SDLP and Sinn Fein one person too?

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, pablo said:

 

The First Minister heads up the Scottish Government. Their responsibility is to govern us on the matters that Westminster has devolved to it. Mind, the ones that the current one is quite shite at. Anyway, the withdrawal of a member state from the EU isn't one.

 

Incorrect.     The SNP represent Scottish voters in the UK parliament.     Sturgeon is party leader and has oversight over the entire party at every level of government and local authorities.    

 

Her job is not limited to Holyrood matters.      That's just really ignorant.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

SDLP and Sinn Fein one person too?

 

I was really talking about the main Brexit viewpoints.

 

Deal.  No deal.  Different deal.  Election.  Referendum.  Remain.

 

May will represent deal and effectively no deal.  Corbyn is different deal, election, possibly referendum.    There should be a remain message.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Should get Cameron back in then as well going by your thinking.

 

Farage is a 7 time failed parliamentary candidate, and has had enough TV exposure over the years.  It's the shameless promotion by the BBC et al. that created the current mess that we're in.

 

My thinking is May and Corbyn only. I would also prefer a committed Brexiteer but they haven't exactly got their act together.

 

But if people say SNP or Scottish government should be represented I'm listing all the others.

 

Certainly Sinn Fein and the SDLP, Greens, UKIP etc etc would have as much right to be there too.

 

That is too many people. 

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

I was really talking about the main Brexit viewpoints.

 

Deal.  No deal.  Different deal.  Election.  Referendum.  Remain.

 

May will represent deal and effectively no deal.  Corbyn is different deal, election, possibly referendum.    There should be a remain message.

 

Fair point

[pablo]

7 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

So, no voice, no representation, Scotland is to get back into its box and wait for instructions?

 

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Incorrect.     The SNP represent Scottish voters in the UK parliament.     Sturgeon is party leader and has oversight over the entire party at every level of government and local authorities.    

 

Her job is not limited to Holyrood matters.      That's just really ignorant.

 

Her job as SNP party leader or her job as First Minister? If Ruth Davidson was First Minister, I wouldn't expect her to represent Scottish Tory voters in this. The UK is leaving the EU. I'm comfortable with no MSPs being involved in National TV debates.

Edited November 29, 2018 by pablo

[Victorian]

Just now, pablo said:

 

 

Her job as SNP party leader or her job as First Minister. If Ruth Davidson was First Minister, I wouldn't expect her to represent Scottish Tory voters in this. The UK is leaving the EU. I'm comfortable with no MSPs being involved in National TV debates.

 

Same with Davidson.   She has oversight over Scottish seat MPs.   

 

You can't split Sturgeon into two jobs.    She is party leader and still has party responsibility over Brexit.

 

But there is no absolute necessity for the SNP to be there.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

I think Sturgeon nailed it when she asked what the point of the debate was if the two participants shared the same stance.

 

If its May vs Corbyn only, then there's no point to it.

 

I agree that numbers could overwhelm it but the major parties in Westminster should be represented.

May and Corbyn do not share at all the same stance on the upcoming Commons vote. Which is what the debate is about.

[pablo]

2 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Ludicrous position to take Pablo.  You're effectively stating that the wishes of 62% of the electorate should now be ignored.

 

Sorry, you've lost me with the 62% tbh.

 

I'm totally in agreement with you, and Victorian,  in that there should be a fair representation of the different stances towards the December 11th vote, and what could happen next. 

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Fundamentally, it's two individuals that now share the same stance arguing over something that they want a slightly different variation  of.  Is Corbyn's heart going to be in it?

 

It's a pointless exercise.

 

Corbyn's heart is very much in it.

 

The aim is very much to take advantage of Tory splits over Europe and win power

[Francis Albert]

22 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Fundamentally, it's two individuals that now share the same stance arguing over something that they want a slightly different variation  of.  Is Corbyn's heart going to be in it?

 

It's a pointless exercise.

Not for Corbyn. He wants May to lose the commons vote. He wants a general election. He wants to be Prime Minister. He knows his 6 tests will never be acceptable to the EU and he wants the freedom that membership of the EU would deny him for creating his vision of a Socialist paradise in the UK. I don't think that he shares that stance with May. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Francis Albert

[The Mighty Thor]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

You are not remotely comparing like with like. The 2% or thereabouts was the ansolute reduction in GDP in one year. The impact of the recession compared to what GDP growth over time would have been in the ansence of recession was far higher than the 2,3,4 or 8% you quote. The best efforts Project fear has been able to come up with   show an impact on GDP growth far lower than the 2008 "financial correction". The 15 year forecast of the impact of May vs Remain , consisting of lower not negative growth, doesn't even total two years of actual GDP absolute decline post 2008. Even a no deal leave vs remain does not come close to the long trrm impact of 2008.

 

 

. 

Yes FA the reduction in one year was around 2%. What the BOE are forecasting in a no deal cliff edge Brexit is at the minimum another similar shock or indeed a worse one.

This time however it's not a global shockwave where banks were supported, markets maintained, currencies protected. This time it's the UK only, a weak market and most likely speculators tearing the pound apart. 

Like you say it's not like for like.

You can argue the % points but I suspect the BOE aren't far off the mark with the scenarios they have been running. 

It's also worth remembering there's no fiscal upside here at all, it's all about levels of decline and shrinkage, by everyone's modelling including the UK government.

Less brown faces though ?

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Probably should have someone from EU and Ireland too re border issue.

 

 

The Irish Border is alive and well on Twitter.  After years of dividing Ireland it's now enjoying dividing the Conservative Party and the House of Commons.