EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Including remainers?

Yes, for facilitating.

[Pannonian]

Yes, for facilitating.

Facilitating what?

[Pannonian]

What did Leave say? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD074gVx-9A)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Facilitating what?

Passage of the Lisbon Treaty, without a Referendum, resulting in Brexit.

[Pannonian]

Passage of the Lisbon Treaty, without a Referendum, resulting in Brexit.

You what? Are you going to campaign for our exit from NATO and all the other extra-national organisations which we're currently a part of as well? NATO governs our spending, requiring us to spend 2% of our budget on defence. Which is outrageous, as we should be able to control our spending however we like. The UN, ECHR, ICJ and so on govern what we can and cannot do to human beings. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to torture people if that is the will of our people. The ITLOS governs maritime law. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to privateer as part of our sovereign rights. It is a proud part of our history, after all. Hell, maybe we should take up slavery again. We never had a referendum to ban that.

We are part of the above groups without having had referendums to confirm our membership. Are you going to be consistent and apply your argument across the board?

[Furunculus]

No. you've been told time and again why you are 180 degrees wrong to equate supranational socio-economic political governance and limited intergovernmental treaty organization.

You just go quiet, wait a few weeks before trotting out the same cobblers again.

No!

[rory_20_uk]

You what? Are you going to campaign for our exit from NATO and all the other extra-national organisations which we're currently a part of as well? NATO governs our spending, requiring us to spend 2% of our budget on defence. Which is outrageous, as we should be able to control our spending however we like. The UN, ECHR, ICJ and so on govern what we can and cannot do to human beings. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to torture people if that is the will of our people. The ITLOS governs maritime law. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to privateer as part of our sovereign rights. It is a proud part of our history, after all. Hell, maybe we should take up slavery again. We never had a referendum to ban that.

We are part of the above groups without having had referendums to confirm our membership. Are you going to be consistent and apply your argument across the board?

You do become very tiresome with the same old, tired, and wilfully incorrect statements.

NATO doesn't govern our spending. Hence why most members do not meet the 2% target.
The UK has a veto at the UN - and generally doesn't govern what anyone can do. Fun fact - although it covers almost all the countries in the world, it only recognises 6 languages. The EU has the overhead of 27.

Please drop the whataboutism - which in most cases isn't even factually accurate.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You what? Are you going to campaign for our exit from NATO and all the other extra-national organisations which we're currently a part of as well? NATO governs our spending, requiring us to spend 2% of our budget on defence. Which is outrageous, as we should be able to control our spending however we like. The UN, ECHR, ICJ and so on govern what we can and cannot do to human beings. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to torture people if that is the will of our people. The ITLOS governs maritime law. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to privateer as part of our sovereign rights. It is a proud part of our history, after all. Hell, maybe we should take up slavery again. We never had a referendum to ban that.

We are part of the above groups without having had referendums to confirm our membership. Are you going to be consistent and apply your argument across the board?

Stop it, just stop it.

ACIN is right. This has gone from a thread talking about Brexit to a thread where we have to bat away the same arguments from you week after week.

I've given you at least five breakdowns of why the passage of the Lisbon Treaty was generally a bad thing but here's the nub - the Lisbon Treaty created the exit-limbo we are living in. Article 50 envisages a two-year withdrawal period and uses it as a stick to beat the withdrawing country with.

Meanwhile, the PM has been warned that up to 60 hard-line Brexitieers will vote down the deal even without the backstop. According to the Telegraph.

[Pannonian]

Stop it, just stop it.

ACIN is right. This has gone from a thread talking about Brexit to a thread where we have to bat away the same arguments from you week after week.

I've given you at least five breakdowns of why the passage of the Lisbon Treaty was generally a bad thing but here's the nub - the Lisbon Treaty created the exit-limbo we are living in. Article 50 envisages a two-year withdrawal period and uses it as a stick to beat the withdrawing country with.

Meanwhile, the PM has been warned that up to 60 hard-line Brexitieers will vote down the deal even without the backstop. According to the Telegraph.

Wasn't article 50 written by a Brit?

Edit: I've accepted we're going to go out on no deal. I just want Brexiteers to accept their responsibility for causing this, and accept responsibility for the consequences.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wasn't article 50 written by a Brit?

Edit: I've accepted we're going to go out on no deal. I just want Brexiteers to accept their responsibility for causing this, and accept responsibility for the consequences.

Was it?

Do you think he voted Remain?

That would mean a Remainer was LITERALLY responsible for Brexit.

[Beskar]

Was it?

Do you think he voted Remain?

That would mean a Remainer was LITERALLY responsible for Brexit.
Yes, it was Lord Kerr.

There was an interview he did about it. Shot himself in the foot as Article 50 was a way to get dictators out of the EU and never expected a western democracy to go and do it themselves.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1103061/Brexit-news-EU-Article-50-Theresa-May-European-Union-delay-UK-latest/amp

[Pannonian]

Was it?

Do you think he voted Remain?

That would mean a Remainer was LITERALLY responsible for Brexit.

So Leavers would bear no responsibility for voting for it despite knowing the rules and consequences?

[Furunculus]

What responsibility do you bear for tacitly approving of unneccessary and wholly toxic acts of political integration, without which this situation may never have arisen?

i.e. a labour government throwing away Major's opt out from the social chapter.

if you sat there thinking “im cool with that, we're all EUropeans now in Blair's cool britannia” without ever pausing to consider the poisonous effect on a polity skeptical of political union, then you too are culpable for the no vote.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So Leavers would bear no responsibility for voting for it despite knowing the rules and consequences?

It is the EU, not the UK, which has been refusing to negotiate since December when it became clear the Withdrawal Agreement would not pass. Throughout the negotiations the EU has treated the UK as an uncooperative EU member whilst describing us as a "Third Party" with the assumption that we will eventually fall into line for the good of the EU. Given that Britain voted to leave the EU this is patently absurd - Parliament must do what is in the interests of the British people as directed by those same people.

We had a referendum, the instruction was to leave the EU (by a greater margin than the referendum in which France agreed to the creation of the EU) ans so the Government and Parliament is trying to leave. however, the Backstop is obviously not in the British interest as it is and the EU will not compromise, so we cannot reach agreement.

This is a thing that sometimes happen, Pan, countries just don't reach agreement. Despite Myths to the contrary the EU is not a literal machine, it could bend but its political masters have instructed it not to. At this point that inflexibility has hardened the position of the governing party to the extent that No Deal is now almost the only foreseeable outcome.

Why is this?

I would say a failure of diplomacy on BOTH sides for which our Government is partly responsible.

Trying to read that responsibility back onto the voters, though, isn't really going to wash. We didn't direct the UK or the EU to have these negotiating positions, we didn't instruct parliament to vote down the deal or Theresa May to fail to construct a deal that could pass parliament.

Blaming Leave voters for this is like blaming Labour Voters for the Lisbon Treaty - given that you're a Labour voter and this all leads back to Lisbon this really does raise the question of how culpable you really are.

[Pannonian]

After Brexit, Canada and the UK will become even closer friends (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-after-brexit-canada-and-the-uk-will-become-even-closer-friends/#comments)


Words such as friend and ally somehow fall short in describing the relationship between Britain and Canada. The ties that bind are so strong, the affinity between us so deep, that I prefer to think of our countries as different branches of the same family...

If you think that Britain is a good friend of Canada take a look at the map of our West coast.
We are lucky that we are not landlocked there. The fact that the American border of Alaska goes as far as Queen Charlotte Islands landlockingh half of BC is the doing of our British "friends".
The only country Britain ever cared for, was Britain.
We would do well to focus on our relationship with the EU which really matters, and treat Britain as the largely irrelevant country it has become.

Canada is friendly with almost every country, so that won't change. We will also be friendly with our trade partners in the EU, a much more important market for us. As well we look forward to warm relations to the independent Scotland and the Reunified Ireland.

The truth is England is smaller than it's ever been. That's not going to change. We'll remain friends, but it's not a growth market.

So Raab wants the colonies to bail them out again. What then? Lecture the world about how they stood alone (again) with out help?

You made your bed, you get to sleep in it.

Trying to get closer to a small, declining country with major racist overtones should be a non starter. Our future would be better served if we focused on tying ourselves closer to the EU rather than the YUK. The British are small minded people and still believe they can tell the world what to do. The reality is they have become a laughing stock. I came to Canada some 43 years ago and I am a proud Canadian.

Well thanks for that Mr. Raab, but as a Canadian, do you know who I'd like to get closer to after Brexit? Me, I'd like to get a lot closer to Europe (including Scotland and the soon to be newly-reunited Ireland.) There is much more upside for us to strengthening that relationship than in working to help whatever remains of the self-destructive, deluded England of today, under the able management of crypto-fascists like Boris Johnson and yourself. So put me down as undecided on the merits of even accepting collect calls from the U.K, post-Brexit.

[Furunculus]

Who is this chippy Canuck?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can make jokes too:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doPR-6X9h7c

With apologies to Husar, this sketch is about 25 years old - it encapsulates the British fear of German hegemony over Europe - and also British paranoia that inside every German is a Gestapo Officer trying to get out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Canadian exports by country: https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/exports-by-country

It's not a surprise to see that, overall, the rest of the EU represents a larger export market than the UK, but the UK itself is still Canada's third largest trade partner and accounts for roughly the same value in exports as the other major EU economies put together.

[Husar]

I can make jokes too:

With apologies to Husar, this sketch is about 25 years old - it encapsulates the British fear of German hegemony over Europe - and also British paranoia that inside every German is a Gestapo Officer trying to get out.

I love Jurgen the German, and Harry Enfield is great!

[spmetla]

So does anyone think Boris is actually trying to negotiate with the EU at all or push the other agenda? From what I see a no-deal Brexit is his endgame and then he'll just try and crisis manage all the negative effects afterward.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU won't, never intended to and never will "negotiate". You say what you'll be prepared to do and they'll say the level of access that will purchase. Why on earth would they demonstrate that a country can keep the good bits of the EU and ditch the overheads?

The recent elections have shown that there is a large number of people that voted for the exit parties. By exiting, he can at a stroke defang both these parties, leaving all the opposition parties to fight over the remain votes - with our first past the post system perhaps he'll even get some seats because the opposition is split against him.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

it may even be the case that for the above scenario to work that TM needed to honestly and publicly seek a deal and to fail brutally in the trying.

[Pannonian]

The EU won't, never intended to and never will "negotiate". You say what you'll be prepared to do and they'll say the level of access that will purchase. Why on earth would they demonstrate that a country can keep the good bits of the EU and ditch the overheads?

The recent elections have shown that there is a large number of people that voted for the exit parties. By exiting, he can at a stroke defang both these parties, leaving all the opposition parties to fight over the remain votes - with our first past the post system perhaps he'll even get some seats because the opposition is split against him.

~:smoking:

Again, blaming the EU. The EU runs on rules. The rules were known before the referendum. Leave made a load of promises that were unachievable given these rules. After the result, the EU offered a number of solutions based on these rules depending on what the UK wanted to offer in return. Brexiteers are still demanding what is unachievable given these rules.

Leave has never wanted negotiation. It was clear shortly afterwards, when Leavers were making their modified demands (changing from moderate during the campaign to outrageous after), that Leavers only wanted to Leave on no deal and blame the EU for it. And so we see it play out. We're going to leave on no deal and Leavers are going to blame the EU for it. Leavers will never ever take responsibility for their own decision. It is always someone else's fault.

[rory_20_uk]

Again, blaming the EU. The EU runs on rules. The rules were known before the referendum. Leave made a load of promises that were unachievable given these rules. After the result, the EU offered a number of solutions based on these rules depending on what the UK wanted to offer in return. Brexiteers are still demanding what is unachievable given these rules.

Leave has never wanted negotiation. It was clear shortly afterwards, when Leavers were making their modified demands (changing from moderate during the campaign to outrageous after), that Leavers only wanted to Leave on no deal and blame the EU for it. And so we see it play out. We're going to leave on no deal and Leavers are going to blame the EU for it. Leavers will never ever take responsibility for their own decision. It is always someone else's fault.

No, stating a fact. I never said they should negotiate and voted with the expectation of a no deal Brexit since, as I've repeatedly said, the EU is a political cartel and has to punish Leavers to stop others leaving.

You really only hear the voices echoing in your own head, don't you?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

No, stating a fact. I never said they should negotiate and voted with the expectation of a no deal Brexit since, as I've repeatedly said, the EU is a political cartel and has to punish Leavers to stop others leaving.

You really only hear the voices echoing in your own head, don't you?

~:smoking:

Can you point me to where Leave campaigners promised no deal during the campaign?

What Vote Leave leaders really said about no-deal Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/29/what-vote-leave-leaders-really-said-about-no-deal-brexit)


Johnson told the Treasury select committee in March 2016: “Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard … to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.”

Speaking at a Vote Leave event in March 2016, Johnson said: “I put it to you, all those who say that there would be barriers to trade with Europe if we were to do a Brexit, do you seriously believe that they would put up tariffs against UK produce of any kind, when they know how much they want to sell us their cake, their champagne, their cheese from France? It is totally and utterly absurd.”

In a Telegraph column published three days after the referendum result, Johnson said: “[We] who agreed with this majority verdict must accept that it was not entirely overwhelming.”

He sought to reassure remain voters that the UK would still have access to the single market: “EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU. British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down,” he said. “The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation.”

Johnson, then foreign secretary, told the House of Commons in July 2017: “There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal.”

If you justify no deal by saying that you voted in the expectation of no deal, despite no politician having promised no deal during the campaign, and only bringing about these expectations after the result, what else are you going to say you expected? What other changes to society are you going to say you voted in expectation of, despite there being no evidence of it being promised during the campaign?

[InsaneApache]

For crying out loud No Deal is Brexit. End of.

[Pannonian]

For crying out loud No Deal is Brexit. End of.

The campaigners said otherwise during the campaign. Show instances from the campaign where Leave campaigners said that Brexit means leaving with no deal. I've seen plenty of instances where they promised otherwise. Can you show any where they promised no deal?

Do you think that Brexit should be judged on whether or not the NHS gets an extra 350 million per week? Unlike no deal, this was something that the Leave campaign specifically promised.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The campaigners said otherwise during the campaign. Show instances from the campaign where Leave campaigners said that Brexit means leaving with no deal. I've seen plenty of instances where they promised otherwise. Can you show any where they promised no deal?

Do you think that Brexit should be judged on whether or not the NHS gets an extra 350 million per week? Unlike no deal, this was something that the Leave campaign specifically promised.

This is a recurring theme for you throughout the thread. I hereby stipulate that pro "leave" politicos were mostly on a "paint a rosier picture than really likely because I don't really understand the nuances" all the way down through "lie through my teeth to get us out of the EU an hope that the dust settles without me being called to account" spectrum.

There will be no 'deal.' The UK will separate from the EU with all that that entails. Your leadership is hanging it's hat on that referendum that broke 52-48 against despite the pundits predicting the virtual opposite.

So, are you going to the barricades to preserve your membership in a larger Europe or not.

[Pannonian]

This is a recurring theme for you throughout the thread. I hereby stipulate that pro "leave" politicos were mostly on a "paint a rosier picture than really likely because I don't really understand the nuances" all the way down through "lie through my teeth to get us out of the EU an hope that the dust settles without me being called to account" spectrum.

There will be no 'deal.' The UK will separate from the EU with all that that entails. Your leadership is hanging it's hat on that referendum that broke 52-48 against despite the pundits predicting the virtual opposite.

So, are you going to the barricades to preserve your membership in a larger Europe or not.

By taking to the barricades, do you mean will I be turning to the illegal, as Leave have done, to maintain my side of the argument?

[rory_20_uk]

By taking to the barricades, do you mean will I be turning to the illegal, as Leave have done, to maintain my side of the argument?

