Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Bazzas right boot]

This tory government are a farce. 

Morg and the far right just want out the EU to avoid the new tax regulations, it's so obvious it's unbelievable that folk think it's about something else. 

 

May is a coward, she never taken part in any debates at the last GE, she bailed out the brexit debate and now cancels this vote. 

I actually think she's unwell, but as a leader she is a complete failure. 

 

Labour are just as divided, and the lib dems who have the perfect storm for them to actually do something are on holiday ( for two years). 

 

Vote to be worse off or really worse off shouldn't be a debate, it's a waste of time. 

 

Westminster is an absolute joke atm. 

Spitting image wouldn't work now, the place is that much of a farce the producers would struggle for better material than what is actually happening. 

 

Scotland has a get out clause, that is the only positive, whether we use it or not is another matter. 

 

Folks jobs, houses and future are on the line, the situation is ludicrous. 

[Mikey1874]

7 minutes ago, Cade said:

So, in other words................a deal?

 

 

Yeah 

 

But bypassing Parliament, maybe 

[Notts1874]

Opposition benches filling up again even though they are just going through points of order.

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Opposition benches filling up again even though they are just going through points of order.

 

Trying everything to get a vote opposing government. 

 

But seems Labour as Official Opppsition need to table vote of no confidence.

 

Corbyn up now. Actually just asking for matter to be debated. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Mikey1874]

Government sleeping 

[Mikey1874]

Debate secured 

 

Tomorrow first item 

[Mikey1874]

 

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

According to news reports the ECJ has said the UK can cancel Brexit.

 

Only if it wants to, and why would it want to?

 

Interestingly enough, it is clear that the EU Treaties now mean that a Member State can initiate an Article 50 process at its own discretion, and can end it at its own discretion.  One effect of that is that - if it wants - the UK can use this to build its own "transition period" by repeatedly invoking and cancelling notice to leave, and the EU 27 can't really stop that from happening.  It has no practical effect in terms of the application of EU law to the UK, but it could be an interesting thing to do at least once given that there are European Parliament elections due in June 2019.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, jake said:

Yes.

Think it's the only thing parliament will vote through.

 

If Parliament can't agree, then the honourable and democratic thing to do is to refer the decision to the electorate.

 

But not with a Remain option.  The choice should be the same choice in front of Parliament; the Withdrawal Agreement as negotiated or exit with no deal and see what can be negotiated after March 29th 2019.

[AlphonseCapone]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If Parliament can't agree, then the honourable and democratic thing to do is to refer the decision to the electorate.

 

But not with a Remain option.  The choice should be the same choice in front of Parliament; the Withdrawal Agreement as negotiated or exit with no deal and see what can be negotiated after March 29th 2019.

 

Why not? 

[Notts1874]

Some boy just tried to nick the Mace

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, Martin_T said:

....I'm not a hypocrite who has spent the past two years arguing against remain despite voting for it.....

 

Oh Martin, whatever could you mean by that? 

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Why not? 

 

The decision to leave has already been taken, and Parliament is not disputing that decision.  What it is unable to do is decide on whether or not to accept this Withdrawal Agreement.  So it should refer that decision, and only that decision, to the voters.

 

All IMO, of course.  We don't actually let our Parliament make big constitutional decisions like this; they have to be put to the voters in a referendum.

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Getting "more reassurance on the Backstop" 

 

From EU presumably 

 

The British Government has created the backstop bogeyman all by itself.

 

We said "no hard border."  The British Government told us it would be a piece of cake.

 

We said "show, don't tell."  The British Government said that would take some time.

 

We said "giz a backstop, so that if it's not a piece of cake we have a guarantee anyway."  The British Government said "fine, but we know you won't need it."

 

Therefore, the backstop is only needed in the event that the British Government don't come up with something that they insist is a piece of cake.

 

So, what's the problem?  Why be afraid of giving a guarantee that you believe in your heart and soul won't ever be needed?

[Martin_T]

My gut feeling is against a second referendum. If parliament thinks that Brexit is a bad idea then it should act in the best interests of the country and revoke article 50.

