Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[SwindonJambo]

54 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

Very true. 

 

The name calling is absolutely tragic and sums up the mentality of some people. Probably the type of person that has a flag in their Twitter handle. 

You're right but it's equally distributed on both sides. Personal abuse does not make an argument. 

[luckydug]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

According to that prick who owns Wetherspoons, all countries will deliver goods to England for free. Well not really, but that's how these twats with too much airtime, try to bam folk up 

He's started leaving pro-brexit propaganda on the tables in his pubs.

I take great pleasure in using them to steady the rocky tables ☺.

Seriously it's wrong that he should be forcing his staff to promote a political agenda on his customers.

I hope it costs him business.

[Victorian]

Labour is going through the sequence of steps that was agreed at conference.    The confidence motion is one step, it will fail,   but the next is to consider any other options,  including a referendum.    Lots of Labour MPs are about to add their weight to it so Corbyn will probably soon adopt this as well.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Victorian

[Bindy Badgy]

30 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

You're right but it's equally distributed on both sides. Personal abuse does not make an argument. 

 

There's certainly idiots on both sides but I think that saying it is equally distributed is debatable. The Daily Mail and similar papers have referred to people that people that don't behave in the way they want as 'traitors'. As far as I'm aware, pro-EU papers haven't engaged in similar rhetoric. Similarly, most of the incendiary abuse, such as calling people Nazis, appears to have come from people on the Leave side. I'm fully aware that I am biased when it comes to this issue so it may be selective memory on my part.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

18 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Corbyn could constantly call for no confidence vote comtinously to gridlock parliament if he wants. It would probably be successful in getting the GE he graves, but would risk posing off electorate by putting party before country.

 

i just don’t see a GE materialising or sorting anything.

 

A labour MP was on the TV this morning saying something very similar, that they could bring no confidence vote after no confidence vote.

 

I agree that a GE would probably solve nothing, indeed it could make things worse.

 

Corbyn says that a GE would give the country clarity and a Labour government the mandate the country needs, but that's only true if they won by an overwhelming majority, and I just don't see that happening, so if that were the case, all a GE could achieve is to replace one minority government with another minority government, and parliament would still be the same mess it is right now.

[SE16 3LN]

May has been an absolute disaster, is easily the worst PM in the history of parliamentary democracy and still running around pretending she's right. Sadly her party will back her tonight. I think what summed up her approach was the ten minute phone call to three key TU leaders last week, begging them to influence the vote of labour MP's. 2 years too late Theresa. The TU's, business leaders and all interested groups should have been consulted/involved 2 years ago. A ten minute phone call FFS.

 

The EU have ****ed this up as much as the Tory party in all honesty. Threatening a policy that might precipitate a return to violence in NI is about as scummy a negotiating tool as you could get. Sadly many residents of the UK thought that was OK. Lying about the UK's contribution to the EU by 500% and pretending that half the young people of the Euro zone hadn't ****ed off to the UK looking for work when the Euro Zone crashed didn't help. It looks like they will be facing the consequences of their lies in not much more than two months time.

 

The only choice now is between buying more time and looking for another solution via a general election or 2nd referendum. Neither of them fills me with hope and unless May stands aside,  will probably fail. I'm inclined to believe we will get a drunk and disorderly come spring.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

May and the Government had and took responsibility to agree the deal to leave the EU.

 

It's them that has failed dismally. 

[DETTY29]

32 minutes ago, Stokesy said:

 

There's certainly idiots on both sides but I think that saying it is equally distributed is debatable. The Daily Mail and similar papers have referred to people that people that don't behave in the way they want as 'traitors'. As far as I'm aware, pro-EU papers haven't engaged in similar rhetoric. Similarly, most of the incendiary abuse, such as calling people Nazis, appears to have come from people on the Leave side. I'm fully aware that I am biased when it comes to this issue so it may be selective memory on my part.

The majority voted to leave the EU with UK laws for UK people.