Please show which court has stated this is "illegal"? I read this banded around more and more by people but as far as I recall there's no evidence to back this up. The courts even stated that Boris's lies are not illegal.

By the way, your next move is to move to saying things are "immoral". Much more vague and you can continue to regurgitate the same worn statements.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

The campaigners said otherwise during the campaign. Show instances from the campaign where Leave campaigners said that Brexit means leaving with no deal. I've seen plenty of instances where they promised otherwise. Can you show any where they promised no deal?

Do you think that Brexit should be judged on whether or not the NHS gets an extra 350 million per week? Unlike no deal, this was something that the Leave campaign specifically promised.

I was tempted to swear.....

A deal was not on the referendum. It was a binary choice. Stay or leave.

It's not about money for the NHS or money at all. It's about our ability to sack the wazzocks who make the laws when we've had enough of them.

One thing the referendum has highlighted is how many anti-democrats inhabit these shores and shame on them. Things will never be the same again. The cats well and truly out of the bag.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU won't, never intended to and never will "negotiate". You say what you'll be prepared to do and they'll say the level of access that will purchase. Why on earth would they demonstrate that a country can keep the good bits of the EU and ditch the overheads?

The recent elections have shown that there is a large number of people that voted for the exit parties. By exiting, he can at a stroke defang both these parties, leaving all the opposition parties to fight over the remain votes - with our first past the post system perhaps he'll even get some seats because the opposition is split against him.

~:smoking:

Whilst we all know this is true it's worth pointing out that this "rules" based approach doesn't nessecitate the Backstop. The Backstop has now become a prerequisite to ANY deal when its sole justification is maintainance of the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.

If the spirit of the GFA is co-operation then the EU is not presently upholding it because by refusing to even negotiate over a fresh deal they ensure no deal.

Key to Pan's argument is the idea that we are headed down a certain "track" but if we follow his argument and observe the behaviour of the EU we have to conclude that they always unacceptable Backstop is the signal point to leave the station and apparently always has been. This raises the question of who really wants "No Deal" because if the EU always planned to hang any deal on a Backstop Parliament was always going to reject then they presumably always knew we were going to end up here.

Now, this is not to say that some in the Leave campaign were not gunning for No Deal as well, but that does not absolve the EU of responsibility. Rather, it suggests a sort of bizzare Faustian pact between the two sides akin to the one between Evangelical Christians in the US and the Far Right in Israel.

[Pannonian]

Whilst we all know this is true it's worth pointing out that this "rules" based approach doesn't nessecitate the Backstop. The Backstop has now become a prerequisite to ANY deal when its sole justification is maintainance of the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.

If the spirit of the GFA is co-operation then the EU is not presently upholding it because by refusing to even negotiate over a fresh deal they ensure no deal.

Key to Pan's argument is the idea that we are headed down a certain "track" but if we follow his argument and observe the behaviour of the EU we have to conclude that they always unacceptable Backstop is the signal point to leave the station and apparently always has been. This raises the question of who really wants "No Deal" because if the EU always planned to hang any deal on a Backstop Parliament was always going to reject then they presumably always knew we were going to end up here.

Now, this is not to say that some in the Leave campaign were not gunning for No Deal as well, but that does not absolve the EU of responsibility. Rather, it suggests a sort of bizzare Faustian pact between the two sides akin to the one between Evangelical Christians in the US and the Far Right in Israel.

Wasn't the backstop May's idea? The EU's requirement is also the US's requirement, but I never see Brexiteers complain about the US for demanding the same, that the GFA be kept. The US has repeatedly said, the GFA must be kept, or the UK can forget about any agreement with the US. Yet you continue to blame the EU and the EU only. For something that was the UK's idea. Always the EU's fault. Never the UK's.

BTW, the ERG have said that they're going to block the WA, backstop or no backstop.

[Pannonian]

I was tempted to swear.....

A deal was not on the referendum. It was a binary choice. Stay or leave.

It's not about money for the NHS or money at all. It's about our ability to sack the wazzocks who make the laws when we've had enough of them.

One thing the referendum has highlighted is how many anti-democrats inhabit these shores and shame on them. Things will never be the same again. The cats well and truly out of the bag.

Which level of representation in the EU's administration are you objecting to? MEPs are directly voted in by EU citizens like yourself in Euro elections, the last of which took place in May. Do they count as being able to be voted out? EU commissioners are appointed and not voted for, that is true, but they are appointed by the national governments, who are voted for by UK citizens in UK elections, the last of which took place in 2017. Do they count as being able to be voted out? Which of these do you decry as undemocratic?

[InsaneApache]

Which level of representation in the EU's administration are you objecting to? MEPs are directly voted in by EU citizens like yourself in Euro elections, the last of which took place in May. Do they count as being able to be voted out? EU commissioners are appointed and not voted for, that is true, but they are appointed by the national governments, who are voted for by UK citizens in UK elections, the last of which took place in 2017. Do they count as being able to be voted out? Which of these do you decry as undemocratic?

OK I get it. Trolling.

[Pannonian]

OK I get it. Trolling.

How is it trolling? The current PM was decided on by the Tory membership, without any input from people who are not Tory members. Do you decry this as undemocratic?

The EU's administration is democratic on two levels. MEPs are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Commissioners are appointed by the national governments, who are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Or are you talking about the EU's civil service?

The current UK government does not have a majority. The head of that government changed last month, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. The cabinet of that UK government was chosen by the new PM, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. While that was going on, the country was kept running by the civil service, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry.

Brexiteer: "You're trolling."

[Pannonian]

My point to IA, PFH, rory and other Leavers: we're leaving without a deal on 31st October because of your decision. You won. We lost. Own the result and its consequences. What happens after 31st October is your responsibility. Stop trying to spread that responsibility.

[rory_20_uk]

How is it trolling? The current PM was decided on by the Tory membership, without any input from people who are not Tory members. Do you decry this as undemocratic?

The EU's administration is democratic on two levels. MEPs are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Commissioners are appointed by the national governments, who are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Or are you talking about the EU's civil service?

The current UK government does not have a majority. The head of that government changed last month, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. The cabinet of that UK government was chosen by the new PM, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. While that was going on, the country was kept running by the civil service, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry.

Brexiteer: "You're trolling."

Ironically you're trolling when you make a couple of unrelated statements and then end with "you're trolling".

When did the people who the EU "represents" have a choice whether they wanted the EU to exist? Every single referendum was a "no" and every time they changed the rules.

Did you have the problem with the UK PM changing previously in the same way? I can't recall this being an issue.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

My point to IA, PFH, rory and other Leavers: we're leaving without a deal on 31st October because of your decision. You won. We lost. Own the result and its consequences. What happens after 31st October is your responsibility. Stop trying to spread that responsibility.

As soon as you accept that to get to this point of leaving we've had to have 30 years of membership with increasing integration, the establishment of a bank, a currency and so on without asking the populace.

In short, I accept the consequences of fixing the system you allowed to form with no democratic mandate.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wasn't the backstop May's idea? The EU's requirement is also the US's requirement, but I never see Brexiteers complain about the US for demanding the same, that the GFA be kept. The US has repeatedly said, the GFA must be kept, or the UK can forget about any agreement with the US. Yet you continue to blame the EU and the EU only. For something that was the UK's idea. Always the EU's fault. Never the UK's.

BTW, the ERG have said that they're going to block the WA, backstop or no backstop.

Prior to the All-UK backstop the EU wanted an Ireland-only one.

As regards the GFA agreement - the backstop is not required by the GFA. As I notes several pages ago, the GFA only prohibits "militarisation" of the border, not the border per se. True, it does not envisage the UK leaving the EU but that's hardly anyone's fault - the political situation hans changed - and the UK's leaving was ultimately inevitable.

On the other hand the GFA does require co-operation on the movement of people and livestock across the border. With the EU and Ireland no longer being willing to even discuss a deal that co-operation is set to end. Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.

[Beskar]

Did you have the problem with the UK PM changing previously in the same way? I can't recall this being an issue.

Gordon Brown was the last change and many people at the time found this to be an issue.
No idea if this applies to Pannonian's viewpoint or not, but it isn't a conservative only issue.


Though as the side note, because of the Brexit process, the £ is similar to the Euro.

[Beskar]

Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.

There was a possibly of a longer extension, but this was to be tied with a meaningful process such as a second referendum which the government does not want to do. Unfortunately the government decided not to do that and we haven't changed a single thing since last time during that extension. I rather not have us in perpetual limbo.

As I have argued for a long time, a second referendum it would bring clarity to the issue. Instead the incompetence of our governance would other browbeat everyone senselessly on the subject rather than do anything meaningful.

[Pannonian]

Gordon Brown was the last change and many people at the time found this to be an issue.
No idea if this applies to Pannonian's viewpoint or not, but it isn't a conservative only issue.


Though as the side note, because of the Brexit process, the £ is similar to the Euro.

I personally don't have a problem with successions of governments. But unlike IA, I'm not pushing the democracy angle. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in his position.

[Pannonian]

Prior to the All-UK backstop the EU wanted an Ireland-only one.

As regards the GFA agreement - the backstop is not required by the GFA. As I notes several pages ago, the GFA only prohibits "militarisation" of the border, not the border per se. True, it does not envisage the UK leaving the EU but that's hardly anyone's fault - the political situation hans changed - and the UK's leaving was ultimately inevitable.

On the other hand the GFA does require co-operation on the movement of people and livestock across the border. With the EU and Ireland no longer being willing to even discuss a deal that co-operation is set to end. Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.

Do you know what the RoI/NI border looks like? It's supposed to be the highest concentration of crossing points in the world, with many of the crossing points not even practical border posts. There are roads where the left is in RoI where the right is in NI. There are properties where part is in RoI and part is in NI. There are factories where storage is in RoI but the operating area is in NI. How do you propose to satisfy WTO rules under these circumstances?

BTW, you suggest that the EU proposed a shorter extension than expected, to make it sound as though the EU are being unreasonable in wanting to kick us out sooner than we wanted out. May wanted a much shorter extension than that. We had Euro elections in May (the month). May (the former PM) wanted the extension to end before that. The EU had to insist on the extension going beyond the Euro elections if we were to have an extension at all. You wanted a longer extension? You should thank the EU for that. I don't expect you to though, as you never credit them for anything, but only ever blame them for stuff they're not responsible for.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There was a possibly of a longer extension, but this was to be tied with a meaningful process such as a second referendum which the government does not want to do. Unfortunately the government decided not to do that and we haven't changed a single thing since last time during that extension. I rather not have us in perpetual limbo.

As I have argued for a long time, a second referendum it would bring clarity to the issue. Instead the incompetence of our governance would other browbeat everyone senselessly on the subject rather than do anything meaningful.

A second Referendum MIGHT bring clarity. The margin last time was larger than the one that validated the creation of the EU in the case of France, stronger than the Danish rejection of the same irrc. There's no telling which way a second referendum might go and if it's even narrower, during an economic downturn, then the argument will just go on and on. There'll be a third referendum in a decade, a fourth a decade after that.

Parliament, all sides, stipulated a single referendum - if we needed a confirmatory referendum they should have stipulated that too. At this point we're much better off going out and potentially having to beg to be let back in (unlikely with further federalism).


Do you know what the RoI/NI border looks like? It's supposed to be the highest concentration of crossing points in the world, with many of the crossing points not even practical border posts. There are roads where the left is in RoI where the right is in NI. There are properties where part is in RoI and part is in NI. There are factories where storage is in RoI but the operating area is in NI. How do you propose to satisfy WTO rules under these circumstances?

BTW, you suggest that the EU proposed a shorter extension than expected, to make it sound as though the EU are being unreasonable in wanting to kick us out sooner than we wanted out. May wanted a much shorter extension than that. We had Euro elections in May (the month). May (the former PM) wanted the extension to end before that. The EU had to insist on the extension going beyond the Euro elections if we were to have an extension at all. You wanted a longer extension? You should thank the EU for that. I don't expect you to though, as you never credit them for anything, but only ever blame them for stuff they're not responsible for.

I do know what the border looks like, and you know that border has been in place for almost a century, and almost three quarters of that before either country joined the EU.

As regards the shorter extension - this was down to Macron, he refused a longer one - but then you must insist on blaming the UK, mustn't you?

[Pannonian]

I do know what the border looks like, and you know that border has been in place for almost a century, and almost three quarters of that before either country joined the EU.

As regards the shorter extension - this was down to Macron, he refused a longer one - but then you must insist on blaming the UK, mustn't you?

Did the UK government ask for a longer extension? I remember May asking for a shorter one, research telling me that it was 30th June. Did we change our mind and ask for a longer extension at some point?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did the UK government ask for a longer extension? I remember May asking for a shorter one, research telling me that it was 30th June. Did we change our mind and ask for a longer extension at some point?

We wanted a short extension and an option for a long one - what we got was a middling one.

[Pannonian]

We wanted a short extension and an option for a long one - what we got was a middling one.

Can you point me to where we asked for a long option? The only date I can find is 30th June, with May stating "As prime minister I could not consider a further delay beyond 30 June."

[Beskar]

A second Referendum MIGHT bring clarity. The margin last time was larger than the one that validated the creation of the EU in the case of France, stronger than the Danish rejection of the same irrc. There's no telling which way a second referendum might go and if it's even narrower, during an economic downturn, then the argument will just go on and on. There'll be a third referendum in a decade, a fourth a decade after that.

Parliament, all sides, stipulated a single referendum - if we needed a confirmatory referendum they should have stipulated that too. At this point we're much better off going out and potentially having to beg to be let back in (unlikely with further federalism).

Just highlighting for clarity, though it doesn't change your response at all. When I state Second Referendum, I don't mean "In or Out", I am talking about the various options such as 'Out without a Deal', 'May Deal', Norway+, etc. Something more solid and tangible. Because hypothetically, May's deal may have got a better mandate from the people than the parliament which she could have used to enforce it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just highlighting for clarity, though it doesn't change your response at all. When I state Second Referendum, I don't mean "In or Out", I am talking about the various options such as 'Out without a Deal', 'May Deal', Norway+, etc. Something more solid and tangible. Because hypothetically, May's deal may have got a better mandate from the people than the parliament which she could have used to enforce it.

OK, but the EU has said we can't have Norway - because we have to have a Customs Union if we want a deal. Really, the only options are May's Deal or No Deal.

A lot of the Right Wing press are running with the story that the public would prefer No deal. Not surprising really, you can't expect people to back something that has paralysed Parliament for six months.

[Pannonian]

OK, but the EU has said we can't have Norway - because we have to have a Customer Union if we want a deal. Really, the only options are May's Deal or No Deal.

A lot of the Right Wing press are running with the story that the public would prefer No deal. Not surprising really, you can't expect people to back something that has paralysed Parliament for six months.

Have you seen the questions that were asked to get that poll result? That Torygraph poll is crooked as hell.

Leading questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA)

[InsaneApache]

But unlike IA, I'm not pushing the democracy angle. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in his position.

:inquisitive:

Wut?

[rory_20_uk]

Here's a great article in the Independent newspaper about how in 9 steps Brexit can be stopped. And no, the author isn't going to let any silly "laws" get in his way. Indeed, the whole concept of "democracy" seems to be shunted to one side - but that's OK since he is Right.

Link (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-no-deal-nigel-farage-peoples-vote-a9056791.html)

Of the many howlers in this (ignoring all the timelines of existing laws and just saying new ones will be passed and that's fine / putting off an election lest people Vote The Wrong Way) , my personal favourite is the questions in the "people's vote" should be remain OR leave only after a deal has been reached - backing a system where "democracy" is little more than a way of anointing the pre-determined winner.

When did advocating for the rule of law to be removed become a mainstream concept?

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Have you seen the questions that were asked to get that poll result? That Torygraph poll is crooked as hell.

Leading questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA)

Like every other Poll, then?

The mere fact they can produce such results should alarm you.

[Pannonian]

Like every other Poll, then?