 

As an aside David Cameron and his reckless series of referendums cannot come in for enough criticism. The man is a cretinous moron who has left the country a divided and embittered mess.

[jake]

19 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If Parliament can't agree, then the honourable and democratic thing to do is to refer the decision to the electorate.

 

But not with a Remain option.  The choice should be the same choice in front of Parliament; the Withdrawal Agreement as negotiated or exit with no deal and see what can be negotiated after March 29th 2019.

I would not argue with that outcome.

[Mikey1874]

Uncharted territory 

 

Government could be finished

 

 

[Mikey1874]

And this the procedures position set out. Again unprecedented. This alone caused markets and pound to dip. 

 

 

[Ulysses]

By the way, what on Earth is the UK supposed to do?

 

You need a PM to engage with the EU 27, but the reality is that if your PM can only muster up one-third of the House of Commons in a vote on a major constitutional issue she has no choice but to resign.

[Mikey1874]

And edited the main point.

 

 

[Notts1874]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

By the way, what on Earth is the UK supposed to do?

 

You need a PM to engage with the EU 27, but the reality is that if your PM can only muster up one-third of the House of Commons in a vote on a major constitutional issue she has no choice but to resign.

First port of call tomorrow is the Netherlands to meet the Dutch PM????? Not Dublin obviously.

 

I don't think she will see out the week.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

By the way, what on Earth is the UK supposed to do?

 

You need a PM to engage with the EU 27, but the reality is that if your PM can only muster up one-third of the House of Commons in a vote on a major constitutional issue she has no choice but to resign.

 

That's the way it's looking. 

 

The backlash against what she did might push even a few Tories to support a motion of no confidence.

[Pans Jambo]

2 hours ago, jake said:

Do you not see the templates if we ever vote for Independence?

Some would say Scotland has a good deal with London.

Do you think that freeing ourselves from the union with England could be done in 2 and a half years?

Do you imagine that the stories of food and drugs would be the same?

Border controls currency economic scare stories?

 

Not picking an argument just wondering what impact you think it will have on the arguments for independence ?

 

We voted on something nobody knew anything about. I would suggest a large percentage of leave voters didnt vote for the shite we witnessed today. 

I think most of what we would expect will known before any Indy vote happens. At least we will know what to expect from the EU should we chose to join it as an inedepmdent country. 

The SNP’s white paper may have been a wish list but at least it was a vision of what could be BEFORE any vote took place. Nothing like that for Brexit at all. Zero imformation. 

UK voted for what was on the side of a battle bus & what Farage was selling. A fantasy. 

Why would it take longer than 2 & a half years? Wouldnt be impossible. As it stands IF we do “leave” at the end of March it will be another couple of years to exit the EU properly. That’ll be 5 & a half years in total. Who voted for that?

Edited December 10, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

First port of call tomorrow is the Netherlands to meet the Dutch PM????? Not Dublin obviously.

 

I don't think she will see out the week.

 

It's the backstop, and it's Theresa May.

 

Of course her first port of call would be the Netherlands.

 

[Ulysses]

Bobby McDonagh was the Irish ambassador to the UK from 2009 to 2013.

 

In this article, he explains how despite years of relationship-building between Dublin and London, the British political establishment misread Ireland in seven different ways.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/10/priti-patel-brexit-ignorance-ireland-vote-uk

 

For those who feel a bit tl;dr, the seven misreads relate to Ireland's motivation, intelligence, influence, allegiance, resolve, politics and friendship.

 

You can understand the general public making those mistakes, but for the British political establishment and diplomatic system to do so is - to say the least - unexpected.

[Notts1874]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

It's the backstop, and it's Theresa May.

 

Of course her first port of call would be the Netherlands.

 

She's off to get absolutely battered on weed and hash cakes then see what the **** happens after that.

 

Could be her best plan so far ???

[gjcc]

3 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

She's off to get absolutely battered on weed and hash cakes then see what the **** happens after that.

 

Could be her best plan so far ???

