Jump to content

Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )


jumpship

Recommended Posts

Governor Tarkin
5 hours ago, Lee_Mellon said:

Fair? I don’t think Remain voters in those constituencies would necessarily agree. Just collateral damage?

 

Correct.

Collateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    1494

  • ri Alban

    1425

  • Cade

    1385

  • Victorian

    1348

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

David Buik saying Scottish courts are not the real deal and Scots law is different and Mickey mouse. The presenter not having any of it.

A total fud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
9 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Petty, but fair.

 

9 hours ago, Lee_Mellon said:

Fair? I don’t think Remain voters in those constituencies would necessarily agree. Just collateral damage?

It is very petty. 

I'm quite sure the 62% up here aren't ecstatic at what's coming our way. 

 

Sadly it's where we are now. Most people can see this whole thing for what it is, but sadly a lot of people want to press on regardless. We probably need to let them.

 

It's a bit like dealing with a toddler trying to do something you know will hurt them and end in tears. Regardless of how many times you say no, they still keep trying to do it. 

Sometimes the hard lesson is the only way to ensure they don't do it again.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defence Minister on BBC Breakfast saying
"We are breaking up form a 40 year relationship
No one said it's going to be easy"
:rofl:

Remember this No Deal approach is a deliberate choice and will be the background for our starting point for the exact same negotiation with the EU as we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A still redacted Yellowhammer report published and folk STILL advocating a no deal Brexit  :facepalm:

Aye ‘Britain’ voted to leave! Brexit means Brexit :vrface:  

 

Anyway, I cant get my head round why electricity would go up? Do we not produce our own electricity with wind and Nuclear and some coal/gas in the UK? 

Unless we are importing coal/gas for this purpose and tariffs mean an increase, how else will it cost more? Will the wind become more expensive? I dont understand. 

Edited by Pans Jambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think there is almost zero chance of civil war. 

Yes, but serious civil unrest in almost inevitable in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SE16 3LN said:

Yes, but serious civil unrest in almost inevitable in my opinion.

Aye riots, medicine & food shortages, injuries, loss of life and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs but I am sure it’ll all be worth it in the end

:jj_facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Defence Minister on BBC Breakfast saying
"We are breaking up form a 40 year relationship
No one said it's going to be easy"
:rofl:

Remember this No Deal approach is a deliberate choice and will be the background for our starting point for the exact same negotiation with the EU as we have now.

 

No-one. Well, apart from Liam Fox, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

A still redacted Yellowhammer report published and folk STILL advocating a no deal Brexit  :facepalm:

Aye ‘Britain’ voted to leave! Brexit means Brexit :vrface:  

 

Anyway, I can get my head round why electricity would go up? Do we not produce our own electricity with wind and Nuclear and some coal/gas in the UK? 

Unless we are importing coal/gas for this purpose and tariffs mean an increase, how else will it cost more? Will the wind become more expensive? I dont understand. 

 

For what it's worth, the redacted part supposedly says petrol exports to the EU will become unprofitable due to tariffs.

 

I can see why they'd want to keep that on the down low.

 

Edit: Here's the paragraph from the leaked version that's in the public domain.

EENPzwBXkAErihh?format=jpg&name=900x900

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EENMELsXoAI9U3u?format=png&name=900x900
I look at this document, written by the government, and think back on all the posts in this thread smugly dismissing real, genuine, legitimate concerns about Brexit as "Project Fear".

 

The human capacity for self-delusion is honestly astonishing. In the words of someone else, now that you know what you've voted for, it's okay to change your mind--it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

EENMELsXoAI9U3u?format=png&name=900x900
I look at this document, written by the government, and think back on all the posts in this thread smugly dismissing real, genuine, legitimate concerns about Brexit as "Project Fear".

 

The human capacity for self-delusion is honestly astonishing. In the words of someone else, now that you know what you've voted for, it's okay to change your mind--it really is.