The mere fact they can produce such results should alarm you.

Pollster: Why 'Majority Back Suspending Parliament For Brexit' Claim Is All Wrong (https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/tom-swarbrick/pollster-majority-suspending-parliament-brexit/)


"The figure that the Telegraph reported today came after three questions which I think re highly dubious."

These were:
- Agree/disagree that parliament is out of touch with the British public?
- Agree/disagree most MPs want to ignore the wishes of voters on Brexit?
- Agree/disagree the Queen should remain above politics?

It was after that that they asked about proroguing parliament.

Mr Kellner explained: "By the time you get to that point, people are in an anti-parliament, anti-political elite mode.

"Any pollster should know that the sequence of questions you ask, the order you put them in and the impact that earlier questions have on later answers can be decisive.

"A couple of weeks ago, when YouGov asked essentially the same question but without the build-up, they got exactly the opposite response."

Straight out of Yes PM. However, if Johnson does suspend Parliament, would you support his doing to to take Brexit out of the hands of Parliament?

[Pannonian]

Here's a great article in the Independent newspaper about how in 9 steps Brexit can be stopped. And no, the author isn't going to let any silly "laws" get in his way. Indeed, the whole concept of "democracy" seems to be shunted to one side - but that's OK since he is Right.

Link (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-no-deal-nigel-farage-peoples-vote-a9056791.html)

Of the many howlers in this (ignoring all the timelines of existing laws and just saying new ones will be passed and that's fine / putting off an election lest people Vote The Wrong Way) , my personal favourite is the questions in the "people's vote" should be remain OR leave only after a deal has been reached - backing a system where "democracy" is little more than a way of anointing the pre-determined winner.

When did advocating for the rule of law to be removed become a mainstream concept?

~:smoking:

What do you think of the idea of proroguing Parliament until after Brexit is done?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit? Once labour wins the next election, they will put up indy ref 2 and in the midst of the economic recession caused by Brexit, UK will rejoin the EU with all their perks removed. Corbyn will not like it and eventually get removed by the remainer faction in his party.

Somewhere in this that Fixed Election Term Law will get reverted. Tory's will riot but in 5 years I think it will be too little, too late. The younger generation is much more european than British.

Whole thing is the last roar of an increasingly selfish generation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit? Once labour wins the next election, they will put up indy ref 2 and in the midst of the economic recession caused by Brexit, UK will rejoin the EU with all their perks removed. Corbyn will not like it and eventually get removed by the remainer faction in his party.

Somewhere in this that Fixed Election Term Law will get reverted. Tory's will riot but in 5 years I think it will be too little, too late. The younger generation is much more european than British.

Whole thing is the last roar of an increasingly selfish generation.

So long as Corbyn holds Labour in his grip there will be no new referendum from them. Whether he gets ousted or not depends entirely on whether enough of the Labour Party are willing to accept he's Antisemitic or not.

The Fixed Term election Law is unlikely to go anywhere until one party has an overwhelming majority and even then it would be a dicey thing to try. The party that repeals that law probably loses the next election - so what's the point?

As to rejoining the EU itself. Debatable - unlikely within a decade, possible after that depending on the economic situation. If the Eurozone suffers as much from the next recession as it did from the last one its possible that other countries will leave. Whilst "No Deal" is not a good outcome it's not a terrible one, it's certainly one the UK can survive, and this may embolden other countries. At the same time, without the UK EU integration will accelerate and this may leave other countries in the Nordic Bloc, the Netherlands, Poland etc. in the position of wanting to decouple from the EU more or less than the UK.

Essentially, Brexit could be nothing much, it could destroy the UK, or the EU, or both.

[Furunculus]

Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit?
put ireland in the GB backstop and offer jersey and the deal would pass in a shot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

put ireland in the GB backstop and offer jersey and the deal would pass in a shot.

Why do we need to offer Jeresy?

In any case, every Irish MP who deigns to actually take their seat has consistently voted against the deal. These days we're generally against screwing one region of the UK for the sake of another so unless that changes the deal will never pass.

[Furunculus]

Keeps us in the single market for goods.
Protects integrated supply chains like cars and chemicals.
Minimises disription to all trade generally.

Allows services freedom from eu regulation.

Consider it my it my olive branch, as i reach across the divide majestically... :D

[Beskar]

So long as Corbyn holds Labour in his grip there will be no new referendum from them. Whether he gets ousted or not depends entirely on whether enough of the Labour Party are willing to accept he's Antisemitic or not.

He is an anti-zionist rather than an antisemitic. There is a lot of support for Palestine on the left (Corbyn is prime example of this), so Israel gets tarred a lot for its actions in relation to that. There is a difference between the two, even if the terms do get conflated a lot by people with an agenda (pro-zionists and genuine antisemitics).

[Pannonian]

He is an anti-zionist rather than an antisemitic. There is a lot of support for Palestine on the left (Corbyn is prime example of this), so Israel gets tarred a lot for its actions in relation to that. There is a difference between the two, even if the terms do get conflated a lot by people with an agenda (pro-zionists and genuine antisemitics).

He accepts anti-semitic tropes as well. There's a tweet somewhere where he likes a mural of big nosed bankers secretly controlling the world. An awful lot of his friends are even more overt anti-semites, and the number of anti-semitic incidents in the Labour party has risen drastically since he's become leader. Just as the rhetoric and direction of Brexit's leaders has encouraged the rise of the far right, so the rhetoric and direction of Labour's leaders has encouraged the rise of the anti-semitic left.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He is an anti-zionist rather than an antisemitic. There is a lot of support for Palestine on the left (Corbyn is prime example of this), so Israel gets tarred a lot for its actions in relation to that. There is a difference between the two, even if the terms do get conflated a lot by people with an agenda (pro-zionists and genuine antisemitics).

Corbyn claims to be an anti-Zionist but his anti-Zionism has seen him openly embrace antisemitic figures and tropes, such as Ken Livingstone and that mural. It's also really debatable to what extent the term "Zionist" is actually useful today - Israel exists and the majority of its citizens were born there, in Israel today there are "Zionists" who simply want this state of affairs to continue, and also those who want to expand Israel.

I am not convinced Corbyn cares to distinguish - at which point "Zionist" is just a cover.

[Pannonian]

Corbyn claims to be an anti-Zionist but his anti-Zionism has seen him openly embrace antisemitic figures and tropes, such as Ken Livingstone and that mural. It's also really debatable to what extent the term "Zionist" is actually useful today - Israel exists and the majority of its citizens were born there, in Israel today there are "Zionists" who simply want this state of affairs to continue, and also those who want to expand Israel.

I am not convinced Corbyn cares to distinguish - at which point "Zionist" is just a cover.

I'm not sure Corbyn can distinguish. All the evidence suggests he is a dimwit with deep belief in certain dogma. Your medieval equivalent would be a church figure who can recite certain bits of scripture but without an independent thought of his own.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure Corbyn can distinguish. All the evidence suggests he is a dimwit with deep belief in certain dogma. Your medieval equivalent would be a church figure who can recite certain bits of scripture but without an independent thought of his own.

As an historian of the medieval Church I must say, I find the comparison genuinely offensive.

[Montmorency]

Essentially, Brexit could be nothing much, it could destroy the UK, or the EU, or both.

Precision like that deserves the remuneration of a pundit. Give it a shot, Phil.


In other UK news I've been vaguely following, Corbyn apparently has some sort of convoluted strategy to, if I have the basics right, trigger a caretaker/unity government, take over as PM, trigger a snap election, use the resources of PM to campaign against Johnson's/Tories' Brexit, try to win the election outright on the basis of maybe a second referendum (that he could presumably have without snap elections in the first place) or, more likely, a superior "Labour Brexit."

At least two problems I see with that would be:

1. Brexit Party exists behind the Conservatives, but then so do the Liberal Democrats behind Labour.
2. Disregarding the above, who the heck forms the caretaker government??? Conservative defectors? Sinn Fein? (see figures below)

22828
22829

From my low-information perspective this seems rather dumber than May's failed 2017 electoral strategy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Precision like that deserves the remuneration of a pundit. Give it a shot, Phil.


In other UK news I've been vaguely following, Corbyn apparently has some sort of convoluted strategy to, if I have the basics right, trigger a caretaker/unity government, take over as PM, trigger a snap election, use the resources of PM to campaign against Johnson's/Tories' Brexit, try to win the election outright on the basis of maybe a second referendum (that he could presumably have without snap elections in the first place) or, more likely, a superior "Labour Brexit."

At least two problems I see with that would be:

1. Brexit Party exists behind the Conservatives, but then so do the Liberal Democrats behind Labour.
2. Disregarding the above, who the heck forms the caretaker government??? Conservative defectors? Sinn Fein? (see figures below)

22828
22829

From my low-information perspective this seems rather dumber than May's failed 2017 electoral strategy.

I would say it is, he's also left himself enough room that "Remain" might not be on his Referendum Question, or there might not even be a Referendum - but pulling that would require he get a big swing and large majority.

Corbyn is the real No-Deal Brexiteer - he just has to lie about it, like he lies about his other political positions.

[rory_20_uk]

If Corbyn gets to be PM - even just for a day - he can then claim £144k for life when undertaking activities related to the State. But I'm sure such a blatant grab for money never crossed his mind...

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sinn Fein running the show would be an interesting turn.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If Corbyn gets to be PM - even just for a day - he can then claim £144k for life when undertaking activities related to the State. But I'm sure such a blatant grab for money never crossed his mind...

~:smoking:

You mean the equivalent of £144k per annum, pro rata?


Sinn Fein running the show would be an interesting turn.

They're as absurd as the DUP - no, slightly more absurd.

[rory_20_uk]

You mean the equivalent of £144k per annum, pro rata?

They're as absurd as the DUP - no, slightly more absurd.

Apologies - I got the number wrong. It is only £115k per year. No, not pro rata... It is the The Public Duty Cost Allowance (PDCA) provides an annual entitlement that these august individuals can spend on office and secretarial costs “to meet the continuing additional office costs which they are liable to incur because of their special position in public life”.

So... as long as they put the family on the payroll the money is for life, and provided annually. The wording seems so vague it'd be easy to use it to subsidise any facet of your life.

So Boris has joined the Club whatever happens.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

The problem behind Corbyn leading a unity government is Corbyn himself. There would be a majority Labour government as to be expected but Lib Dems and Rebel Conservatives certainly do not want Corbyn.

[Beskar]

So the Government is going to ask the Queen to suspend Parliament.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

[rory_20_uk]

So the Government is going to ask the Queen to suspend Parliament.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

It is becoming something of a (bigger) mess. Personally I think that this demonstrates the problems with First Past the Post which has been ignored for the last few decades - now the fact those in Parliament don't really represent anyone in any meaningful sense is painfully obvious with politicians contorting to both what their constituents want and what their party apparently stand for.

It has been an extremely long parliament already but to close shop now does appear to be a cynical move - and IMO publicly humiliates the Queen to boot who is dragged out to do something that she has no power over like an aged puppet rather than a head of state.

Over two years preparation has been squandered and we remain in a mess this close to the deadline with so many relying on the EU doing something that was utterly against their best interests - like expecting the Catholic Church to distribute its money to the poor.

As I so often think - why can't the UK be more like Germany?

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Lol, looking forward to 45m of wailing and gnashing on the world at one in a few moments time.

[InsaneApache]

Blimey....

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1166631368140500992

I liked the quote right underneath.


See all those guys with guns in army uniforms, they all see the Queen as the BOSS.
So best not threaten the head of state, cos that really will not end well.

Smart move guys threatening Brenda.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqrAPOZxgzU

[InsaneApache]

My hero.


Would be very hard for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, to seek a no-confidence vote against New Prime Minister Boris Johnson, especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for, & will prove to be “a great one!” Love U.K.

The God Emperor strikes again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVToLGzZdXE

[Beskar]

So the Government is going to ask the Queen to suspend Parliament.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

It has been approved.

Parliament to be suspended in September.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It has been approved.

Parliament to be suspended in September.

Just think, if the Opposition had their arses in gear it wouldn't have mattered.

As I posted on facebook a few days ago, "They agreed to agree to do something."

It's also worth pointing out that this option was mooted by some Remainers/Soft Brexit Supporters (SoBS) as a way to bring May's deal back to Parliament.

Now the question is - will Corbyn stand aside for a Unity Government in order to allow a No Confidence motion to pass?

[rory_20_uk]

Now the question is - will Corbyn stand aside for a Unity Government in order to allow a No Confidence motion to pass?

I doubt it. He wants out of the EU to create his Hard Left Utopia - but as it stands he gets what he wants and Boris / the Tories get all the blame.

All he has to do is what he's done is the same thing as for the last c. 40 years: do nothing and say the same old same old.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is Sinn Fein really looking all that bad now....

:laugh4:

[Montmorency]

Just think, if the Opposition had their arses in gear it wouldn't have mattered.

As I posted on facebook a few days ago, "They agreed to agree to do something."

It's also worth pointing out that this option was mooted by some Remainers/Soft Brexit Supporters (SoBS) as a way to bring May's deal back to Parliament.

Now the question is - will Corbyn stand aside for a Unity Government in order to allow a No Confidence motion to pass?


I doubt it. He wants out of the EU to create his Hard Left Utopia - but as it stands he gets what he wants and Boris / the Tories get all the blame.

All he has to do is what he's done is the same thing as for the last c. 40 years: do nothing and say the same old same old.

~:smoking:

I'm confused. I thought Corbyn wanted a vote of no confidence in order to trigger the formation of a unity government with himself as PM.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm confused. I thought Corbyn wanted a vote of no confidence in order to trigger the formation of a unity government with himself as PM.

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he truly knows he is not someone that the MPs would actually back - after all, the papers and MPs have told him!

If he wanted a vote of no confidence why hasn't he held one?

No, on he drones and by ensuring that there is no realistic alternative of an Unity Government he will get out of the EU. Perhaps when the UK has difficulties afterwards eventually there will be a swing to give him the majority he needs for 5 years to... Well, wreck the country.

-:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is Sinn Fein really looking all that bad now....

:laugh4:

You mean actual terrorists?

Yes.


I'm confused. I thought Corbyn wanted a vote of no confidence in order to trigger the formation of a unity government with himself as PM.

Good, we can tell him it's working.

Corbyn is a Hard Brexiteer, always has been.

Think about that.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=q471MPrPiEA

:laugh4:

I shall be bathing in the tears of remoaners come All Hallows Eve.

Mad bint.

[Furunculus]

whee-heee!

another GE incoming... :whip:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

whee-heee!

another GE incoming... :whip:

You just want to watch the World burn, don't you?

Well, I'm in Exeter, our local Labour MP isn't very popular with the Politburo - so he might not get the support.

Some tricksy stuff over this prorogation has come out, so it may depend if people want a popheaded liar with a penchant for philandering or Corbyn's antisemitic brand of hyper-socialism.

[Montmorency]

You just want to watch the World burn, don't you?

Well, I'm in Exeter, our local Labour MP isn't very popular with the Politburo - so he might not get the support.

Some tricksy stuff over this prorogation has come out, so it may depend if people want a popheaded liar with a penchant for philandering or Corbyn's antisemitic brand of hyper-socialism.

I'll tolerate your perception of anti-semitism but the current Labour program is definitely not the most socialist in a hundred years, or even in fifty.

As for a snap election, Corbyn has his work cut out for him. Basically every poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019) in the past month or more has shown Conservatives with a commanding lead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As for a snap election, Corbyn has his work cut out for him. Basically every poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019) in the past month or more has shown Conservatives with a commanding lead.

Why

[Beskar]

Incoming Electoral Pact with the Brexit Party will be interesting. If they are competitive, Conservatives could be in for a defeat.