Hopefully go the same way as the movie Hostel. 

[AlimOzturk]

Genuine tears of laughter

 

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by AlimOzturk

[Space Mackerel]

Please please please let it be Boris or JRM after the Maybot 

You’re doing a sterling job 

 

[Space Mackerel]

Gone but not forgotten ?

[jake]

Newsnight campaign for a revote just got under way .

[jake]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

Bobby McDonagh was the Irish ambassador to the UK from 2009 to 2013.

 

In this article, he explains how despite years of relationship-building between Dublin and London, the British political establishment misread Ireland in seven different ways.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/10/priti-patel-brexit-ignorance-ireland-vote-uk

 

For those who feel a bit tl;dr, the seven misreads relate to Ireland's motivation, intelligence, influence, allegiance, resolve, politics and friendship.

 

You can understand the general public making those mistakes, but for the British political establishment and diplomatic system to do so is - to say the least - unexpected.

Good read that if a little uncomfortable.

[Coolio]

34 minutes ago, jake said:

Newsnight campaign for a revote just got under way .

 

Good.

[Coolio]

9 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Remember when we actually had a leader worthy of the name/

Who was the last- Blair? He was a total dick, but a leader none the less.

you wonder what this mob see when they look in the mirror- it sure isn't what the rest of us see.

Narcissus

 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, jake said:

Newsnight campaign for a revote just got under way .

Are you the only person who watches this shite.

[The Mighty Thor]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

Bobby McDonagh was the Irish ambassador to the UK from 2009 to 2013.

 

In this article, he explains how despite years of relationship-building between Dublin and London, the British political establishment misread Ireland in seven different ways.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/10/priti-patel-brexit-ignorance-ireland-vote-uk

 

For those who feel a bit tl;dr, the seven misreads relate to Ireland's motivation, intelligence, influence, allegiance, resolve, politics and friendship.

 

You can understand the general public making those mistakes, but for the British political establishment and diplomatic system to do so is - to say the least - unexpected.

Whilst one should read that and be staggered by the ineptitude and arrogance, I'm actually not in the least bit surprised. 

Our political system is really, really broken. 

Every day that passes with this utter shambles just highlights what a missed opportunity 2014 really was.

 

[gashauskis9]

11 hours ago, Notts1874 said:

Some boy just tried to nick the Mace

Hilarious.

 

Honestly, I’ve seen more order and discipline in a ****ing soft play.  

[Unknown user]

If I've learned one thing from all this, it's that if we ever have to have a referendum again, the question should be asked twice. Once to find out if the concept is popular, then again a year or two later after details have been filled in to make sure we really think it's such a good idea. 

[I P Knightley]

11 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

We voted on something nobody knew anything about. I would suggest a large percentage of leave voters didnt vote for the shite we witnessed today. 

I think most of what we would expect will known before any Indy vote happens. At least we will know what to expect from the EU should we chose to join it as an inedepmdent country. 

The SNP’s white paper may have been a wish list but at least it was a vision of what could be BEFORE any vote took place. Nothing like that for Brexit at all. Zero imformation. 

UK voted for what was on the side of a battle bus & what Farage was selling. A fantasy. 

Why would it take longer than 2 & a half years? Wouldnt be impossible. As it stands IF we do “leave” at the end of March it will be another couple of years to exit the EU properly. That’ll be 5 & a half years in total. Who voted for that?

I doubt that anyone voted for that shite. Nobody knew what they were voting for; they rarely do. 

 

The people who voted for it will have had 101 different views of what they expected at the time but, as you say, not one of them would have envisaged this mess - because nobody took the time to investigate the opportunities and the hurdles; instead, they got high on nationalism, xenophobia and racism while the other side sat back in arrogant complacency. 

 

Whatever happens from here, the UK will emerge a poorer, sorrier place.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, I P Knightley said:

I doubt that anyone voted for that shite. Nobody knew what they were voting for; they rarely do. 