But but but...I dont want all those Poles taking our jobs!!!

And the laws, the EU laws I dont want to obey anymore!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rudy T said:

 

Would he have said it if they’d up held the original decision.. no he wouldn’t!

It’s getting embarrassing now how much they’re trying to cover up this farce. Do they really think we’re that stupid!

 

I wonder if he was on TV bumping his gums about the public losing their faith in the impartiality of the judiciary when the English court reached its decision last week. Would be interesting to know. In any case, his comments last night were disgraceful.

 

Yesterday's events have once again demonstrated clearly that the hard right-wing tendency in the Tory party - the arch-defenders of the Union - don't really much enjoy seeing the institutions of that Union work as they're supposed to unless they do the government's bidding. To the extent that they're actually aware of these institutions, that is.

 

Is there any UK political party - and I include the SNP - more intent on the break-up of the UK than the Tories?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

EENMELsXoAI9U3u?format=png&name=900x900
I look at this document, written by the government, and think back on all the posts in this thread smugly dismissing real, genuine, legitimate concerns about Brexit as "Project Fear".

 

The human capacity for self-delusion is honestly astonishing. In the words of someone else, now that you know what you've voted for, it's okay to change your mind--it really is.

What beggars even more belief is that despite this empirical evidence that it's going to be a monumental cluster **** the halfwits are not even close to having their 'light-bulb' moment, in fact they're doubling down and pushing even harder for this no-dea exit.

 

Where do you have to be in your life where that is even remotely close to being a good idea? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

What beggars even more belief is that despite this empirical evidence that it's going to be a monumental cluster **** the halfwits are not even close to having their 'light-bulb' moment, in fact they're doubling down and pushing even harder for this no-dea exit.

 

Where do you have to be in your life where that is even remotely close to being a good idea? 

 

Because the gains are great for the rich.

 

Low tax free trade market economy with reduced employment rights etc etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
12 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Farage, Cameron, Boris & Mogg etc deserve a prison sentence IMO. 

Lying snake oil salesmen. Disgusting. 

Cameron campaigned passionately against leaving.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leginten said:

 

I wonder if he was on TV bumping his gums about the public losing their faith in the impartiality of the judiciary when the English court reached its decision last week. Would be interesting to know. In any case, his comments last night were disgraceful.

 

Yesterday's events have once again demonstrated clearly that the hard right-wing tendency in the Tory party - the arch-defenders of the Union - don't really much enjoy seeing the institutions of that Union work as they're supposed to unless they do the government's bidding. To the extent that they're actually aware of these institutions, that is.

 

Is there any UK political party - and I include the SNP - more intent on the break-up of the UK than the Tories?

 

 

 

It's not that they're into the union, we're the last bastion of empire. They're not interested in our institutions except as tools of control. 

 

Just now, Brighton Jambo said:

Cameron campaigned passionately against leaving.   

 

:laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

It's not that they're into the union, we're the last bastion of empire. They're not interested in our institutions except as tools of control. 

 

 

:laugh:

He did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
Just now, Smithee said:

 

Semantics, he's at least as responsible for this utter cluster**** as any of the others named.

He offered a referendum on a topic that nearly the whole House of Parliament then voted to ratify.  

 

I agree that is has been an absolute total cluster**** and this is why a simple yes/no referendum is a bad idea.  Based on what we now know there is no way that Scotland should be granted a second referendum given all the facts of what might happen are not known.  

 

given your views on Cameron I know that you will totally agree with me that granting a referendum that millions of people want is a bad bad idea.  So no to indyref2 from you right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

He offered a referendum on a topic that nearly the whole House of Parliament then voted to ratify.  

 

I agree that is has been an absolute total cluster**** and this is why a simple yes/no referendum is a bad idea.  Based on what we now know there is no way that Scotland should be granted a second referendum given all the facts of what might happen are not known.  