[rory_20_uk]

Why

A starter for ten. (https://www.ft.com/content/e1028dda-ca49-11e9-a1f4-3669401ba76f)

Countries that want to move towards a Command economy can't at the same time rely on the wider world to buy its debt right at the same time they are stealing a lot of money from them. I would imagine if the UK decides to Nationalise all the industries they say they will the countries that loose money from this will reciprocate by taking UK company assets abroad (or taking the UK to the courts).

So we'd of course not be self sustaining, be haemorrhaging money before capital controls are brought in and that is just some of the policies they are prepared to tell us about.

So, even if you loathe Boris and everything he stands for, unless you are prepared to have the UK economy implode to levels we've probably not seen for 50 or more years you're really out of options.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

It's also really debatable to what extent the term "Zionist" is actually useful today - Israel exists and the majority of its citizens were born there, in Israel today there are "Zionists" who simply want this state of affairs to continue, and also those who want to expand Israel.
Interestingly, the people who use this arguement are the same people who say "Palestinians don't exist, they are a made up people".

[Idaho]

A starter for ten. (https://www.ft.com/content/e1028dda-ca49-11e9-a1f4-3669401ba76f)

Countries that want to move towards a Command economy can't at the same time rely on the wider world to buy its debt right at the same time they are stealing a lot of money from them. I would imagine if the UK decides to Nationalise all the industries they say they will the countries that loose money from this will reciprocate by taking UK company assets abroad (or taking the UK to the courts).:

Yes nationalised industries are terrible. We need to protect our private electricity companies like EDF, who I pay for my power... What? That's owned by the French state?

Oh at least I can jump on board a train owned by good honest private money! The docklands light railway will speed me into the heart of London's proud home of capital... What? That's owned by keolis? Yes, so what? Oh... That is owned by the French and Canadian States... Oh...

Right, I will show commie Johnny foreigner! I will be sternly waving the flag for st George when I take the fast train to our national airport. No foreign state will get my money when I ride the Heathrow express...
... :furious3: what do you mean that's owned by the Qatar government?

It's not on! We should have our utilities and key services run by British private companies. Like Hong Kong based CK industries (who own a number of British water and electricity companies) or Australian Macquarie group (who do likewise).


Honestly... The idea that there is no option for our key industries other than whoring ourselves out to big money overseas corporations or sovereign wealth funds, is utter nonsense and without evidence. The only people who benefit from this are city traders and big accountancy firms getting paid for managing the buying and selling of these "little pieces" between corporations and swfs.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes nationalised industries are terrible. We need to protect our private electricity companies like EDF, who I pay for my power... What? That's owned by the French state?

Oh at least I can jump on board a train owned by good honest private money! The docklands light railway will speed me into the heart of London's proud home of capital... What? That's owned by keolis? Yes, so what? Oh... That is owned by the French and Canadian States... Oh...

Right, I will show commie Johnny foreigner! I will be sternly waving the flag for st George when I take the fast train to our national airport. No foreign state will get my money when I ride the Heathrow express...
... :furious3: what do you mean that's owned by the Qatar government?

It's not on! We should have our utilities and key services run by British private companies. Like Hong Kong based CK industries (who own a number of British water and electricity companies) or Australian Macquarie group (who do likewise).


Honestly... The idea that there is no option for our key industries other than whoring ourselves out to big money overseas corporations or sovereign wealth funds, is utter nonsense and without evidence. The only people who benefit from this are city traders and big accountancy firms getting paid for managing the buying and selling of these "little pieces" between corporations and swfs.

Well done missing the point - I can always rely on you!

To put it simply - the UK does not run a fiscal surplus. OK. You grasp this?

This is not about the principles in who should own what, but the macroeconomic effects of all these policies simultaneously.

The money the Government got from selling these assets has been spent. There isn't the funds to purchase them back. So either Corbyn is printing money (devaluing the currency), selling debt (pretty much the same thing) or will just take it (which has its own problems).

So, as I said, either become a Command economy - like those successes of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - y'know - all the big successes - or work within the existing system. And this wouldn't achieve the changes they want.

To recap for the hard of thinking - you can't try to sell debt to the same people you've taken the property of.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

To recap for the hard of thinking - you can't try to sell debt to the same people you've taken the property of.

Lol... Tell that to all of us suckers who paid for the bank bailout, then watched savings get devoured by a combination of low interest rates and rising inflation.

[rory_20_uk]

Lol... Tell that to all of us suckers who paid for the bank bailout, then watched savings get devoured by a combination of low interest rates and rising inflation.

Does that answer any part of what I wrote? No? Thought not.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

You are saying that it's only economically sensible for money to flow from the majority to the minority.

[rory_20_uk]

You are saying that it's only economically sensible for money to flow from the majority to the minority.

[Sigh]

No I'm saying - and focus carefully here - that to nationalise many industries below market value whilst also looking to raise capital from the capital markets (privately owned - boo! Baddies) whilst forcing all large companies to give 10% of their shares to their UK employees (not really - most of the money would go to the State) is not possible.

Norway could do this easily. They. Have. The. Money. It is in a wealth fund and is worth over a trillion dollars. The UK either prints it directly or indirectly - or flat out steals it.

This has nothing to do with your sense of fairness. Corbyn's ideas might well be geared towards a fairer society. But sadly pouting and saying that it should work because you want it to isn't going to cut it.

Corbyn's ideas are fine as a backbencher. He has the purity of not having to deal with reality for decades and the 25W lightbulb of a brain that ensures he doesn't challenge his beliefs.

You too might have good intentions. But your puerile approach in trying to snarkily attack straw men is fine for a discussion forum (well, does not harm) but not running a country.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Well done missing the point - I can always rely on you!

To put it simply - the UK does not run a fiscal surplus. OK. You grasp this?

This is not about the principles in who should own what, but the macroeconomic effects of all these policies simultaneously.

The money the Government got from selling these assets has been spent. There isn't the funds to purchase them back. So either Corbyn is printing money (devaluing the currency), selling debt (pretty much the same thing) or will just take it (which has its own problems).

So, as I said, either become a Command economy - like those successes of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - y'know - all the big successes - or work within the existing system. And this wouldn't achieve the changes they want.

To recap for the hard of thinking - you can't try to sell debt to the same people you've taken the property of.

~:smoking:

All some of us wanted was to try and get things working better within the present system, without having to account for revolutions. If you're understandably leery of Corbynomics, why not reject Brexolution as well and try to work within the present system. That recent interview, with a medical expert on the one hand talking about the no deal preparations he'd made, and Rees Mogg on the other hand saying that the former didn't know what he was talking about. If you're a fan of reason and reality, why is there a blind spot regarding Brexit?

[rory_20_uk]

All some of us wanted was to try and get things working better within the present system, without having to account for revolutions. If you're understandably leery of Corbynomics, why not reject Brexolution as well and try to work within the present system. That recent interview, with a medical expert on the one hand talking about the no deal preparations he'd made, and Rees Mogg on the other hand saying that the former didn't know what he was talking about. If you're a fan of reason and reality, why is there a blind spot regarding Brexit?

Fair point.

To put it simply, many countries all around the world manage just fine outside of the EU. That one doctor has made plans doesn't make him an expert since the vast majority of clinicians do not deal with logistics in supplying drugs. If the Head of (for example) Novartis said they had no idea how they would supply the UK and keep in line with GDP then I'd be more worried.

I am not aware of any countries anywhere that manage to implement Corbyn's policies unless they have a mass of external funding (Cuba and the USSR; arguably several countries in the Middle East with petrochemical dollars).

As I have repeatedly said, I am not advocating mining the channel or viewing this as some sort of European Cold War. The UK is just leaving the rules of the EU and will go on working with the EU as well as the rest of the world and would continue to uphold free markets and the rule of law. If further systems structured similarly to NATO were to be created that would be great - the EU that achieves the aims without the massive bureaucratic overheads.

Corbyn - or at least some of his colleagues - seem to view both free trade as well as international laws as optional.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Fair point.

To put it simply, many countries all around the world manage just fine outside of the EU. That one doctor has made plans doesn't make him an expert since the vast majority of clinicians do not deal with logistics in supplying drugs. If the Head of (for example) Novartis said they had no idea how they would supply the UK and keep in line with GDP then I'd be more worried.

I am not aware of any countries anywhere that manage to implement Corbyn's policies unless they have a mass of external funding (Cuba and the USSR; arguably several countries in the Middle East with petrochemical dollars).

As I have repeatedly said, I am not advocating mining the channel or viewing this as some sort of European Cold War. The UK is just leaving the rules of the EU and will go on working with the EU as well as the rest of the world and would continue to uphold free markets and the rule of law. If further systems structured similarly to NATO were to be created that would be great - the EU that achieves the aims without the massive bureaucratic overheads.

Corbyn - or at least some of his colleagues - seem to view both free trade as well as international laws as optional.

~:smoking:

So you'd back Rees Mogg on this rather than someone who's been actively involved in the field? What about the numerous warnings that some drugs cannot be stockpiled, versus the government's insistence that there is nothing to worry about? I've seen loads of instances of experts in their fields warning of the consequences of Brexit, particularly no deal Brexit, and the government saying that there is nothing to worry about. Who is right, and are you prepared to stand by your answer?

[rory_20_uk]

So you'd back Rees Mogg on this rather than someone who's been actively involved in the field? What about the numerous warnings that some drugs cannot be stockpiled, versus the government's insistence that there is nothing to worry about? I've seen loads of instances of experts in their fields warning of the consequences of Brexit, particularly no deal Brexit, and the government saying that there is nothing to worry about. Who is right, and are you prepared to stand by your answer?

Channelling Idaho are we? Actually I don't have faith in either of them - I've no idea why two people who are not experts in the field are talking.

Again with warnings I would be much more worried if those who are supplying the drugs were saying they'll struggle to get them to the UK as opposed to saying they have plans to do so. Are any companies stating that they'll be unable to provide medications?

I am not claiming to be omniscient - I merely said that I would put some store if they asked those who know what they're talking about and in this case that would be those who are responsible for distributing medicines in the UK. Many Pharma companies are grumbling about the costs so far incurred but none appear to be concerned about there being shortages... I imagine the best way to create shortages is for people to panic and (as with any other resource) it will run out.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

[Sigh]

No I'm saying - and focus carefully here - that to nationalise many industries below market value whilst also looking to raise capital from the capital markets (privately owned - boo! Baddies) whilst forcing all large companies to give 10% of their shares to their UK employees (not really - most of the money would go to the State) is not possible.

Norway could do this easily. They. Have. The. Money. It is in a wealth fund and is worth over a trillion dollars. The UK either prints it directly or indirectly - or flat out steals it.

So you are saying the UK is a poor country and unable to afford to finance long term projects without either running a budget surplus or raising huge sums on the international money markets? This is nonsense I'm afraid. Governments around the world, with far fewer resources than us, are routinely running large and expensive projects.



This has nothing to do with your sense of fairness. Corbyn's ideas might well be geared towards a fairer society. But sadly pouting and saying that it should work because you want it to isn't going to cut it.

Corbyn's ideas are fine as a backbencher. He has the purity of not having to deal with reality for decades and the 25W lightbulb of a brain that ensures he doesn't challenge his beliefs.

You too might have good intentions. But your puerile approach in trying to snarkily attack straw men is fine for a discussion forum (well, does not harm) but not running a country.

~:smoking:
Your simplification and characterisation of my views (dreamt up from your private schooled little brain) are at best irritating, at worst just shove all discussion onto the rails you are most familiar with.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the two of you are talking past each other, you've both lowered yourself to ad hominem attacks, and you're both partially right.

Idaho is clearly right to point out that the UK is not poor, by any definition.

However, Rory is also correct that the UK is impoverished.

Much like a country Earl with huge estates we are rich but cannot even meet our basic obligations. The reason for this is the same as if the UK was a lordly estate - chronic, shortsighted, miss-management over decades. Most of the strategic decisions made by the UK government post war have been poor ones. Withdrawing from the Suez Canal when we had basically won, forcing major industries to first conglomerate into inefficient titans and then nationalising them, privatising and breaking up major infrastructure, building two gigantic Aircraft Carriers (rather than three mid-sized ones) which we can't afford enough planes to justify.

There's plenty of blame to go around, on both the Left and Right and for the Conservatives and Labour.

One upside of us leaving the EU - there are a couple - is that at least the UK government will be neither hamstrung, nor have the excuse, that EU regulations tie its hands.

[Pannonian]

I think the two of you are talking past each other, you've both lowered yourself to ad hominem attacks, and you're both partially right.

Idaho is clearly right to point out that the UK is not poor, by any definition.

However, Rory is also correct that the UK is impoverished.

Much like a country Earl with huge estates we are rich but cannot even meet our basic obligations. The reason for this is the same as if the UK was a lordly estate - chronic, shortsighted, miss-management over decades. Most of the strategic decisions made by the UK government post war have been poor ones. Withdrawing from the Suez Canal when we had basically won, forcing major industries to first conglomerate into inefficient titans and then nationalising them, privatising and breaking up major infrastructure, building two gigantic Aircraft Carriers (rather than three mid-sized ones) which we can't afford enough planes to justify.

There's plenty of blame to go around, on both the Left and Right and for the Conservatives and Labour.

One upside of us leaving the EU - there are a couple - is that at least the UK government will be neither hamstrung, nor have the excuse, that EU regulations tie its hands.

That's just saying that it has no one else to blame, and as we've already seen, those who support Leave will still blame the EU for everything. More concretely, the EU's new laws against tax evasion are due to come into effect soon, and the backers of Leave need us to be out before then. The country wouldn't be nearly as impoverished if Leave's backers in the media pay the taxes they're supposed to.

[rory_20_uk]

That's just saying that it has no one else to blame, and as we've already seen, those who support Leave will still blame the EU for everything. More concretely, the EU's new laws against tax evasion are due to come into effect soon, and the backers of Leave need us to be out before then. The country wouldn't be nearly as impoverished if Leave's backers in the media pay the taxes they're supposed to.

Can you post a link on the tax evasion legislation please?

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's just saying that it has no one else to blame, and as we've already seen, those who support Leave will still blame the EU for everything. More concretely, the EU's new laws against tax evasion are due to come into effect soon, and the backers of Leave need us to be out before then. The country wouldn't be nearly as impoverished if Leave's backers in the media pay the taxes they're supposed to.

You're the second person to trot this out to me today, must be something in the water.

All relevant legislation came into force in January 2019, before the original Brexit date. Some of the regulations won't come into force until the end of the year but preventing that would require new legislation.

I don't think anyone has time for that right now, do you?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Johnson now calling for election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49584907

[Idaho]

Ok, imagine we are all impartial, political advisors, setting aside our personal bugbears, working for either the conservative party or Labour. How would you play this election gambit?

Would it make sense for Labour to go into an election as a "soft Brexit"party? How far can the Tories get as the Brexit party in an election with farage type factions sucking up votes.

How about the liberals? Are they doomed playing the remain card, or could it actually work for them?

[rory_20_uk]

Ok, imagine we are all impartial, political advisors, setting aside our personal bugbears, working for either the conservative party or Labour. How would you play this election gambit?

Would it make sense for Labour to go into an election as a "soft Brexit"party? How far can the Tories get as the Brexit party in an election with farage type factions sucking up votes.

How about the liberals? Are they doomed playing the remain card, or could it actually work for them?

Boris is an amoral pragmatist.
Corbyn is a moronic idealist.

Based on what they should do...

Labour should refuse an early election. Let the Tories continue to implode. Keep the 21 new independents in the Commons. Let voters really hate them and pin all the problems on them. A vote of no confidence might be the only thing that will draw people together - sure, they can't stand Boris but the only thing worse is Corbyn! Perhaps if this paralysis has suppurated for another 6 months or so enough people might overlook what Corbyn might do and vote for him anyway... Frankly they should ditch him ASAP and get someone more mainstream who can do another Blair. The middle ground is wide open - someone who is a soft remainer and wants to trot out another version of the Big Society.
So, Labour should continue their woolly "we'd do better than them" approach where they probably push for "sort of leave but sort of remain" - shout "Brexit!!!" in those seats where people voted to leave and "Customs Union!!!!!" in those that voted to remain. Both are close enough to the truth for politicians.