 

It was an absolute disgrace that the supreme court judges were branded traitors by the press, and got away with it.  They were the exact opposite.

 

I believe in press freedom, but by god it's a disgrace so few if any of them ever end up in jail.

 

Thenagain, if our laws don't permit them to be incarcerated, then so be it.   Jyst need to change the laws.  Not that any of the parliamentary parties would put that in their mandate.  Press to valuabke for them.

[Boris]

Shamelessly pinched from FB

 

[Nookie Bear]

15 minutes ago, Boris said:

Shamelessly pinched from FB

 

 

That was a genuine lol his morning ?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Stokesy said:

 

There's certainly idiots on both sides but I think that saying it is equally distributed is debatable. The Daily Mail and similar papers have referred to people that people that don't behave in the way they want as 'traitors'. As far as I'm aware, pro-EU papers haven't engaged in similar rhetoric. Similarly, most of the incendiary abuse, such as calling people Nazis, appears to have come from people on the Leave side. I'm fully aware that I am biased when it comes to this issue so it may be selective memory on my part.

My memory may also be selective but I certainly remember Brexiters being described as thick racists and Nazis.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

It was in the news, jake.  The European Court of Justice analysed the Article and said there was nothing to stop a Member State from cancelling its invocation of Article 50 and the EU itself could not overrule that if it happened.

 

Clever people, the Court.

My understanding is that the Court said that  UK can unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notice. (I am not clear whether that is appealable if it actually happens) Presumably if the UK did withdraw its Article 50 notice d it would have the right to submit a new Article 50 notice and start the whole process from the beginning. I can't see there being much appetite for that.

The EU might agree (I think it needs all 27 to agree) to defer the deadline for agreement under the existing Article 50 notice.

Either way the UK would be negotiating, after last night, in the same way the Monty Python knights were fighting, with all limbs removed.

It looks to me like No Deal or Remain and so I think Remainers are pretty  much home and dry.

 

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, luckydug said:

He's started leaving pro-brexit propaganda on the tables in his pubs.

I take great pleasure in using them to steady the rocky tables ☺.

Seriously it's wrong that he should be forcing his staff to promote a political agenda on his customers.

I hope it costs him business.

The magazine distributed in Witherspoons was editorially pro- Brexit but the 6 or more pages of content in each edition was pro-and anti- Brexit in fairly equal measure. Politicians, economists and business leaders gave independent and differing views. It was far less one-sided than the Guardian or (in its old Paul Dacre incarnation) the Mail.

In the Guardian the word Brexit now rarely appears without the attached word "disaster" (despite its opinion is free but facts are sacred tag line) , while under its new editor the Mail attacks the hard line Brexiters in terms Dacre employed for high court judges and Remainer MPs.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

 

In the Guardian the word Brexit now rarely appears without the attached word "disaster" (despite its opinion is free but facts are sacred tag line) 

 

Perhaps those are opinion pieces you are reading?  The Guardian seems full of them these days.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

May and the Government had and took responsibility to agree the deal to leave the EU.

 

It's them that has failed dismally. 

 

Agreed, the first mistake amongst many was the Tories not setting up a cross-party negotiating committee, and thus present and show to the EU a parliament which would have been much more united than what is currently.  This would have resulted in a much better deal imo, and one which would have passed.

 

But more importantly I genuinely believe that a cross-party committee would have helped to bring not only parliament but the country together, because it would have united the more centre ground supporters on either side and forced the loonies from both the left & right back to the fringes where they once belonged.

 

[John Findlay]

16 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Agreed, the first mistake amongst many was the Tories not setting up a cross-party negotiating committee, and thus present and show to the EU a parliament which would have been much more united than what is currently.  This would have resulted in a much better deal imo, and one which would have passed.

 

But more importantly I genuinely believe that a cross-party committee would have helped to bring not only parliament but the country together, because it would have united the more centre ground supporters on either side and forced the loonies from both the left & right back to the fringes where they once belonged.

 

That could only have been done if all other parties agreed to it. They didn't as self interest by all parties was put first.