 

given your views on Cameron I know that you will totally agree with me that granting a referendum that millions of people want is a bad bad idea.  So no to indyref2 from you right? 

 

If 1% of the British public being concerned about EU membership before the radical anti-EU wing in the Tory party got their referendum is "millions of people", then bash on I guess. Either way, stop deflecting, it's embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
Just now, Justin Z said:

 

If 1% of the British public being concerned about EU membership before the radical anti-EU wing in the Tory party got their referendum is "millions of people", then bash on I guess. Either way, stop deflecting, it's embarrassing.

Nonsense you are wrong as usual.

 

in 2015 3.8m people voted for UKIP.  

 

I think BJ, Rees Moggg etc are disgusting and am not deflecting from the Tories failings.  I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of independence voters desperately wanting a second referendum but slaughtering Cameron for granting one on a topic that MILLIONs of people wanted. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

He offered a referendum on a topic that nearly the whole House of Parliament then voted to ratify.  

 

I agree that is has been an absolute total cluster**** and this is why a simple yes/no referendum is a bad idea.  Based on what we now know there is no way that Scotland should be granted a second referendum given all the facts of what might happen are not known.  

 

given your views on Cameron I know that you will totally agree with me that granting a referendum that millions of people want is a bad bad idea.  So no to indyref2 from you right? 

 

Please don't assume my thoughts. 

 

I don't like poorly thought through or poorly administered anything in government.

A seismic change like this needs justified by a high percentage turn out and a greater majority than 51-49.

 

Something so vague also needs to be revisited by a confirmatory referendum - the first one is effectively Do you want X, Y, Z? The second one is This is the reality of what X, Y, Z actually involves - do you still want it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Please don't assume my thoughts. 

 

I don't like poorly thought through or poorly administered anything in government.

A seismic change like this needs justified by a high percentage turn out and a greater majority than 51-49.

 

Something so vague also needs to be revisited by a confirmatory referendum - the first one is effectively Do you want X, Y, Z? The second one is This is the reality of what X, Y, Z actually involves - do you still want it?

 

I agree with you and I hope that if there is a second independence referendum that thinking is applied to ensure we don’t find ourselves in a similar situation to what we are seeing now with Brexit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brighton Jambo said:

I agree with you and I hope that if there is a second independence referendum that thinking is applied to ensure we don’t find ourselves in a similar situation to what we are seeing now with Brexit.  

 

Sound, but pretty irrelevant to this thread.

 

I say again, Cameron is at least as responsible for this ****ing mess as Farage, Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Nonsense you are wrong as usual.

 

in 2015 3.8m people voted for UKIP.  

 

I think BJ, Rees Moggg etc are disgusting and am not deflecting from the Tories failings.  I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of independence voters desperately wanting a second referendum but slaughtering Cameron for granting one on a topic that MILLIONs of people wanted. 

 

 


To be fair a large proportion of UKIP voters may have been persuaded by their policy of ending the transport of live animals for slaughter and CCTV on slaughterhouses


Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

But but but...I dont want all those Poles taking our jobs!!!

And the laws, the EU laws I dont want to obey anymore!!!!

 

I want my bananas to be curvy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Nonsense you are wrong as usual.

 

in 2015 3.8m people voted for UKIP.  

 

I think BJ, Rees Moggg etc are disgusting and am not deflecting from the Tories failings.  I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of independence voters desperately wanting a second referendum but slaughtering Cameron for granting one on a topic that MILLIONs of people wanted.

 

You've just been schooled by Smithee, but it hardly matters if 3.8 million people voted for UKIP in 2015, an election you may recall where Farage couldn't even keep his own comfortable seat, lmao. They got 600,000 votes in 2017 with zero seats--if voting for them was a vote for Brexiting, in the midst of the chaos following the Article 50 fiasco, how could that possibly be? The 1% listing EU membership as a concern in the poll, than is indisputable, and right as usual. :greggy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:


Nonsense you are wrong as usual.