I think Boris needs an election. Unlike May he excels at campaigning: he's convinced two mistresses to marry him! He'd clean out the dissenters and by being "properly" Brexit he'd probably take most votes form the two protest parties which have nothing else to say.
Boris is probably in a similar situation - blame the EU for their intransigence in not agreeing to terms they never would do and never said they would do - and in the meantime blame everyone else for blocking him in Parliament and the wonderful future that would already be here if he'd got his way.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

I don't think either party can campaign on remain. They have too critical reliance on Brexit votes and democratic visibility (which for some reason it's fine to change the entire direction of the country every 5 years, but not change a marginal single issue decision - maybe IA can explain that... I can't figure it out.

[Idaho]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=9Vha59srSks

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Boris can campaign on his current "do or die" Brexit - it's less hard-line than Farage's "Hard Brexit" whilst still cutting the legs out from under the Brexit Party. UKIP support has collapsed and the Brexit party is literally, and explicitely, just a protest platform. With our FPTP system they don't stand a chance of winning any seats if Johnson sticks to the same rhetoric.

Corbyn has said he wants an election, but not until the "No No-Deal" Bill becomes law. With the current Parliamentary arithmetic voters will probably forgive Johnson for failing to deliver Brexit so long as he "goes down fighting". Further, many of his most effective opponents - like Sir Oliver Letwin - have indicated they won't contest the next election.

Having called for an election for the last two years Corbyn has now rejected one. He can get away with that just once, I think. It will already have cost him votes among the working class but gained him votes in the middle class. he can't wait much longer as today another of his former MP's from TiGfC joined the Lib Dems. With the Lib Dem machine behind them most of these former Labour MP's will be re-elected. The outcome of this Parliament has been a reduction in both Conservative and Labour "manpower" but thus far the 21 Conservatives with the whip withdrawn look likely to simply resign their seats rather than defect. What's more, the Lib Dems can't really host 21 Conservatives without turning an attractive shade of burnt orange and morphing back into the Liberal Party.

As has been said, neither party can hop to win on a simply "Remain" ticket and I don't think a "soft Brexit" ticket is a winner either. What has made Johnson's position (more) popular is not the belief that he can get a deal, but the belief it will finally be over. Corbyn is basically offering more torture before, eventually, getting to the same "no Deal".

As the "Remain" Party the Lib Dems will benefit from a Corbyn Government failing to get a deal and then holding another Referendum, or even if they don't hold one and decide to crash us out.

[edyzmedieval]

I really don't think I've seen a more entertaining political campaign than the one in the Parliament. Many many times it feels like a shouting match with fancy suits, elegant manners and a very crowded place.

ORDAAAAH

[Beskar]

What gets me is how when Boris loses his majority by one, he thinks the best plan of action is to kick out a further 23 MPs from his party.

[Beskar]

One interesting theory I came across is that Boris wants to call an election to disband government then change the date, forcing the UK to crash out of the EU as he breaks the law by not enacting the bill which passed.

Guy Fawkes has nothing compared to the spirally explosive disintegration of our parliament.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One interesting theory I came across is that Boris wants to call an election to disband government then change the date, forcing the UK to crash out of the EU as he breaks the law by not enacting the bill which passed.

Guy Fawkes has nothing compared to the spirally explosive disintegration of our parliament.

I don't really credit that much.

Think about it.

Boris calls election - with enough time after for a new Government to delay Brexit - then changes the date?

He'd only do that is he was sure he was going to lose and only cared about Brexit.

What he MIGHT conceivably do in the case of a Hung Parliament is try to delay the formation of a Government to trigger No Deal by default but he'd probably still need to be Prime Minister at the end of it.

If Boris engages in "shenanigans" that trigger a "default" No Deal and he's replaced the EU would probably be willing to grant a retrospective extension.

So, I don't really credit that, either.

[Pannonian]

I don't really credit that much.

Think about it.

Boris calls election - with enough time after for a new Government to delay Brexit - then changes the date?

He'd only do that is he was sure he was going to lose and only cared about Brexit.

What he MIGHT conceivably do in the case of a Hung Parliament is try to delay the formation of a Government to trigger No Deal by default but he'd probably still need to be Prime Minister at the end of it.

If Boris engages in "shenanigans" that trigger a "default" No Deal and he's replaced the EU would probably be willing to grant a retrospective extension.

So, I don't really credit that, either.

Parliament versus the People. See IA's hints about how the MPs are getting what's coming to them for an example of how this works. Brexit is now about punishing the unbelievers, not about any constructive way of making things better.

[Beskar]

The problem is shifting of the goal posts.

The majority who voted Brexit did not want a 'no deal' and 'no deal' was actively campaigned against by pro-remain and those who wanted Brexit, especially as they believed they could get a deal. Under Theresa May, No Deal/Hard Brexit became radicalised and the position of those who advocated for Brexit. There have been the witch hunts in certain media outlets and a war against the evil 'remainers', now it even come to the point where those who desired 'Soft Brexit' are being held up as traitors. All the while using the referendum as justification, when what is being shoved down our throats is not what was voted for, especially as a lot of those advocating for Brexit were making suggestions such as Norway-Plus model.

Our politics have been an international joke for the last three years due to Brexit. The country is an embarrassment and everyone should be ashamed of themselves, some more than others.

[Furunculus]

The problem is shifting of the goal posts.

The majority who voted Brexit did not want a 'no deal' and 'no deal' was actively campaigned against by pro-remain and those who wanted Brexit, especially as they believed they could get a deal. Under Theresa May, No Deal/Hard Brexit became radicalised and the position of those who advocated for Brexit. There have been the witch hunts in certain media outlets and a war against the evil 'remainers', now it even come to the point where those who desired 'Soft Brexit' are being held up as traitors. All the while using the referendum as justification, when what is being shoved down our throats is not what was voted for, especially as a lot of those advocating for Brexit were making suggestions such as Norway-Plus model.

Our politics have been an international joke for the last three years due to Brexit. The country is an embarrassment and everyone should be ashamed of themselves, some more than others.



That's a very one sided account.
my twitter and facebook feeds are endlessly full of whining about stupid and/or racist brexiters.

equally, remain did every bit as much to undercut eea/efta in thinking they had a chance to sink brexit completely, as well as undercutting the government's negotiating stance to achieve the same ends.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mdouganlpool/status/1169948503851900929
and eea/efta does have fundamental strategic problems with it around regulation of services.

may made three mistakes:
letting parliament get involved in the prerogative power of treaties with external powers.
agreeing to the eu's sequencing of WA before march 31st and fta in the years afterwards
agreeing to the maximalist no hard border interpretation for ireland.

but im starting to think that may had to try and fail at a constructive renegotiation, before a PM would receive the public support necessary to pursue a normal adversarial treaty negotiation process.

[Montmorency]

Thats a very one sided account.
my twitter and facebook feeds are endlessly full of whining about stupid and/or racist brexiters.

equally, remain did every bit as much to undercut eea/efta in thinking they had a chance to sink brexit completely, as well as undercutting the government's negotiating stance to achieve the same ends.
and eea/efta does have fundamental strategic problems with it around regulation of services.

may made three mistakes:
letting parliament get involved in the prerogative power of treaties with external powers.
agreeing to the eu's sequencing of WA before march 31st and fta in the years afterwards
agreeing to the maximalist no hard border interpretation for ireland.

but im starting to think that may had to try and fail at a constructive renegotiation, before a PM would receive the public support necessary to pursue a normal adversarial treaty negotiation process.

Abuser logic: 'I wouldn't have had to hit you so hard if you didn't cover your face with your arm, you stupid bint.' Remainers did not undercut eea/efta by refusing to pre-emptively capitulate to your narrow interests, and they did not undercut negotiations because the course of history shows this was not an available arrangement.

There is no more "adversarial" negotiation to be had, the lines have been clearly drawn for more than a year, you mad lad. Johnson has nothing new (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/boris-johnsons-statements-about-the-state-of-brexit-negotiations-bear-little-relationship-to-reality-eu-officials-say/2019/09/06/2122453e-cfec-11e9-a620-0a91656d7db6_story.html) to offer.


But Johnson has not yet come back with any ideas for how else to guarantee an open border, E.U. negotiators said.

His Brexit negotiator, David Frost, met with his E.U. counterparts on Wednesday for more than five hours. He proposed stripping away most of the backstop, leaving only a handful of bare-bones provisions, including borderless travel and a single electricity market, E.U. diplomats said.

The two sides met again on Friday at Britain’s request. An E.U. diplomat said discussions focused on a British idea to avoid food safety controls on the Irish border.

E.U. diplomats have gotten the sense that continued talks are probably more for show than for substance.

The lack of engagement by Johnson’s team on the core issues has led to puzzlement about his strategy. Does he genuinely want a deal, but simply does not have realistic ideas about how to get one? Or is it a big bluff, and is he deliberately steering his country toward a Brexit without a safety net?

European policymakers increasingly believe the answer is the latter. They worry about being set up to take the fall.

One diplomat assessed that Johnson needs to pretend negotiations are underway, so he can blame the E.U. for any fallout from a no-deal Brexit. But if Johnson negotiated in earnest, the details — and the compromises — would quickly become public, sapping support from hardcore Brexit advocates who are enthusiastic about leaving without a deal.

“As soon as the details of a deal leak, he’s going to lose the election,” the diplomat said.

[...]

E.U. officials said that if Johnson — or any British leader — asked for an extension beyond the Halloween deadline, he would almost surely receive one, if there were a clear rationale for doing so. Despite some tough talk from Macron and others ahead of previous extensions this year, no E.U. leader wants to be responsible for the chaos likely to be unleashed by a no-deal Brexit, diplomats said.

The British Parliament has legislated to postpone by an additional three months. Johnson, though, said on Thursday he would “rather be dead in a ditch” than request further delay.

Even setting aside the uncertainty about events, there is deep skepticism in Europe that Johnson can be held to his word, and there are concerns about the health of Britain’s democracy.

“A lot of the bridges have been burned. There is a real feeling within the E.U. that Britain cannot be trusted, because the British system cannot be trusted,” said Fabian Zuleeg, the head of the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think tank. “It is difficult to imagine that any commitment that is made by the leadership can be trusted, because we have seen in the last month how quickly that can change.”

The problem, European officials say, is that the British discussion still bears little relationship to the reality of what the E.U. is willing to agree to.

May's singular mistake was triggering Article 50 before trying to negotiate.


Update on alleged Labour antisemitism: Previously when I surveyed UK Jewish polling and did not find them to be considerably more conservative than American Jews, I made the critical error of not comparing their actual voting choices. In fact UK Jews have for decades been overwhelmingly (https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-british-jews-vote-and-why-they-vote-this-way/) more conservative than American Jews, to the point that Corbyn has barely moved the needle on their electoral choices (21-58 in 2010 (https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/archive/files/Reports/Voting%20and%20Values%20in%20Britain%2012.pdf), 26-63 in 2017 (http://www.brin.ac.uk/religious-affiliation-and-party-choice-at-the-2017-general-election/). Oops!)
Far more interesting is Labour's collapse among Scottish Catholics, who typically voted Labour by 15-25% more than English Catholics - until 2015, when the margin vanished. Moreover, Catholics in general had historically been heavy Labour voters except for 1979, when they converged, and in 2015 when they converged again; more recently Labour's Catholic vote had been shrinking since the millennium began.

Latest polling (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ujzr9xbt4q/YouGov%20-%20Realistic%20Brexit.pdf) on "realistic Brexit outcomes." 100% of No Dealers think leaving with no deal is still possible. 100% of Referenders think a second referendum is still possible.

Brexit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTuS_qnrTg4)

[Furunculus]

Abuser logic: 'I wouldn't have had to hit you so hard if you didn't cover your face with your arm, you stupid bint.' Remainers did not undercut eea/efta by refusing to pre-emptively capitulate to your narrow interests, and they did not undercut negotiations because the course of history shows this was not an available arrangement.
Nonsense.
In the battle for ideas over what might replace EU membership elements of both leave and remain trashed the middle ground.
Remain to overturn the result, Leave to pursue maximum divergence.
You can't have it both ways: that Leavers trashed a compromise, but the delicate petals on Remain only sought to be nice to everyone.


There is no more "adversarial" negotiation to be had, the lines have been clearly drawn for more than a year, you mad lad. Johnson has nothing new (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/boris-johnsons-statements-about-the-state-of-brexit-negotiations-bear-little-relationship-to-reality-eu-officials-say/2019/09/06/2122453e-cfec-11e9-a620-0a91656d7db6_story.html) to offer.
There has already been movement after Bozza's first visit.
Most notably Macron in breaking ranks with the EU line in saying the WA is not immutable.
There have been plenty of idea, all rejected by the EU.
Not least the common rule book of the chequers proposal, but these ideas always founder on the absolutist interpretation of "no hard border"
A mistake.


May's singular mistake was triggering Article 50 before trying to negotiate.

Again, that was what the EU insisted upon.
And I have already listed it above as the point about about sequencing.
It was the EU that said; "no point trying to talk to us until you trigger Art50"
I would have been happy to wait longer, but May wanted to proceed in a consensual manner so decided to trigger Art50 before the two years ran into the EU elections.
At the EU's request!

[Beskar]

You know Boris should just call a second referendum instead.

"Do we leave the EU without a deal on the 31st?" The hardline Brexiteers then can campaign to their hearts content. Only problem is, when the country will choose 'No'... which every hardliner foresees and will oppose this and every other referendum on this fact alone. So much for liberty or death.

Or we can go with a multiple choice: "Do we agree to 'Theresa May' deal or leave on the 31st with no deal?". Now you at least got a choice, pretty binary here. It is what Theresa May should have done before stepping down, but she has never had a track record for competence.

Or even... "Should we reconsider our position on Brexit with the following options". This is the one everyone else would greatly prefer.
Or you can come up with a concrete version of your own.

As a special treat, you tie into the Referendum that the result has to be accepted, no matter what. By-passing parliament all together, enforce the will of the people.
In short, the people decide. Or we can continue this game of charades as British Parliamentary Democracy lies in ruins all around us.

[Montmorency]

Nonsense.
In the battle for ideas over what might replace EU membership elements of both leave and remain trashed the middle ground.
Remain to overturn the result, Leave to pursue maximum divergence.
You can't have it both ways: that Leavers trashed a compromise, but the delicate petals on Remain only sought to be nice to everyone.

No, you're the nonsense. Your "compromise" is to thrash Britain soundly rather than thrash Britain severely, yet you place the onus on Labour and LibDems to interpret that as harm reduction rather than as intolerable (and of course disunity within the Conservative Party itself is disregarded entirely in the narrative).

The Remainers' point has not been that Leavers are mean and Remainers are nice but that Leavers have no idea what they've gotten Britain into. There was no available compromise with the professional Leavers because they were foundationally opposed to any compromise that either the EU or the Remainers could tolerate. That's not the Remainers' responsibility.

A second referendum wouldn't heal Britain's divides in the short-term, but it's actually fairly straightforward to design a decisive and democratic one that can settle the issue of compromises:

"Revoke Article 50"
OR
"May's Deal"
OR
"No Deal"
OR
"Norway Plus"
OR
...

Just make the Leave options ranked choice within each other, so that either Leave or Remain must get a majority in the end. And certify it to be binding, unlike the 2016 referendum - Britain's most expensive opinion poll.


There has already been movement after Bozza's first visit.
Most notably Macron in breaking ranks with the EU line in saying the WA is not immutable.
There have been plenty of idea, all rejected by the EU.
Not least the common rule book of the chequers proposal, but these ideas always founder on the absolutist interpretation of "no hard border"
A mistake.