[DETTY29]

Out of interest, with the EU referendum being an 'advisory' vote could someone go to the Supreme Court and seek that it's not binding and the whole process should be reset?  This time changed to a binding outcome?

 

Or has all this been superseded by various bills passed by the House and / or the Tory & Labour manifestos at the last election?

[Francis Albert]

36 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Perhaps those are opinion pieces you are reading?  The Guardian seems full of them these days.

Opinion and reporting. 

[Mikey1874]

39 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Agreed, the first mistake amongst many was the Tories not setting up a cross-party negotiating committee, and thus present and show to the EU a parliament which would have been much more united than what is currently.  This would have resulted in a much better deal imo, and one which would have passed.

 

But more importantly I genuinely believe that a cross-party committee would have helped to bring not only parliament but the country together, because it would have united the more centre ground supporters on either side and forced the loonies from both the left & right back to the fringes where they once belonged.

 

 

Maybe what will need to happen now. 

 

But May still probably hoping the only realistic alternative is her Deal to avoid No Deal. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

That could only have been done if all other parties agreed to it. They didn't as self interest by all parties was put first.

 

Sadly very true, and it's something which I hope people will remember next time at the ballot box.

 

Tbh, listening to many MP's it is clear many don't give a shit about or what their constituents want or voted for, all they care about is preserving their own personal gravy train.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

Maybe what will need to happen now. 

 

But May still probably hoping the only realistic alternative is her Deal to avoid No Deal. 

 

In the interests of the country, i'd like to see it, but I think there are far to many MP's who are putting their own self interests, be that political or financial interests ahead of the country's interests.

[Victorian]

Scottish and Welsh FMs both saying that they spoke to May and that she is not moving at all from her red lines.     Sturgeon says May appears to have no other idea of what comes next.

 

Hmmm... if only those red lines could be removed.    Just imagine the wonderful, magical possibilities that could appear.

 

So... no movement or compromise from May.      Just incredibly stubborn and deluded.    Out of touch with reality.    

 

Or... unable to move the red lines because that means Tory civil war and a certain split.      The Tory Party is still the prime consideration here and **** the country.

[hughesie27]

We expecting this to basically be a win for May by 10 or so votes tonight?

Edited January 16, 2019 by hughesie27

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

We expecting this to basically be a win for my by 10 or so votes tonight?

 

Yes a cast iron win on house lines.     

[Seymour M Hersh]

47 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

That could only have been done if all other parties agreed to it. They didn't as self interest by all parties was put first.

 

Very true. Labour in particular have put party before country throughout the brexit process. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

May has basically said this government won’t revoke article 50. Now as with any politician her words don’t mean all that much but......

 

Her stance basically seems to be to agree some form of deal, how the **** does she hope to achieve that. 

 

Also interestingly seems to be tories will reach out to labour but not the labour front bench. 

 

Parliament passed with an overwhelming majority the Article 50 act to begin a two year process. It passed the withdrawal act, both of these in the knowledge that if no deal was agreed we would leave without a deal. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

May has basically said this government won’t revoke article 50. Now as with any politician her words don’t mean all that much but......

 

Her stance basically seems to be to agree some form of deal, how the **** does she hope to achieve that. 

 

Also interestingly seems to be tories will reach out to labour but not the labour front bench. 

 

It's a transparent tactic.    Trying to gain some support but also cause a split in the Labour Party for political,  election game playing reasons.

[Mikey1874]

9 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Very true. Labour in particular have put party before country throughout the brexit process. 

 

They have. They want a General Election to take over as the government.

 

But how could Labour have produced a different Brexit deal? Corbyn has at least tried to ensure Brexit happens by holding off demands from his party members for a second referendum. 

 

May has controlled the process since she became Prime Minister. 

[Victorian]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

They have. They want a General Election to take over as the government.

 

But how could Labour have produced a different Brexit deal? Corbyn has at least tried to ensure Brexit happens by holding off demands from his party members for a second referendum. 