 

in 2015 3.8m people voted for UKIP.  

 

I think BJ, Rees Moggg etc are disgusting and am not deflecting from the Tories failings.  I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of independence voters desperately wanting a second referendum but slaughtering Cameron for granting one on a topic that MILLIONs of people wanted. 

 

 


Just btw

Looks a long long way away from "clean break" "No deal"

Interesting to note that the 2015 UKIP Manifesto includes a commitment to
"Negotiate a bespoke UK-EU trade deal"

AGREEING BREXIT: THE OBJECTIVES
What do we wish to achieve from our negotiations with the
EU? Our objectives are clear:
Firstly, we will secure trade agreements with the EU, the 40
nations with trade agreements with the EU and other nations
of interest to us. As a G7 member, a leading world economy,
the fifth largest by GDP, this will be a rapid process in most
cases. Countries already trading with the EU will want to
continue seamless trade relationships; other world nations
will want to forge new trade alliances with the UK; and all
nations will find it easier to deal with the UK directly.
As a minimum, we will seek continued access on
free-trade terms to the EU’s single market. Our
custom is valuable to the EU now and will continue
to be so following Brexit.
Secondly, there will be a wide range of issues on which
we will want to continue to co-operate. These include
extradition treaties, cross-border intelligence, disaster
relief, accommodation of refugees, pan-EU healthcare
arrangements and various other cultural projects. We
will also maintain our membership of pan-European
institutions, such as the European Space Agency and the
European Medicines Agency.

Edited by RobboM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

Please don't assume my thoughts. 

 

I don't like poorly thought through or poorly administered anything in government.

A seismic change like this needs justified by a high percentage turn out and a greater majority than 51-49.

 

Something so vague also needs to be revisited by a confirmatory referendum - the first one is effectively Do you want X, Y, Z? The second one is This is the reality of what X, Y, Z actually involves - do you still want it?

 

A friend of mine works for a Conservative MP in England and I’ve been telling him this exact thing for weeks - I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to comprehend.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a bit ****ing fuming at the crass smears against the Court of Session.    Anonymous No10 souce plus that ***** Kwarteng.

 

Not that it is Scottish Court or Scottish law or Scottish judges or the fact that I'm Scottish,     it's just the rank arrogance that it is deemed to be legitimate to set people at odds with the judiciary.     Fair game to infer that Scottish court proceedings are preventing English democracy,   thus the implication of pitching Scotland against England in a truly warped way.

 

I have no vested interest in the judiciary but I recognise it's enshrined importance as an independent estate.    It is one of life's absolutes that it is truly independent of politics.      I take enormous exception to political gangsters attempting to suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnson

 

 "The High Court in England plainly agrees with us, but the Supreme Court will have to decide."

 

Well.... naw really.    The English High Court decided that the decision to prorogue was a matter for politics to decide and not for the court to rule on.     Very different to another court deciding that it could make a judgement regarding the legality.

 

Tell you what though,    it would be quite something for the Supreme Court to agree with the English High Court that the courts should not be involved.     That would seem to be problematic for the Court of Session's decision to make a legal judgement.       Would it not be more likely that the Supreme Court will determine the courts' role similarly to the Court of Session?     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

That's an eye opener for the leave lot surely?

This along with the EU's new laws on declaring your money off-shore makes it easy to understand the Tories motives. 

 

Shame Joe public have been suckered into it too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Johnson

 

 "The High Court in England plainly agrees with us, but the Supreme Court will have to decide."

 

Well.... naw really.    The English High Court decided that the decision to prorogue was a matter for politics to decide and not for the court to rule on.     Very different to another court deciding that it could make a judgement regarding the legality.

 

Tell you what though,    it would be quite something for the Supreme Court to agree with the English High Court that the courts should not be involved.     That would seem to be problematic for the Court of Session's decision to make a legal judgement.       Would it not be more likely that the Supreme Court will determine the courts' role similarly to the Court of Session?     