What is the evidence of movement? I'd like a link on Macron "breaking ranks", because to my knowledge he's been one of the harder-line (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/22/emmanuel-macron-backs-month-of-talks-to-agree-brexit-deal) national figures in the saga, and has remained so.

I have never seen indication why the EU's (and Ireland's) interpretation of EU and Irish interests and red lines is unreasonable. Johnson can't throw a bunch of rehashed BS at the EU and call it progress in negotiations.


Again, that was what the EU insisted upon.
And I have already listed it above as the point about about sequencing.
It was the EU that said; "no point trying to talk to us until you trigger Art50"
I would have been happy to wait longer, but May wanted to proceed in a consensual manner so decided to trigger Art50 before the two years ran into the EU elections.
At the EU's request!

What a strange position to take, that if only the Remainers would fall into line the UK could negotiate anything it pleases, but pressuring the EU to prenegotiate even a framework before Article 50 (https://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-strategic-error-triggering-article-50-2017-10) was an insurmountable lift. Everyone who knew something told May not to invoke Article 50 from scratch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just going to randomly throw evil pro-remain propaganda out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDFegpX5gI

Dear God, this AGAIN?

These laws came in in January - they're on the books - most of them have been on the books for years.

The British Oversees Territories (except Gibraltar) are self-governing and not bound by EU law and never have been, despite which the EU is using economic coercion to get them to change their tax laws - something that will not stop with Brexit.

These is worse than Stephen Fry's "how do you tell if something is moral" video and that was a piece of philosophically incoherent hogwash.

[Furunculus]

On the otherside of the coin, I will post a speech by the AtD co-leader on the impact of Brexit to Germany.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IcW4eo4uM

Great speech.
She's right.
For me - all that was required beyond what cameron achieved was the option to avoid ever-closer-union for all, not just britain.
With that - we had a hope of a blocking coalition to stop eurozone caucusing, without it... we leave.
Shame.

[Furunculus]

....stuff...
This is whining.
That does not in any meaningful way address that which i said.
Don't be that guy.

What is the evidence of movement? I'd like a link on Macron "breaking ranks", because to my knowledge he's been one of the harder-line national figures in the saga, and has remained so.

"We will not find a new withdrawal agreement within 30 days that will be very different from the existing one"
I don't know if we've all forgotten that Q1 this year was spent bashing our heads against the immutability of Barnier's WA:
"But if the choice is still to leave the EU in an orderly manner, this treaty is the only option. This is all that our legal constraints allow.”



What a strange position to take, that if only the Remainers would fall into line the UK could negotiate anything it pleases, but pressuring the EU to prenegotiate even a framework before Article 50 was an insurmountable lift. Everyone who knew something told May not to invoke Article 50 from scratch.
That is an absurd parody of the text you quote - that bears no relation to anything i said.
Remember, when you whining about how bad I am - i supported May's bill on the second and third reading, and i'd do so again.

[Furunculus]

...

[Montmorency]

This is whining.
That does not in any meaningful way address that which i said.
Don't be that guy.

It did so fully. Let's try a parallelism:

Corbyn becomes PM in general election, with a narrow Sinn Fein-backed majority. He pronounces this a mandate to socialize the economy. After a few years he produces a convoluted plan to transfer 51% of all privately-held real estate, stock, and other capital into municipal or public ownership. He says this is the only legislative option, or else he will order the seizure and redistribution of 100% of privately-held capital.

Socializing 51% of all private capital is not a compromise position. Questioning the legitimacy and wisdom of the government's conduct is not extremism on par with the total liquidation of private capital.


"We will not find a new withdrawal agreement within 30 days that will be very different from the existing one"
I don't know if we've all forgotten that Q1 this year was spent bashing our heads against the immutability of Barnier's WA:
"But if the choice is still to leave the EU in an orderly manner, this treaty is the only option. This is all that our legal constraints allow.”

So - their position has not changed. ???


Any new proposals to deal with the issue of the Northern Ireland border should fit into the existing framework withdrawal agreement already negotiated, Macron said.


That is an absurd parody of the text you quote - that bears no relation to anything i said.

You emphasized that the EU had expressed a desire to negotiate after the invocation of Article 50.

I questioned that it's reasonable to hold this up as a firm boundary while simulteneously discounting (by now) years-old red lines on the Irish border.


Remember, when you whining about how bad I am - i supported May's bill on the second and third reading, and i'd do so again.

You may not be as "bad" as a No Dealer, but you're not much less disingenuous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the quality of the posts in this forum don't start improving soon I'm going to lobby to be made moderator.

[Furunculus]

Corbyn becomes PM in general election, with a narrow Sinn Fein-backed majority. He pronounces this a mandate to socialize the economy. After a few years he produces a convoluted plan to transfer 51% of all privately-held real estate, stock, and other capital into municipal or public ownership. He says this is the only legislative option, or else he will order the seizure and redistribution of 100% of privately-held capital.
Socializing 51% of all private capital is not a compromise position. Questioning the legitimacy and wisdom of the government's conduct is not extremism on par with the total liquidation of private capital.

So - their position has not changed. ???

You emphasized that the EU had expressed a desire to negotiate after the invocation of Article 50.
I questioned that it's reasonable to hold this up as a firm boundary while simulteneously discounting (by now) years-old red lines on the Irish border.

had this plan to socialise the economy been won on the back of:
a) an election where 85% of MPs stood on a manifesto to implement the plan
b) a referendum asking people if they might want this done
c) an election where a manifesto choice is offered to ask this question
d) a decade plus of debate where 40-50% consistently want to implement the plan, and 50-60% consistently want to be asked in a referendum

Position has changed from "WA is immutable" to "WA can be changed". May tried twice to effect change to WA after MV1 was voted down, rebuffed each time.
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1170601891824373760

both sides had red lines that form the basis of their negotiating position. can we start talking around them or not?
negotiating parties never have it within their gift to ensure a negotiated outcome... outside of capitulation.
this is why it is accepted that one must always have the option to walk away from a negotiated solution.

[Beskar]

If the quality of the posts in this forum don't start improving soon I'm going to lobby to be made moderator.

Then you have a green name, pointy hat and still unable to do anything about it.

[Montmorency]

had this plan to socialise the economy been won on the back of:
a) an election where 85% of MPs stood on a manifesto to implement the plan
b) a referendum asking people if they might want this done
c) an election where a manifesto choice is offered to ask this question
d) a decade plus of debate where 40-50% consistently want to implement the plan, and 50-60% consistently want to be asked in a referendum

Right, so here is an example of what leads me to call you disingenuous.

Your conditions a-d apply bear no resemblance to the connection between historic anti-EU sentiment + the Brexit campaign and the actual process since 2016 culminating in a dichotomy between May's Deal and No Deal. No one before 2016 predicted or wanted the events of 2016-2019, much less staked out their politics on the basis of such.


Position has changed from "WA is immutable" to "WA can be changed".

I'm sure I could find statements about the possibility of something "in principle" at any point in the last 3 years. So in practice, no movement. Johnson's European trips and the responses of Macron and EU negotiators have made as much clear.


both sides had red lines that form the basis of their negotiating position. can we start talking around them or not?
negotiating parties never have it within their gift to ensure a negotiated outcome... outside of capitulation.
this is why it is accepted that one must always have the option to walk away from a negotiated solution.

I also have to reject your understanding of the political economy of negotiations. Having reflected on normal human sociality, it seems to me that - especially in the context of the progress of Brexit negotiations - an attempt by one negotiating party to double-down on bluff and bluster in a bad-faith adversarial turn would only incentivize the other party AGAINST making concessions. You allude to the improbability that one party can bring another to capitulation here, so what is a paper power play supposed to accomplish other than aggravate everyone's pain?

[InsaneApache]

I see that the Squeeker 'poison dwarf' Bercow has thrown in the towel. Good riddance to a disgusting man.

[Pannonian]

I see that the Squeeker 'poison dwarf' Bercow has thrown in the towel. Good riddance to a disgusting man.

And yet you profess admiration for the likes of Nigel Farage. Were you always a supporter of the far right? Were you a BNP supporter back in the day? Since that's the audience he aims for.

[Pannonian]

Has anyone looked at the list of medications that are already affected or may be affected by Brexit? I saw four of my parents' prescriptions in the list. The blood pressure medication is in the list of already affected, don't know if the other ones are also in that list.

[Furunculus]

Your conditions a-d apply bear no resemblance to the connection between historic anti-EU sentiment + the Brexit campaign and the actual process since 2016 culminating in a dichotomy between May's Deal and No Deal. No one before 2016 predicted or wanted the events of 2016-2019, much less staked out their politics on the basis of such.

I'm not sure why what you say means I am lieing when I point out that present a weak parallel between the history of brexit and the history a corbyn who declares a mandate to socialise the country after a narrow win achieved on the back of a coalition.
I also don't see why the "unwanted the events of 2016-2019" have any bearing on the matter. The vote was to leave or to remain, not leave only if the jilted party gives us a sweatheart deal.


I'm sure I could find statements about the possibility of something "in principle" at any point in the last 3 years. So in practice, no movement. Johnson's European trips and the responses of Macron and EU negotiators have made as much clear.
I did provide you a direct quote of macron's words from a fortnight ago, confirmed by a tweet from a noted journalist.
What more do we want in the midst of a fraught negotiation?




I also have to reject your understanding of the political economy of negotiations. Having reflected on normal human sociality, it seems to me that - especially in the context of the progress of Brexit negotiations - an attempt by one negotiating party to double-down on bluff and bluster in a bad-faith adversarial turn would only incentivize the other party AGAINST making concessions. You allude to the improbability that one party can bring another to capitulation here, so what is a paper power play supposed to accomplish other than aggravate everyone's pain?

Everyones understanding of negotiation are that you are in it to maximise your advantage, that the only real leverage anyone really has is to walk away.
Understanding the above, the weaker party being the UK has to be careful not to lose sight of this fact, and its one real card here is that its greater political cohesiveness will make it more tolerant of the greater immediate pain of walking away.
There is no way the EU does not play to maximise its leverage, because it wants control of the financial services industry through which 75% of EU FDI is sourced and 75% of its risk-hedging derivatives are managed, especially when it's coping with negatives interest rates and 7.5% eurozone unemployment at the peak of the cycle, and its sat on £750b in NPL's.
The city of london is a risk it would like to control, very much, hence the enthusiasm for keeping the UK within the EEA.

But just because the EU wants to achieve this thing does not mean we have to agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Seriously - can we get some moderation in here?

About 50% of the replies on this page are attacks against posters, not their arguments, and we've progressed from accusing each other of dishonesty to accusing each other of being Neo-Nazis.

[edyzmedieval]

We are here and watching, no worries about that Philippus. :bow:

I will give you that the whole Brexit charade is making people very inflamed, sometimes rightly so, because the entire process has been absolutely farcical and tempers do flare up easily in this case.

[Montmorency]

I'm not sure why what you say means I am lieing when I point out that present a weak parallel between the history of brexit and the history a corbyn who declares a mandate to socialise the country after a narrow win achieved on the back of a coalition.
I also don't see why the "unwanted the events of 2016-2019" have any bearing on the matter. The vote was to leave or to remain, not leave only if the jilted party gives us a sweatheart deal

Of course the expectations of the deliberaters matter in a deliberative process. Nowhere in my scenario did I provide that Corbyn threatened the elimination of private property before his narrow election.

Here I tried to be accommodating of your sensibilities and impute to Corbyn a generic intent to "socialize" the economy. If your premise is genuinely that even the vaguest electoral program permits anything in that direction, so that even a purely-conservative status quo counts as extremism and anything between that and the most radical conceivable actions counts as a compromise, then your treatment of the comparison between my Corbyn scenario and Brexit unfolding would not be disingenuous.

I just don't believe you really believe that, because it sounds like the sneering expedient of a basher or mafioso in any other context. If a man comes to your place of business and tells you he will break your legs if you don't pay him protection money, it may be said in a trivial sense that the victim shares causal responsibility with the enforcer in their legs getting broken. If they had just paid they would have come to no harm! But everyone other than the criminal naturally recognizes that only the attacker bears any culpability for cause and effect. Hobson's choices like that between keeping the money and keeping the legs are inherently not choices between extremes because only one "choice" is in fact the extreme.


I did provide you a direct quote of macron's words from a fortnight ago, confirmed by a tweet from a noted journalist.
What more do we want in the midst of a fraught negotiation?

So did I, and he seemed to be saying the same things he and negotiators have been saying the whole year.


Understanding the above, the weaker party being the UK has to be careful not to lose sight of this fact, and its one real card here is that its greater political cohesiveness will make it more tolerant of the greater immediate pain of walking away.

It's looking to be exactly the opposite, as British play at hardball toughens EU resolve while further dividing the UK against itself. Ultimately if the UK walks away it may just turn out to be the best political outcome the EU could hope for - all harms trace to one actor's decision. We could call it almost the contrapositive of PVC's notion that a benefit of Brexit is the UK no longer having the EU as a scapegoat (though in truth geographic, political, and economic proximity can always allow for scapegoating). By now I expect that's just what the EU is aiming at, allowing the UK to hang itself with its own rope.


The city of london is a risk it would like to control, very much, hence the enthusiasm for keeping the UK within the EEA.

The UK financial industry grew up during integration, so in your narrative Brexit should suit the EU counterparts.


because it wants control of the financial services industry through which 75% of EU FDI is sourced

I don't understand what you mean when you say that foreign investment is sourced through the European financial services industry. The closest thing (https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/march/tradoc_157724.pdf) I can find is that financial services is one of the sectors in the EU with the highest share of foreign ownership of total assets.



Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Sir, we shall perdure for the duration of the emergency.


About 50% of the replies on this page are attacks against posters, not their arguments

There can be both. :creep:


we've progressed from accusing each other of dishonesty to accusing each other of being Neo-Nazis.

When was that?


EDIT: Just some things, for no particular reason, that struck me about Singapore are that state-owned enterprises generate more than a quarter of GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore#/media/File:Singapore_SOE_percent_of_GDP.png) (as of 2014) and more than 80% of the population live in social housing (https://theconversation.com/a-century-of-public-housing-lessons-from-singapore-where-housing-is-a-social-not-financial-asset-121141) (which blows Vienna out of the water, where hardly even 2/3 live in social housing (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vienna-affordable-housing-paradise_n_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0)).

[Pannonian]

Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Seriously - can we get some moderation in here?

About 50% of the replies on this page are attacks against posters, not their arguments, and we've progressed from accusing each other of dishonesty to accusing each other of being Neo-Nazis.

How would you describe Nigel Farage? How would you describe admirers of Nigel Farage?

BTW, have you looked at the list of affected medications? My parents were on my mind when I voted. I saw a vote to leave as an expression of ingratitude to the carers who helped look after them. One did indeed leave after feeling unwelcome from the vote
It turns out it was worse than that, that they would be lacking medications as a result as well. And you rage that I don't like admirers of Farage.

Do you disagree with my description of Farage as far right, do you disagree with my statement that IA supports him, or do you think that even if such things are true, I shouldn't mention them? What do you think of his reference to Remoaners and how he'll enjoy their squealing come no deal? Was that ok, but what I said was not?

[rory_20_uk]

How would you describe Nigel Farage? How would you describe admirers of Nigel Farage?

BTW, have you looked at the list of affected medications? My parents were on my mind when I voted. I saw a vote to leave as an expression of ingratitude to the carers who helped look after them. One did indeed leave after feeling unwelcome from the vote
It turns out it was worse than that, that they would be lacking medications as a result as well. And you rage that I don't like admirers of Farage.

Do you disagree with my description of Farage as far right, do you disagree with my statement that IA supports him, or do you think that even if such things are true, I shouldn't mention them? What do you think of his reference to Remoaners and how he'll enjoy their squealing come no deal? Was that ok, but what I said was not?

The geriatric version of "please think of the children!!!"