 

May has controlled the process since she became Prime Minister. 

 

The Tory red lines prefaced the negotiations and the result was based on them.   Labour would not have the same red lines therefore an entirely different outcome is possible.    The EU have said as much.

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

‘Fairer to our farmers and fishers’ seems to be her new catchphrase.

 

If there was a general election. Would the tories have TM as leader?

 

The Tories failed to change leader in their challenge and they can't challenge her till Dec 2019. They need to support a motion of no confidence today or next week to change their leader. 

[Mikey1874]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

The Tory red lines prefaced the negotiations and the result was based on them.   Labour would not have the same red lines therefore an entirely different outcome is possible.    The EU have said as much.

 

So how could Labour have got a deal agreed? They are not the government. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

They have. They want a General Election to take over as the government.

 

But how could Labour have produced a different Brexit deal? Corbyn has at least tried to ensure Brexit happens by holding off demands from his party members for a second referendum. 

 

May has controlled the process since she became Prime Minister. 

 

There's only about 70 of them calling for a 2nd referendum. If you looked at Labours 5 red lines or whatever they called the list they would never ever have been acceptable to the EU. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

So how could Labour have got a deal agreed? They are not the government. 

 

If they were I mean.   

[Cade]

Parliament did indeed vote for invoking Article 50.

It has also voted to block No Deal and May's Deal.

 

Brexit has been full of chaos and contradictions from the very start.

 

Nobody knows what they want or how to get it, and only know to block what everybody else wants.

It's a total shambles.

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

There's only about 70 of them calling for a 2nd referendum. If you looked at Labours 5 red lines or whatever they called the list they would never ever have been acceptable to the EU. 

 

70% of Labour members 

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

There's only about 70 of them calling for a 2nd referendum. If you looked at Labours 5 red lines or whatever they called the list they would never ever have been acceptable to the EU. 

Corbyn's 6 tests. Totally different from red lines. Apparently...

[Mikey1874]

7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

If they were I mean.   

 

Yeah. Just all these peoplè saying Corbyn or Labour hasn't done enough. I get the point about not being a strong enough opposition. But not sure what more they could have done on the Brexit deal.

 

Aside from inflicting the biggest defeat on a government in history. Albeit May did that all by herself. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Boris]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

We expecting this to basically be a win for May by 10 or so votes tonight?

 

Tory + DUP = 328 seats (I think)

 

650 MPs, although 7 Sinn Fein members don't show, so majority required is 322, assuming I got my sums right.

 

So aa majority of about 6 I'd say

[tian447]

I'm lost with what is actually going on, and it seems like a large number of politicians are also in the same boat.

 

72 days left to sort it out  

[Thunderstruck]

47 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Corbyn's 6 tests. Totally different from red lines. Apparently...

 

If he is also ruling out No Deal and abandoning Brexit, what extra leverage in negotiating a deal, over and above that available to May, does he expect to have with Juncker whose sole ambition is to reverse Brexit.

 

Juncker does have ‘previous’ in forcing electorates to keep voting until ‘they get it right’ or, as in the case of France, the legislature overrules the popular will. He expects to do the same here.

 

It is looking more and more like a second referendum is in the cards. That should suit Juncker unless, of course, the electorate continues to vote the wrong way. What then, a third referendum?

 

If a second referendum is held and it falls after the EU Elections, it will be interesting to see if the anticipated rise of of Hard Right in that forum will impact significantly on the outcome. 

[Francis Albert]

Not good at links but google "Corbyn's six tests" for a New Statesman article yesterday which comprehensively  demolishes the six tests, all vacuous and subjective except the one which demands that a deal should deliver exactly the same benefits as the customs union and common market provide. Something that could only be delivered by remaining.

[Justin Z]

 

"The easiest deal in history"

[redjambo]

18 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

OMG now that would be dramatic.. 

