Jump to content

Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )


jumpship

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

:cornette_dog:

 

You are having an absolute mare - again.

Couldnt resist it Frank :laugh2:

article-2380007-1B052866000005DC-198_634x421.jpg

Edited by Pans Jambo
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

8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

EGDmCdR.gif Too easy

 

:cornette_dog:

 

Predictable lame tag team attempt trying to defend a hard of thinking poster who brands all No voters orange men on this thread.   Try harder next time.👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how the SNP more want time to scrutinise the Brexit Bill to see exactly where they think Scotland will be worse off leaving the Brussels Union.  They have no such concern regards scrutiny when it comes to the black hole and fiscal wreckage they would visit should Scotland exit the London Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

:cornette_dog:

 

Predictable lame tag team attempt trying to defend a hard of thinking poster who brands all No voters orange men on this thread.   Try harder next time.👍

:lol: Stop diggin Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

:cornette_dog:

 

Predictable lame tag team attempt trying to defend a hard of thinking poster who brands all No voters orange men on this thread.   Try harder next time.👍

 

:lol: Go pour yourself a beer, Franky. Or make yourself a piña colada. Put your feet up, relax. Consider your life choices. If you have a cuff handy, take your blood pressure--not something you want to mess about with. For what it's worth, I don't even remember who made that comment; it's clearly bothered you far more than anyone else even began to take notice.

 

Or, carry on with your most entertaining radge crusade, your call. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

I had a similar thought to this today.

 

I imagine the SNP/others would be angry at the delay caused by politicians arguing that the decision might have been the wrong one, based on economic matters.

 

Imagine English court cases blocking them after a leave UK ref win? We now know it has to go through the Westminster parliament before it can go ahead, just winning a ref isn't enough to leave a political and economic union or do the SNP think they can just walk away? Hypocrites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JackLadd said:

 

Imagine English court cases blocking them after a leave UK ref win? We now know it has to go through the Westminster parliament before it can go ahead, just winning a ref isn't enough to leave a political and economic union or do the SNP think they can just walk away? Hypocrites. 

 

We now know no such thing and pretending doesn't make is so.

 

It's remarkable, the number of times the very clear law on the nature of the Brexit referendum (advisory, versus the legal nature of the independence referendum, not advisory) has been rehashed in this thread alone, and yet people insist on clinging to their comfort blanket fictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

We now know no such thing and pretending doesn't make is so.

 

It's remarkable, the number of times the very clear law on the nature of the Brexit referendum (advisory, versus the legal nature of the independence referendum, not advisory) has been rehashed in this thread alone, and yet people insist on clinging to their comfort blanket fictions.

 

Cameron was an idiot that they rolled. They won't be getting any second ref without Westminster parliament approval and any divorce should they win will 100% have to be approved also. Unless they opt for hard Ukexit. I wouldn't put anything past this mob.  

Edited by JackLadd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Cameron was an idiot that they rolled. They won't be getting any second ref without Westminster parliament approval and any divorce should they win will 100% have to be approved also. Unless they opt for hard Ukexit. I wouldn't put anything past this mob.  

 

Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation.

 

Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see.

 

I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation.

 

Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see.

 

I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act.

Far too sensible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dobmisterdobster
5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation.

 

Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see.

 

I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act.

The timing is crucial. The SNP are desperate to strike while the iron is hot, targeting a 2021 date.

Waiting until things cool down and polling to return to a consistent No lead is probably the best bet for the UK govt.

The question put to voters will be interesting. I would personally insist on "Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom" to be on the ballot instead of what was asked last time.

There might not even be a pro-independence majority in Holyrood come 2021 considering the proportional electoral system they have.

The bottom line is, while we may eventually have an indyref 2. The SNP cannot have everything their way like last time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

I like how the SNP more want time to scrutinise the Brexit Bill to see exactly where they think Scotland will be worse off leaving the Brussels Union.  They have no such concern regards scrutiny when it comes to the black hole and fiscal wreckage they would visit should Scotland exit the London Union.

 

They are running out of opportunities to litigate and stop Brexit.  This must be plan Z.

 

Remember they refused to deal with David Davies over bills transferring powers from Brussels to Westminster and Holyrood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

The timing is crucial. The SNP are desperate to strike while the iron is hot, targeting a 2021 date.