FYI - you can purchase medications abroad and get it sent to you for personal use. From anywhere in the world. The pills generally have a shelf life of 3 years or so - so you can add them to your bomb shelter.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Seriously - can we get some moderation in here?

We can do a referendum on it. If the majority of those who reply here "Thanks" my post. I will lock the thread.

As an advocate for the Lockiteers, would you be willing to negotiation an opening of a new thread if there are any major changes in the ongoing saga of status quo? A Soft-Lockit option as it were.

Otherwise the Thread Remoaners can continue to have their say.

[InsaneApache]

And yet you profess admiration for the likes of Nigel Farage. Were you always a supporter of the far right? Were you a BNP supporter back in the day? Since that's the audience he aims for.

Usual shite from a lefty. Shout fascist at folks they don't agree with. Grow up.

[Pannonian]

Usual shite from a lefty. Shout fascist at folks they don't agree with. Grow up.

See, IA has high regard for Nigel Farage. Now is Farage far right?

[Pannonian]

Promised by Leave:

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9389966.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/GettyImages-531350218.jpg

Delivered by Leave:


The geriatric version of "please think of the children!!!"

FYI - you can purchase medications abroad and get it sent to you for personal use. From anywhere in the world. The pills generally have a shelf life of 3 years or so - so you can add them to your bomb shelter.

~:smoking:

Am I allowed to point out the discrepancy between promises and reality, or is this deemed a personal attack?

[InsaneApache]

You have a weird idea of far right. Then I s'pose anyone to the right of Mao is far right.

BTW fascist are of the left.

[rory_20_uk]

Promised by Leave:

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9389966.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/GettyImages-531350218.jpg

Delivered by Leave:



Am I allowed to point out the discrepancy between promises and reality, or is this deemed a personal attack?

It is redundantly pointing out politicians are liars. You've don it several times and I am not sure what point you're making... If there are shortages whilst we remain in the EU this too is Brexit just before its happened?

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We can do a referendum on it. If the majority of those who reply here "Thanks" my post. I will lock the thread.

As an advocate for the Lockiteers, would you be willing to negotiation an opening of a new thread if there are any major changes in the ongoing saga of status quo? A Soft-Lockit option as it were.

Otherwise the Thread Remoaners can continue to have their say.

Whilst I appreciate the attempt at humour the point is that this thread has strayed wildly off topic. As defined by the OP this thread is about the EXIT NEGOTIATIONS but most of the posts for the last few pages have been about Parliament and/or attacking the credibility of the Leave/Remain position.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

See, IA has high regard for Nigel Farage. Now is Farage far right?

I've known IA for a decade and a half - he's not a supporter of the Far Right, I'm sure he's said rude things about the BNP in the past, though I'm not going to trawl his posts to find them.

Farage is an extremist... when it comes to Brexit, otherwise I'd say he's less-right wing than Jacob Reese-Mogg (who might actually be in the "starve the poor" camp). The fact IA admires Farage's commitment to Brexit does not mean he supports his ideas on the NHS.

Not that IA needs me to defend him... but I'm absolutely sick of the way people are acting in this thread.

If you cannot attack IA's argument, and only his character, then you aren't making a useful contribution.

For the record, though, IA's views on Bercow were not a useful contribution either - they belong in the UK Politics thread if anywhere.

Now, the whole :daisy: lot of you GROW UP.

[Pannonian]

Whilst I appreciate the attempt at humour the point is that this thread has strayed wildly off topic. As defined by the OP this thread is about the EXIT NEGOTIATIONS but most of the posts for the last few pages have been about Parliament and/or attacking the credibility of the Leave/Remain position.

Are you really saying that this thread should be confined to the strict definition of the OP, that more general discussion of Brexit should be kept out?

[Pannonian]

I've known IA for a decade and a half - he's not a supporter of the Far Right, I'm sure he's said rude things about the BNP in the past, though I'm not going to trawl his posts to find them.

Farage is an extremist... when it comes to Brexit, otherwise I'd say he's less-right wing than Jacob Reese-Mogg (who might actually be in the "starve the poor" camp). The fact IA admires Farage's commitment to Brexit does not mean he supports his ideas on the NHS.

Not that IA needs me to defend him... but I'm absolutely sick of the way people are acting in this thread.

If you cannot attack IA's argument, and only his character, then you aren't making a useful contribution.

For the record, though, IA's views on Bercow were not a useful contribution either - they belong in the UK Politics thread if anywhere.

Now, the whole :daisy: lot of you GROW UP.

I've known IA for quite a while now too, and in the past I wouldn't have said that he's the kind of person that would say the kind of stuff that he's been spouting recently. But he has been saying that kind of stuff, and there it is, in black and white or whatever you've set up to browse in. If someone comes in here talking about Islam, and instead of putting forward his case for how his religion helps him, they talk about how they're looking forward to how the unbelievers will get theirs come the day of reckoning, would you not describe them as an extremist? That's what IA has been doing on Brexit.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=q471MPrPiEA

:laugh4:

I shall be bathing in the tears of remoaners come All Hallows Eve.

Mad bint.

[InsaneApache]

Well if the remoaners had accepted the result of the referendum I would have been more sanguine about it. As it is they have traduced our democracy and continue to do so. I happen to value the system that out forefathers fought for.

Like the Incredible Hulk. 'Don't Make Me Angry - You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry'.

[Pannonian]

Well if the remoaners had accepted the result of the referendum I would have been more sanguine about it. As it is they have traduced our democracy and continue to do so. I happen to value the system that out forefathers fought for.

Like the Incredible Hulk. 'Don't Make Me Angry - You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry'.

Does the Loyal Opposition no longer exist? Are there any other issues where opposition to the government is to be deemed disloyalty to the nation? Who gets to decide what they are? Is there any recourse if we disagree, or is disagreement evidence of treason?

[rory_20_uk]

Does the Loyal Opposition no longer exist? Are there any other issues where opposition to the government is to be deemed disloyalty to the nation? Who gets to decide what they are? Is there any recourse if we disagree, or is disagreement evidence of treason?

The "loyal" opposition who refused to swear fealty to the Queen? At least Sein Fein has the decency not to turn up.

The opposition is so craven they're not prepared to have an election and test their popularity since they are afraid of loosing their seats (and all those lovely perks).

The system is designed to enable people to have a career in politics rather than represent the people. Most seats are just re-engineered rotten boroughs.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The "loyal" opposition who refused to swear fealty to the Queen? At least Sein Fein has the decency not to turn up.

The opposition is so craven they're not prepared to have an election and test their popularity since they are afraid of loosing their seats (and all those lovely perks).

The system is designed to enable people to have a career in politics rather than represent the people. Most seats are just re-engineered rotten boroughs.

~:smoking:

Are you expecting me to speak up for Corbyn, or defend his various shenanigans?

[rory_20_uk]

Are you expecting me to speak up for Corbyn, or defend his various shenanigans?

Either defend him or don't ask stupid questions ~;)

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Either defend him or don't ask stupid questions ~;)

~:smoking:

So does opposition not exist outside Jeremy Corbyn? Am I not allowed to oppose the government if I do not swear fealty to Saint Jez of Corbyn?

[rory_20_uk]

So does opposition not exist outside Jeremy Corbyn? Am I not allowed to oppose the government if I do not swear fealty to Saint Jez of Corbyn?

He's the Leader of the "Loyal Opposition" as started during the Regency. If I misunderstood that can a Subject be loyal and oppose the government I think that is highly likely since every election since at least the 1950's over 50% of the voters didn't vote for the elected government, we are governed by a group most people don't want.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you really saying that this thread should be confined to the strict definition of the OP, that more general discussion of Brexit should be kept out?

If you want to talk about the credibility of the result, of the impact it has had/will have on our society those are different topics, yes.


I've known IA for quite a while now too, and in the past I wouldn't have said that he's the kind of person that would say the kind of stuff that he's been spouting recently. But he has been saying that kind of stuff, and there it is, in black and white or whatever you've set up to browse in. If someone comes in here talking about Islam, and instead of putting forward his case for how his religion helps him, they talk about how they're looking forward to how the unbelievers will get theirs come the day of reckoning, would you not describe them as an extremist? That's what IA has been doing on Brexit.

I grew up liking Connie Huq - in fact I think she was one of my first teenage crushes. Regardless of which, she's talking about chopping people's heads off and she repeatedly interrupts her opponent. She does, in fact, look a bit unhinged.

At no point have I indulged IA's rudeness - but the simple fact is you have repeatedly antagonised those of us who voted Leave in this thread. You have your own specific axe to grind and want to grind it on us, well sir, we indulged you for some time but now the trope has worn out, completely. Once the rest of us started ignoring you you've zeroed in on IA and every time he posts you bring up Farage - I'd say you spend a lot more time thinking about Nigel Farage than anyone who voted Leave here. Now you've explicitly linked IA to the BNP withh absolutely no justification.

Frankly, the standard of debate between you and IA as sunk to a deplorable low on both sides.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well if the remoaners had accepted the result of the referendum I would have been more sanguine about it. As it is they have traduced our democracy and continue to do so. I happen to value the system that out forefathers fought for.

Like the Incredible Hulk. 'Don't Make Me Angry - You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry'.

Having taken Pannonian to task I think it behoves me to say that you could have just ignored him.

Hurling insults at each other should be beneath both of you.

[InsaneApache]

You're right, I shouldn't have been so angry. The veil has slipped on my view of the Mother of Parliaments. I never had much down for politicians generally as your all aware. However the chutzpah exhibited by the majority of MP is disturbing. That they are ready to destroy democracy in the UK is shocking.

For the first time in my life I actually feel that serious unrest could be unleashed in the UK. Not a riot here or there but disorder on a nationwide scale. I talk to people and I've never seen such anger in my fellow subjects. Never.

The remoaners bang on about this being a return to the 1930s and they're right but not in the way they think. They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good.

I apologise to forum members for my rudeness.

Oh and I wont feed the troll again. :bow:

Oh and Huq was hot back in the day. :creep:

[Pannonian]

You're right, I shouldn't have been so angry. The veil has slipped on my view of the Mother of Parliaments. I never had much down for politicians generally as your all aware. However the chutzpah exhibited by the majority of MP is disturbing. That they are ready to destroy democracy in the UK is shocking.

For the first time in my life I actually feel that serious unrest could be unleashed in the UK. Not a riot here or there but disorder on a nationwide scale. I talk to people and I've never seen such anger in my fellow subjects. Never.

The remoaners bang on about this being a return to the 1930s and they're right but not in the way they think. They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good.

I apologise to forum members for my rudeness.

Oh and I wont feed the troll again. :bow:

Oh and Huq was hot back in the day. :creep:

The Remain demonstrations have been notable for their lack of incident despite the hundreds of thousands involved. The Leave demonstrations, considerably smaller by a factor of a hundred, have seen violence aimed at police. And of course, during the campaign itself, an MP campaigning for Remain was assassinated. Will you condone further violence in the pursuit of your goal?

A warning applying to everyone, please cease the targeting of individuals in this thread. Thank you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Honestly, I still think she's attractive - and it's worth pointing out that ten years ago equally ludicrous things were being said by some Eurosceptics. still, that's no defence.

There's a lot going on in Parliament but overall my impression is that all the wrong people are in charge. There are decent people in both parties and decent people on both sides of this debate - but they're not the ones calling the shots.

[InsaneApache]

The Remain demonstrations have been notable for their lack of incident despite the hundreds of thousands involved. The Leave demonstrations, considerably smaller by a factor of a hundred, have seen violence aimed at police. And of course, during the campaign itself, an MP campaigning for Remain was assassinated. Will you condone further violence in the pursuit of your goal?

Read my post. I did not condone violence.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're right, I shouldn't have been so angry. The veil has slipped on my view of the Mother of Parliaments. I never had much down for politicians generally as your all aware. However the chutzpah exhibited by the majority of MP is disturbing. That they are ready to destroy democracy in the UK is shocking.

For the first time in my life I actually feel that serious unrest could be unleashed in the UK. Not a riot here or there but disorder on a nationwide scale. I talk to people and I've never seen such anger in my fellow subjects. Never.

The remoaners bang on about this being a return to the 1930s and they're right but not in the way they think. They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good.

I apologise to forum members for my rudeness.

Oh and I wont feed the troll again. :bow:

Oh and Huq was hot back in the day. :creep:

Your system for hundreds of years has been consistently moving towards the concentration of authority to Parliament and specifically the Commons. All authority exhibited by the courts, by the queen, by any other institution is derived from Parliament and can be revoked by Parliament. Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole. In order for your democracy to be upheld, this fundamental principle must be upheld because to claim that referendums are somehow above the sovereignty of parliament and must be fulfilled by Parliament against their will, is the real upheaval of British history.

Your democratic government structure is Indirect in nature, not Direct, full stop. To claim otherwise is a lie, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. The Commons do not want a no-deal exit and if they go against the government to make sure no-deal does not happen that is British democracy, you can voice your opposition through your vote at the next election and the next session of Parliament will then get to decide what they want to do with the Brexit question, which could very well be no-deal since the Tory's are leading in the polls and will likely only give the whip to those who wish to follow through with no-deal.

Remoaners is a shit meme, no different than the US alt-right talking about "Sleepy Joe", "Little Marco". Conservatism in both the US and UK is dead, your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable. Your values are not for sovereignty of the British people from Europe since the realpolitik of a UK outside the EU is well known at this point. It can't even be argued it is for the prosperity of the public, since the government papers (why is it named after a bird????) seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

But I don't even care about all that. As someone who leans left, I don't care whether I am debating a neoconservative or a nationalistic fascist. It's just the delusion that you and most of the other pro-Brexit British in this thread truly believe the mess of British government is not a reflection of the Conservative political class becoming more abhorrent in their attempts to circumvent consensus in favor of pushing a divided question to its most extreme outcome.

Don't @me Pannonian, I understand your anger but you refuse to understand them for what they are and try to push a circular argument style to get a gotcha moment that never arrives. They don't care about what it takes to get to Brexit, they never did.

[Montmorency]

Your system for hundreds of years has been consistently moving towards the concentration of authority to Parliament and specifically the Commons. All authority exhibited by the courts, by the queen, by any other institution is derived from Parliament and can be revoked by Parliament. Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole. In order for your democracy to be upheld, this fundamental principle must be upheld because to claim that referendums are somehow above the sovereignty of parliament and must be fulfilled by Parliament against their will, is the real upheaval of British history.

Your democratic government structure is Indirect in nature, not Direct, full stop. To claim otherwise is a lie, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. The Commons do not want a no-deal exit and if they go against the government to make sure no-deal does not happen that is British democracy, you can voice your opposition through your vote at the next election and the next session of Parliament will then get to decide what they want to do with the Brexit question, which could very well be no-deal since the Tory's are leading in the polls and will likely only give the whip to those who wish to follow through with no-deal.

Remoaners is a shit meme, no different than the US alt-right talking about "Sleepy Joe", "Little Marco". Conservatism in both the US and UK is dead, your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable. Your values are not for sovereignty of the British people from Europe since the realpolitik of a UK outside the EU is well known at this point. It can't even be argued it is for the prosperity of the public, since the government papers (why is it named after a bird????) seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

But I don't even care about all that. As someone who leans left, I don't care whether I am debating a neoconservative or a nationalistic fascist. It's just the delusion that you and most of the other pro-Brexit British in this thread truly believe the mess of British government is not a reflection of the Conservative political class becoming more abhorrent in their attempts to circumvent consensus in favor of pushing a divided question to its most extreme outcome.

Don't @me Pannonian, I understand your anger but you refuse to understand them for what they are and try to push a circular argument style to get a gotcha moment that never arrives. They don't care about what it takes to get to Brexit, they never did.