The thing that surprised me from the English court decision was it implies there is no role for Judical Review of the decision. Well what if Jeremy Corbyn's first act as PM, after kissing the Queen's ring 😉 , was to say "And Ma'am I think we'll prorogue for the next, let's say 4.5 years and it's a political decison so we can consider the text of our Queen's speech". Surely our protection here has to be legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RobboM said:

The thing that surprised me from the English court decision was it implies there is no role for Judical Review of the decision. Well what if Jeremy Corbyn's first act as PM, after kissing the Queen's ring 😉 , was to say "And Ma'am I think we'll prorogue for the next, let's say 4.5 years and it's a political decison so we can consider the text of our Queen's speech". Surely our protection here has to be legal?

 

Yes it does seem strange.    Perhaps even stranger that another court under a similar legal system did make a legal judgement.    

 

Personally speaking,    I just can't imagine the Court of Session making a judgement either way unless it was absolutely satisfied that it could,  should and must.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RobboM said:

The thing that surprised me from the English court decision was it implies there is no role for Judical Review of the decision. Well what if Jeremy Corbyn's first act as PM, after kissing the Queen's ring 😉 , was to say "And Ma'am I think we'll prorogue for the next, let's say 4.5 years and it's a political decison so we can consider the text of our Queen's speech". Surely our protection here has to be legal?

 

One of the arguments, perhaps, for the need for a proper written constitution. The fact that our constitution is a haphazard mix of tradition, customs and legal rulings, and that we are therefore susceptible to experience misuse such as the above, would be a convincing argument that the courts *have* to be able to have their input into situations like this. After all, if they don't have that right, who is going to step in and save unscrupulous folk in power from harming this country. The Queen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brighton Jambo said:

He did

 

If passionately is now defined as presenting it at the least shite option, then yes he campaigned passionately.

 

A large part of the reason the referendum result was in favour of Leave, is that no one really campaigned on the positives of EU membership, it was all about the negative consequences of leaving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Martin_T said:

 

If passionately is now defined as presenting it at the least shite option, then yes he campaigned passionately.

 

A large part of the reason the referendum result was in favour of Leave, is that no one really campaigned on the positives of EU membership, it was all about the negative consequences of leaving.

 

True. I know it's all a sunk cost now, but in my mind the main reason Remain lost was the Labour Party's half-hearted Remain campaign, fuelled primarily by Corbyn's personal Leave stance. With proper full-blooded positive campaigning by Labour for Remain, it should have been an easy win for them in the referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
33 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

True. I know it's all a sunk cost now, but in my mind the main reason Remain lost was the Labour Party's half-hearted Remain campaign, fuelled primarily by Corbyn's personal Leave stance. With proper full-blooded positive campaigning by Labour for Remain, it should have been an easy win for them in the referendum.

That was similar to the point I was trying to make.  I distinctly remember Cameron in a live TV debate arguing we should stay.  Corbyn a life long eurosceptic was no where to be seen.  

 

But that view won’t land with the ‘all Tories evil, never labours fault’ brigade on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

You've just been schooled by Smithee, but it hardly matters if 3.8 million people voted for UKIP in 2015, an election you may recall where Farage couldn't even keep his own comfortable seat, lmao. They got 600,000 votes in 2017 with zero seats--if voting for them was a vote for Brexiting, in the midst of the chaos following the Article 50 fiasco, how could that possibly be? The 1% listing EU membership as a concern in the poll, than is indisputable, and right as usual. :greggy:

I’m not sure if you are being serious?  

 

The reason people didn’t vote for them in big numbers in 2017 is that they had achieved the objective of having and winning a referendum to leave the EU.  

 

When in the 2019 EU elections, by which time the whole will we won’t we leave debate was in full swing, the brexit party came along and won millions of votes again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • davemclaren changed the title to Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...