Waiting until things cool down and polling to return to a consistent No lead is probably the best bet for the UK govt.

The question put to voters will be interesting. I would personally insist on "Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom" to be on the ballot instead of what was asked last time.

There might not even be a pro-independence majority in Holyrood come 2021 considering the proportional electoral system they have.

The bottom line is, while we may eventually have an indyref 2. The SNP cannot have everything their way like last time.

 

The other spanner in the works is Labour's plans for a confirmatory referendum on the Brexit deal.  That would set a precedent that effectively prevents Independence.

 

It would be interesting to see if the SNP backed this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

The other spanner in the works is Labour's plans for a confirmatory referendum on the Brexit deal.  That would set a precedent that effectively prevents Independence.

 

It would be interesting to see if the SNP backed this.

 

I'm not with you, how so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I'm not with you, how so?

 

First they need to win a referendum, which is a tall order.

 

Secondly they would need to negotiate a divorce deal and put that deal to the people.  Chances are the No side would be able to destroy that deal and cancel Independence by winning the confirmatory vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

First they need to win a referendum, which is a tall order.

 

Secondly they would need to negotiate a divorce deal and put that deal to the people.  Chances are the No side would be able to destroy that deal and cancel Independence by winning the confirmatory vote.

 

That seems a bit speculative TBH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Smithee said:

 

That seems a bit speculative TBH

 

That is Labour's proposal for Brexit.  Just saying there would then be a precedent for any Indy Ref 2 bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

That is Labour's proposal for Brexit.  Just saying there would then be a precedent for any Indy Ref 2 bill.

Really?

 

I can see where you’re coming from, but independence and Brexit are different things. 
 

For example, any indyref 2 would, I assume, fall under the auspices of Holyrood, like the first one. Why would Westminster precedence be applicable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation.

 

Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see.

 

I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act.

 

It should be a min of 66% to take us out of a 300 year old union and not up to a 1% margin that might well consist of 16 y/o kids who can't vote otherwise and have no property or careers to lose. 

 

I really don't see us holding many aces in a break up to make England roll over. It's going to be extremely painful for us on some new currency, reduced budgets, start up costs and higher interest rate borrowing. Money and business will flood out of Scotland and there will be nothing the SNP can do about it. Best case for them is on the Euro quick and vassal status in Brussels ala Finland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
5 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 


There’s the problem we have. So many options, so many objections and to many answers. Hence my last suggestion of do you still want to leave. If the answer is yes then we will forever be stuck on this merry go round or not so no so merry! 

Great choice for remainers as I said

Maybe a choice that included some version.of leave might just be more democratic?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JackLadd said:

 

It should be a min of 66% to take us out of a 300 year old union and not up to a 1% margin that might well consist of 16 y/o kids who can't vote otherwise and have no property or careers to lose. 

 

I really don't see us holding many aces in a break up to make England roll over. It's going to be extremely painful for us on some new currency, reduced budgets, start up costs and higher interest rate borrowing. Money and business will flood out of Scotland and there will be nothing the SNP can do about it. Best case for them is on the Euro quick and vassal status in Brussels ala Finland. 

So should have been a 66% majority to stay in it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
13 minutes ago, Boris said:

Really?

 

I can see where you’re coming from, but independence and Brexit are different things. 
 

For example, any indyref 2 would, I assume, fall under the auspices of Holyrood, like the first one. Why would Westminster precedence be applicable?


Because if the SNP back Labour’s stance they’re effectively saying that a referendum should be subject to a confirmatory vote further down the line.

 

Hypocritical to do otherwise, although I don’t doubt the SNP’s capacity for being hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Because if the SNP back Labour’s stance they’re effectively saying that a referendum should be subject to a confirmatory vote further down the line.

 

Hypocritical to do otherwise, although I don’t doubt the SNP’s capacity for being hypocritical.

Except they are different types of referendum. Brexit was advisory for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Because if the SNP back Labour’s stance they’re effectively saying that a referendum should be subject to a confirmatory vote further down the line.

 

Hypocritical to do otherwise, although I don’t doubt the SNP’s capacity for being hypocritical.

 

I think there should be a confirmatory vote myself, seems mental not to after everything we've seen!