 

If they had all been in parliament for the customs union vote in July, and voted the way they would have been expected to, the vote would have been won 308-307 and the whole path of Brexit would have been altered as a result.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44864496

[hughesie27]

4 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Tory + DUP = 328 seats (I think)

 

650 MPs, although 7 Sinn Fein members don't show, so majority required is 322, assuming I got my sums right.

 

So aa majority of about 6 I'd say

Sinn Fein pricks

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

If he is also ruling out No Deal and abandoning Brexit, what extra leverage in negotiating a deal, over and above that available to May, does he expect to have with Juncker whose sole ambition is to reverse Brexit.

 

Juncker does have ‘previous’ in forcing electorates to keep voting until ‘they get it right’ or, as in the case of France, the legislature overrules the popular will. He expects to do the same here.

 

It is looking more and more like a second referendum is in the cards. That should suit Juncker unless, of course, the electorate continues to vote the wrong way. What then, a third referendum?

 

If a second referendum is held and it falls after the EU Elections, it will be interesting to see if the anticipated rise of of Hard Right in that forum will impact significantly on the outcome. 

As far as I can see the EU Parliament has little or no influence on the Brexit outcome.

[redjambo]

Personally I would organise another referendum, but instead of a naïve "In or Out?" question, I would pose various questions relating to the relationship with the EU:

 

. Do you want a customs union with the EU?

 

. Do you want a free-trade zone with the EU?

 

. Do you want freedom of movement between the UK and the EU?

 

. Do you want the EU Court of Justice to be the highest court in the UK legal system?

 

and so on...

 

I would then get both sides for each of those questions to put their arguments for and against, have these *strictly* fact-checked by independent sources, make that information available to the general public, and have the referendum.

 

Once the results were in, I would get the Government to go to the EU and say "Here's what the people want in detail. Now what we can do about it?".

 

It should never have been a straight In or Out question. That's what polarised this country and what caused all the shenanigans that we're now experiencing. We're trying to shoehorn a nuanced and complicated topic of discussion into simple black and white boxes. If you're going to trust the public, don't over-simplify things for them.

[redjambo]

8 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Sinn Fein pricks

 

They have been elected to represent their constituents and their views. The way things are going now, they are instead effectively empowering DUP policies by not acting as a break against the latter's tail-wagging-the-dog vote in parliament. I wouldn't go as far as calling them pricks, but I hope they are ashamed at what their inaction has done.

[Thunderstruck]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As far as I can see the EU Parliament has little or no influence on the Brexit outcome.

 

Sorry, I meant in terms of the public perception of the EU as a club to aspire to belong to. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Thunderstruck

[Cade]

Tory party won't get rid of May because nobody else actually really wants the top job.

We saw this when she easily won the in-party confidence vote.

 

Parliament can't get rid of the sitting Government due to infighting in the Labour party.

We'll see this later on when they easily win the confidence vote in the House.

 

But the sitting government can't get anything passed in the House due to total incompetence.

 

Funny old world.

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, redjambo said:

Personally I would organise another referendum, but instead of a naïve "In or Out?" question, I would pose various questions relating to the relationship with the EU:

 

. Do you want a customs union with the EU?

 

. Do you want a free-trade zone with the EU?

 

. Do you want freedom of movement between the UK and the EU?

 

. Do you want the EU Court of Justice to be the highest court in the UK legal system?

 

and so on...

 

I would then get both sides for each of those questions to put their arguments for and against, have these *strictly* fact-checked by independent sources, make that information available to the general public, and have the referendum.

 

Once the results were in, I would get the Government to go to the EU and say "Here's what the people want in detail. Now what we can do about it?".

 

It should never have been a straight In or Out question. That's what polarised this country and what caused all the shenanigans that we're now experiencing. We're trying to shoehorn a nuanced and complicated topic of discussion into simple black and white boxes. If you're going to trust the public, don't over-simplify things for them.

You would need to add a few dozen more questions. At least.  The EU is not there to meet the wishes of the UK electorate so the UK electorates wishes would have to be qualified by what the EU is prepared to accept. The referendum was a terrible idea. Negotiation by referenda is a worse one.