 

The people who voted for it will have had 101 different views of what they expected at the time but, as you say, not one of them would have envisaged this mess - because nobody took the time to investigate the opportunities and the hurdles; instead, they got high on nationalism, xenophobia and racism while the other side sat back in arrogant complacency. 

 

Whatever happens from here, the UK will emerge a poorer, sorrier place.

Yip. Sad state of affairs.

[I P Knightley]

1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said:

Yip. Sad state of affairs.

It depresses the shit out of me. Billions of pounds being pissed away as a consequence of David Cameron being feeble and caving in to a bunch of old racists in his pathetic party. What pisses me off at least as much is that that chinless, pie-faced, privileged, devious tosspot is not hurting from this, not one little bit. That's why I said in an earlier post (which was, surprisingly, starred out) that I would have no hesitation in Kicking Him In The Cojones 

 

Oh God, I need a drink!

[Victorian]

Leadsom criticising the speaker and questioning his impartiality.      This after the government tried to conceal the legal advice,   defied parliament's will to have it published and were found in contempt.    Then of course wasting 3 full days of parliamentary debating time over a vote they shat out of.

 

Yeah that's right... turn the spotlight on the speaker.     That'll make people forget the arse you've made of it all.

[doctor jambo]

2 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

It depresses the shit out of me. Billions of pounds being pissed away as a consequence of David Cameron being feeble and caving in to a bunch of old racists in his pathetic party. What pisses me off at least as much is that that chinless, pie-faced, privileged, devious tosspot is not hurting from this, not one little bit. That's why I said in an earlier post (which was, surprisingly, starred out) that I would have no hesitation in Kicking Him In The Cojones 

 

Oh God, I need a drink!

The public should never be allowed to vote on anything that will last longer than a parliamentary term.

End of.

[Francis Albert]

No denying it is a mess and difficult to think of anyone who comes out of it with any credit.

Nevertheless the UK Parliament (and the UK form of Parliamentary democracy) is (in albeit a messy way) doing what it is there to do -  holding the Executive to account ("taking back control" as the Remnainers gleefully say).

Would that the equivalent legislative bodies in Brussels and Washington had that power in any effective way.

 

 

[Boab]

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

The public should never be allowed to vote on anything that will last longer than a parliamentary term.

End of.

 

It's the public that vote in these arseholes. I'd say they would have had as much of a clue at a GE on what they were voting for than an EU referendum.

Add to that the pretty popular belief that manifestos aren't worth the paper they're written on.

It's a big game for these pricks and they can all **** off !

Have a nice day, folks.

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

The public should never be allowed to vote on anything that will last longer than a parliamentary term.

End of.

In a referendum? Clearly a party in a General Election must be able to propose policies (and if elected enact legislation) that last longer than a Parliamentary term?

 

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

In a referendum? Clearly a party in a General Election must be able to propose policies (and if elected enact legislation) that last longer than a Parliamentary term?

 

Nope.

With a fixed term democracy, NOONE should be able to enact legislation that cannot be reversed by the opposition.

That means that when the public changes its mind, it can.

When a party falls from grace, any policy we now disagree with we can reverse.

In 5 or 10

[scott herbertson]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In a referendum? Clearly a party in a General Election must be able to propose policies (and if elected enact legislation) that last longer than a Parliamentary term?

 

 

 

Can't honestly remember any policies in the manifestos in the last two general elections from either of the main British parties  - except this pile of dog poo from Milliband which deserves some sort of claptrap meaningless motherhood and apple pie award

 

 

or as it was reworded to reflect the actual promises made

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by scott herbertson

[scott herbertson]

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Nope.

With a fixed term democracy, NOONE should be able to enact legislation that cannot be reversed by the opposition.

That means that when the public changes its mind, it can.

When a party falls from grace, any policy we now disagree with we can reverse.

In 5 or 10

 

 

I'd like to reverse our involvement in the Iraq war if that's ok?

Edited December 11, 2018 by scott herbertson

[doctor jambo]

7 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I'd like to reverse our involvement in the Iraq war if that's ok?

Indeed.

THough the war itself was over quickly, and the next government could have pulled us out had it so wished