I certainly wouldn't see that as a shoe-in for No after a win for Yes in a first referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
2 minutes ago, Boris said:

Except they are different types of referendum. Brexit was advisory for example.


Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the SNP want a confirmatory referendum because they disagree with the original result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I think there should be a confirmatory vote myself, seems mental not to after everything we've seen!

I certainly wouldn't see that as a shoe-in for No after a win for Yes in a first referendum.


No, me neither but it makes the odds longer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair,   the precedence would be to have a primary referendum for the principle and a secondary one on the final details.     Referenda are now totally redundant without that failsafe.

 

It doesn't matter what happens in this instance.    It doesn't matter who favours which policy.    Any referendum should be on that model from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

It should be a min of 66% to take us out of a 300 year old union and not up to a 1% margin that might well consist of 16 y/o kids who can't vote otherwise and have no property or careers to lose. 

 

I really don't see us holding many aces in a break up to make England roll over. It's going to be extremely painful for us on some new currency, reduced budgets, start up costs and higher interest rate borrowing. Money and business will flood out of Scotland and there will be nothing the SNP can do about it. Best case for them is on the Euro quick and vassal status in Brussels ala Finland. 

Why? It wasnt 66% to take us in over 300 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

To be fair,   the precedence would be to have a primary referendum for the principle and a secondary one on the final details.     Referenda are now totally redundant without that failsafe.

 

It doesn't matter what happens in this instance.    It doesn't matter who favours which policy.    Any referendum should be on that model from now on.

 

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Sausage
15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

To be fair,   the precedence would be to have a primary referendum for the principle and a secondary one on the final details.     Referenda are now totally redundant without that failsafe.

 

It doesn't matter what happens in this instance.    It doesn't matter who favours which policy.    Any referendum should be on that model from now on.


100% agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im smelling proper fear & desperation on this thread. The unionists are shitting it. 
 

Now praying they dont loose Brexit as its not going as Boris planned, & now trying to change the rules on a Scottish independence referendum. 
 

2 completely different things & in any case, it was Cameron’s fault for pushing a simple Yes/No referendum on Brexit before knowing any of the details on how it would look. At least the Scottish version will have some kind of roadmap. No doubt that’ll be open to interpretation but its better than a fantasy plastered on the side of a bus. 

 

Anyway, the smell of unionists arses collapsing on here is a beautiful thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that Northern Irish businesses will have to fill in export forms to send goods to the UK,must've left Arlene out of the loop on that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Why? It wasnt 66% to take us in over 300 years ago.

 

There wasn't any vote when we had the reformation either. It was just made illegal to be RC, convert or suffer the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upcoming programme bill, second reading,  committee stage and Lords reading is an absolute quagmire.     All kinds of variables.    It's about 6 months business to get done in a few days.    Will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The upcoming programme bill, second reading,  committee stage and Lords reading is an absolute quagmire.     All kinds of variables.    It's about 6 months business to get done in a few days.    Will never happen.

 

Most likely.

 

If the Withdrawal Deal is passed bar this legislation then I guess the EU will give the extension to pass that while trade negotions start in parallel.

 

If Westminster doesn't accept Boris' deal, god knows if the EU will get pissed off and just walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Most likely.

 

If the Withdrawal Deal is passed bar this legislation then I guess the EU will give the extension to pass that while trade negotions start in parallel.

 

If Westminster doesn't accept Boris' deal, god knows if the EU will get pissed off and just walk away.

 

There's every reason to believe that trade deal negotiations will be sabotaged by the UK side.    Another sham process.    People in parliament know it / highly suspect it.    They're trying to introduce a mechanism to prevent a 2020 no deal.

 

Meantime,   there will be an election at some stage.    If the headbangers / pound shorters win then they'll rip out every safeguard that parliament puts in.    This is now down to the really nasty end stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

Most likely.

 

If the Withdrawal Deal is passed bar this legislation then I guess the EU will give the extension to pass that while trade negotions start in parallel.

 

If Westminster doesn't accept Boris' deal, god knows if the EU will get pissed off and just walk away.

 

I thought they voted against that even being possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I thought they voted against that even being possible?

 

No - they voted to ask for an extension from the EU if a deal isn't passed in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

No - they voted to ask for an extension from the EU if a deal isn't passed in time.

 

I was meaning the Letwin amendment. Does that not make the withdrawal deal unable to be passed until the legislation is passed first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo, Goodbye
4 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

First they need to win a referendum, which is a tall order.

 

Secondly they would need to negotiate a divorce deal and put that deal to the people.  Chances are the No side would be able to destroy that deal and cancel Independence by winning the confirmatory vote.

 

This would only happen if the SNP went into Indy negotiations as a minority government. Which I think we can safely assume won't happen. 

 

Had TM not handed over her majority two years ago in that snap GE, Stage 1 of Brexit would probably be resolved by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the SNP want a confirmatory referendum because they disagree with the original result.

 

Nope. The SNP want a confirmatory referendum because the thick as ****ing mince British public didn't have the remotest clue what they were voting for. From a comment I saw earlier:

 

"They (the British press) actively encourage ignorance in the populance.

Before the referendum an organiser of the focus groups reported that voters he was meeting:
“ have absolutely no idea what the EU was or how it worked at all, to a point that beggars belief. No one had ever heard of the single market or knew about what it did. They have literally no idea what we are on about. Literally no idea”.

The organiser concluded:
“We must not assume that people share our assumptions... It is obvious to us that action X causes action Y. It is not obvious at all to them... They make no connection between lower growth and less money for public services. You actually have to say to them `If the economy slows down it means businesses and people make less money, and less money means less tax revenue for the government, which means less money for the NHS”.

 

Tremendous stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Nope. The SNP want a confirmatory referendum because the thick as ****ing mince British public didn't have the remotest clue what they were voting for. From a comment I saw earlier:

 

"They (the British press) actively encourage ignorance in the populance.

Before the referendum an organiser of the focus groups reported that voters he was meeting:
“ have absolutely no idea what the EU was or how it worked at all, to a point that beggars belief. No one had ever heard of the single market or knew about what it did. They have literally no idea what we are on about. Literally no idea”.

The organiser concluded:
“We must not assume that people share our assumptions... It is obvious to us that action X causes action Y. It is not obvious at all to them... They make no connection between lower growth and less money for public services. You actually have to say to them `If the economy slows down it means businesses and people make less money, and less money means less tax revenue for the government, which means less money for the NHS”.

 

Tremendous stuff. 

It's almost like one could draw from that the conclusion that the majority of the population is a bit thick. 🤔

 

They also bought the bullshit about the UK being overrun with Turks and Bulgarians as the immigration the EU forced on us spiralled out of control.🤔

 

It's like the Brexit vote was driven through by people of lower intelligence with racist/xenophobic tendencies.😯

 

Who knew?👍

 

 

Edited by The Mighty Thor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the SNP want a confirmatory referendum because they disagree with the original result.

62% of Scotland's voters disagreed with the result. All constituencies disagreed with result. All Scottish MPs should be backing the SNP. After all, we were guaranteed EU membership if we voted no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Nope. The SNP want a confirmatory referendum because the thick as ****ing mince British public didn't have the remotest clue what they were voting for. From a comment I saw earlier:

 

"They (the British press) actively encourage ignorance in the populance.

Before the referendum an organiser of the focus groups reported that voters he was meeting:
“ have absolutely no idea what the EU was or how it worked at all, to a point that beggars belief. No one had ever heard of the single market or knew about what it did. They have literally no idea what we are on about. Literally no idea”.

The organiser concluded:
“We must not assume that people share our assumptions... It is obvious to us that action X causes action Y. It is not obvious at all to them... They make no connection between lower growth and less money for public services. You actually have to say to them `If the economy slows down it means businesses and people make less money, and less money means less tax revenue for the government, which means less money for the NHS”.

 

Tremendous stuff. 

Government has been lowering education for decades. 

 

8 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

There's every reason to believe that trade deal negotiations will be sabotaged by the UK side.    Another sham process.    People in parliament know it / highly suspect it.    They're trying to introduce a mechanism to prevent a 2020 no deal.

 

Meantime,   there will be an election at some stage.    If the headbangers / pound shorters win then they'll rip out every safeguard that parliament puts in.    This is now down to the really nasty end stage.

That's the end game. No trade deal means no deal exit in December 2020. Jacob is a wee bit too up himself at the minute, hopefully the man is sent back to the back benches, pretty soon.

Edited by ri Alban
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...