^^^ Ayyyy


There's a lot of talk about democracy lately. Now, let us discuss what it means to be "democratic." It means that the architecture of government must possess legitimacy. It means that the people, both majorities and minorities, can influence the course of their lives at the highest level and ensure that their interests are considered and safeguarded. Perhaps the UK and other democracies have not achieved such a thing yet, but we do have the same forms of government that we did 10 years ago, so we can at least hold a comparison within. In the sense that any UK government or policy as it can be constructed under existing rules can be legitimate, what does it take?

In a procedural sense, what is the modern government of the UK? It arises from Parliamentary representation. The Monarch does not provide or produce governance in a meaningful sense; all they retain is their ultima ratio. So what is at the heart of the procedural legitimacy of Parliament? The heart of it is the MPs and the Acts of Parliament. I haven't checked in a while, but I would bet that the majority of MPs remain opposed to Brexit. I recall this was an issue in the 2017 elections, and the vote clearly returned an anti-Brexit parliament. Is this not a democratic result, the very recourse Remainers are so gung-ho about today because they expect Borish Johnson's Conservatives to win outright on a party line, then what is? This same 2017 Parliament produced several pieces of legislation across party lines to reject both No Deal Brexit and May's Deal Brexit. If this wasn't procedurally legitimate, then certainly no form of Brexit can be as of now. Now, what is the procedural legitimacy of a non-binding referendum itself? Nil, or at least no more than a particularly expensive and thorough opinion poll. I don't see how this can be disputed. If you want legitimacy, hold a binding referendum with defined options ranked by preference.

But perhaps there is another democratic legitimacy to Brexit, in that a majority of voting people voted out of the EU? Unfortunately not. 51.89 * 0.7221 (turnout) = 37.5% of the electorate backed leave, at one point in 2016. If the basic wishes of a majority of the population are a dispositive factor, all indicia point to fewer Britons wishing to Leave (in any form) than to stay, and for this to have been true shortly before the referendum as well as at most times afterwards. If the continuing and granular manifestation of the will of the people is the democratic thing, then an outdated, unspecific, and irregularly conducted nonbinding referendum cannot be it, chief. Everything points to Leave being a minority position since mid-2017. A real lack of democracy can be seen in the technocratic and unaccountable character of the negotiations themselves, which Leavers do not oppose except insofar as it does not produce the results they prefer. Those who favored a strong democracy would wish the people to have their hand directly in the conduct of negotiations, or at least in their ability to maintain accountability and transparency among their assigned delegates. Brexiteers today thus have neither the numbers nor procedure on their side, and are a clear-cut case of an ideologically-motivated vanguard minority subverting the whole country. And maybe, theoretically, rule or ruin by vanguard could be a good thing. It has not often been in history, but perhaps it could be. Lenin and Castro thought so, and they were more popular than Brexit. A Corbyn government with the ruthlessness of Brexit might be able to deliver significant victories on behalf of "the People." But ultimately I disagree with the soundness and virtue of the means and hope to see you admonished in the end.

Now, all this is why it so frightens me to hear IA inveigh, so wrongly yet with such conviction, about Remain being the antidemocratic ones, that "They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good." For IA democracy means leaning on any pretense to permanently and irrevocably seize power on behalf of a narrow cabal and their agitated clients. This is the "democracy" of the decolonial despotism, and it recalls the "People's Will" as seen in Cromwell's Commonwealth or the movie Children of Men. It can happen there, and I reiterate what cruel racist fools y'all Europeans were to sneer at the struggles of Eastern Europe or new African countries. You are not immune to the same degenerations. None of us are.

[Furunculus]

Your system for hundreds of years has been consistently moving towards the concentration of authority to Parliament and specifically the Commons. All authority exhibited by the courts, by the queen, by any other institution is derived from Parliament and can be revoked by Parliament. Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole. In order for your democracy to be upheld, this fundamental principle must be upheld because to claim that referendums are somehow above the sovereignty of parliament and must be fulfilled by Parliament against their will, is the real upheaval of British history.

Your democratic government structure is Indirect in nature, not Direct, full stop. To claim otherwise is a lie, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. The Commons do not want a no-deal exit and if they go against the government to make sure no-deal does not happen that is British democracy, you can voice your opposition through your vote at the next election and the next session of Parliament will then get to decide what they want to do with the Brexit question, which could very well be no-deal since the Tory's are leading in the polls and will likely only give the whip to those who wish to follow through with no-deal.

Not really as simple as you make out:
http://civitas.org.uk/2016/12/03/briefing-note-the-supreme-court-and-article-50-what-dicey-really-said/
Dicey saying that parliamentary sovereignty meant that Parliament has:

‘the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.’ (p. 20) This has the corollary, they thought, that ‘it cannot be said that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate, since as a matter of law’ in Dicey’s view:

‘The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors.’ (p. 96, p. 101.)

Dicey’s argument was in truth more subtle than the High Court judges seem to have realised. He described how our constitution was made up of both laws and conventions. There was ‘the law of the constitution’ – the enforceable laws that laid down con­stitutional principles – and the ‘convent­ions of the constitution’ – the habits and traditions that are followed but not enforced. The conventions had one ultimate object: ‘to secure that Parliament, or the Cabinet which is indirectly appointed by Parliament, shall in the long run give effect to the will of that power which in modern England is the true political sovereign of the State – the majority of the electors or… the nation’. (p. 249.)

Dicey strongly maintains that ‘the electorate is in fact the sovereign of England’. The whole people act through a ‘supreme legislature’ whose conduct is ‘regulated by understandings of which the object is to secure the conformity of Parliament to the will of the nation’. All the conventions that uphold the supremacy of the House of Commons in practice uphold the ‘sovereignty of the people’. To demonstrate his claim Dicey examines three conventions: (1) the requirement that the powers of the Crown are exercised through ministers enjoying the confidence of Parliament; (2) the convention that the House of Lords gives way to the Commons; and (3) the right of monarchs to dissolve parliament against the wishes of the majority of MPs (no longer possible since the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act).


Remoaners is a shit meme, no different than the US alt-right talking about "Sleepy Joe", "Little Marco". Conservatism in both the US and UK is dead, your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable. Your values are not for sovereignty of the British people from Europe since the realpolitik of a UK outside the EU is well known at this point. It can't even be argued it is for the prosperity of the public, since the government papers (why is it named after a bird????) seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

But I don't even care about all that. As someone who leans left, I don't care whether I am debating a neoconservative or a nationalistic fascist. It's just the delusion that you and most of the other pro-Brexit British in this thread truly believe the mess of British government is not a reflection of the Conservative political class becoming more abhorrent in their attempts to circumvent consensus in favor of pushing a divided question to its most extreme outcome.


No.
Your inventing conspiracy around a far simpler fact:
This is really difficult!
Fifty years of legal convergence under the doctrine of ever-closer-union has made exiting so [politically] contentious that it almost makes irrelevant that their exists a [legal] remedy to exit by the name of Art50.
It has proved nearly impossible despite opt-outs on the euro, schengen, justice, and more.

Staying in means traveling further down a path that does not have consent - make leaving still further difficult - so the task must be completed now regardless of how unpleasant it is.

[InsaneApache]

Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole.

Parliament gets it's sovereignty and legitimately from the people. Jesus wept.


seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

Listen and learn.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YggHsc0LvyI


your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable.

Parliament is prorogued every year. Look it up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On Prorogation: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0111

Prior to 1930 the length of the current prorogation would not have been unusual, but since 1930 is have usually been about a week. One notes, also, that it was suggested some months ago that Theresa May could prorogue Parliament just to put her deal to the House again. In regards to the Parliament and the Deal Boris Johnson was handed a poisoned chalice - a Deal Parliament would never accept and a Parliament itself already accustomed to open revolt within the Government.

The whole thing is, frankly, an unworkable mess at this point.

With regards to Brexit in general, I would have thought this would be something our American friends would grasp more directly. If our democracy is based on a Sovereign Parliament, then the "Ever Closer Union" clause in the Treaty of Rome clearly represents an existential threat to our democracy, doesn't it? At some point Parliament will cease to be soverign - one might argue this has already happened to an extent because Article 50 lays out the way in which the UK (via Parliament) must withdraw - rather than the terms of the negotiations being ope-ended. In any case, for decades people have had two pro-integration parties to choose from. Granted, they were slow-integration parties but that hardly helps.

Then we had a referendum and the majority of the electorate who voted voted to leave. Compare this to the 1992 French Maastricht Treaty referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_French_Maastricht_Treaty_referendum As you can see, the 2016 UK Referendum had a majority roughly double the 1992 referendum on a slightly higher turnout. Therefore, the mandate the British people gave Parliament to leave the EU is stronger than the one the French People gave to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. It necessarily follows that any attempt to undermine the validity of the 2016 Referendum also undermines the validity of the EU itself.

Additionally, it should be noted that whilst the referendum was technically "advisory" there was an understanding, explicitly acknowledged by all parties and senior politicians, that Parliament would act on the result. Given the inherent nature of our Constitution this is as binding as it is possible for a Referendum to be and the idea that Parliament would ignore the expressed will of the British People is in the same catagory as the Queen ignoring the advice of her ministers.

Now, about No Deal:

Nobody, except a few fringe loons, wants No Deal. However, given a choice between a perpetual "Leaving" that continually drags our economy and makes inward investment virtually impossible at some point we have to go for No Deal rather than continually extending. Theresa May's Deal was, in reality, an extension of that "Leaving" process because of the Backstop - which is why it was continually voted down.

We will see if Boris Johnson can ditch the Backstop - if so it's likely Parliament and Country will hold its collective noses and the Deal will be ratified.

[Greyblades]

Parliament perhaps, but I cant see that going down well with the electorate at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Parliament perhaps, but I cant see that going down well with the electorate at all.

We shall see - I think the majority of the electorate will be glad it's over.

[Pannonian]

Don't @me Pannonian, I understand your anger but you refuse to understand them for what they are and try to push a circular argument style to get a gotcha moment that never arrives. They don't care about what it takes to get to Brexit, they never did.

I know they don't care, but it's never been about a gotcha moment. I recognised fairly early on that it was a case of starting with their conclusion and shaping or ignoring the arguments in order to lead to that conclusion.

My point is the British system, which I used to be proud of, and which I used to believe in. Go back in my post history, and you'll see me roting many of the same arguments about democracy, balance, the need for reason etc. that PVC and others still go on about in the Trump and other US threads. I used to believe that the UK was fortunate enough to be in a position to comment with wisdom. Then came Brexit. These are what I believed to be necessities for a working democracy, which I believed the UK was fortunate enough to have even where others had been lacking.

1. Political debate needs to be shaped by reason and evidence-based discussion. Blind ideology, undisprovable, cannot be the driver for political debate. That way lies the religious fundamentalism that you see in the US uniquely in the west, but also the religious nutcases in the middle east.
2. Expert opinion has to be respected. Not everyone can be well informed about all subjects. Politicians cannot just overrule the arguments of people who are foremost in their fields. Those who try should lose their credibility. This is why anti-vaxxers hold sway in the US, but not the UK.
3. Politicians must tell the truth, and if they do not, they must be held to account.

The referendum campaign by Leave, and the voters' response to it, abused the heck out of my beliefs in the above. I'd previously thought that the UK was well positioned in all three points, and it was all that was necessary for the best working liberal democracy in the world, ie. the UK. After the referendum, I sought further lines that I hoped we would not cross, that I never imagined would be necessary to paint in the first place.

4. Parliament is the basis of government. If the government cannot command the backing of Parliament, it has no mandate. That is why the party with the most MPs gets to try to form a government, but a government can only be formed once it can command a majority of the MPs in the Commons. Corollary to this is that if Parliament has a demonstrated majority on something, then that is by definition what the government must do.
5. Opposition is an intrinsic part of the British system. Opposition to the government is deemed as loyal to the nation as support for the government. Opposition must not be silenced, not threatened.
6. People should own responsibility for their own decisions.

On 4: see the current narrative of people versus Parliament, and the government ignoring Parliament's instructions. See Dominic Cummings, then one of the leaders of the Leave campaigns but not yet the PM's chief of staff, ignoring Parliament and its subsequent that he was in contempt of Parliament because Parliament could do nothing to him. The 2016 result now endows anyone attaching themselves to it with democratic authority, which subsequent elections contradicting it does not erase. Future elections won't matter either, as long as someone harks back to 2016.

On 5: opposition to Brexit is now deemed disloyalty to the nation and the people. See rory's argument that Parliament, and for that matter, people like me, should shut up and let the government work its magic. On a more physical level, see IA's hints that Leavers will turn violent in order to effect their outcome. Of course, that has already happened in individual cases, even before the vote took place.

On 6: if everything else fails, at least those who want to Leave should be held individually responsible for the results of their decision. They've had plenty of opportunity to change their mind, and evidence upon evidence has been stacked up to show what will happen when they get what they want. If they still go through with it, they are responsible for what happens. PVC in particular has tried to evade this, but you also have Furunculus blaming remainers for no deal.

I used to think that points 1-3 were all that were needed for a mature democracy, which the UK indisputably was. After Brexit, I tried to find lines that would not be crossed, where the UK can recover once we'd finished with it and agreed where a post-Brexit UK can be rebuilt. However, every one of those lines has been crossed, invariably by Leavers. So I'm left with point 6, which is to pin the Leavers down on what they've said, and hold them responsible for it once the dust has cleared.

[Greyblades]

We shall see - I think the majority of the electorate will be glad it's over.

If its the same chequers I remember, I doubt it would survive the next election cycle, I guarentee it wouldnt last two.

The tories will not survive a brexit in name only in any case.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've never tried to evade responsibility for the UK leaving the EU - I simply will not write you a blank cheque to blame me for any and all future ills of the UK after we leave. If you consider your line of thinking, it would entail blaming every voter for every Referendum or election vote they ever cast.

We could blame those who voted for Tony Blair et al in 1997 for Scottish Independence because in creating the Scottish Parliament he gave Alex Salmond a platform to pretend to be a serious politician, using English money. I believe that was in the 1997 Election Manifesto, so Labour voters knew what they were voting for.

Or perhaps that is unfair? To blame the breakup of the UK on a vote that, ultimately, had nothing to do with breaking up the UK.

The vote to Leave the EU was just that, no more, no less.

None of us voted for No Deal - I don't believe anyone in Parliament is really keen on "No Deal" in the strictest sense. Everyone wants some kind of deal, including the EU. The question is whether a deal can be done - and that is a question of both sides. If a deal cannot be done then their will be shared responsibility between the two negotiating teams.

If it happens that we have another Referendum and the question is "Remain or No Deal" then you would be justified in trying to blame us directly.

As it is - no dice. We wanted out because we don't want to be part of the inevitable EU Super-State and, whilst I don't often agree fully with Furunculus, it is better to do the leaving now than later. Face it, we're never going to want further integration - a lot of Mainland Europeans don't and us even less - we were always going to opt out of the project at some point. If not now, then when?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seperately, I note that it is very easy for the Americans to decry us for preferring to have No Deal over continued delay - given they don't have to live through it.

[Beskar]

Not sure if I have been beaten to the punch, but the Government have released an official document on the expected impact of hard Brexit known as Operation Yellowhammer.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

BBC Summary (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652280)


In regards to the Parliament and the Deal Boris Johnson was handed a poisoned chalice - a Deal Parliament would never accept and a Parliament itself already accustomed to open revolt within the Government.

This is the reason I believe in a second binding referendum (which would bypass parliament). There would be enough cross-party support to pass it. It would also sanction a No Deal Brexit if that is the will of the people. Happy to accept the result either way it goes. Even if it is unpopular, especially as majority of brexiteers believe they would lose. Unfortunately I feel this is the only real option to put it all to rest, especially since Boris cannot legally do a no deal Brexit anymore.





Side Note: Infractions will be issued from this post on-wards for any posts which target members in an unfair fashion. You are free to quote people, or direct them appropriate questions, or discuss a point. If you are unsure, simply stick to the arguments and not the person and I won't have to act again. I am retired, after all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If its the same chequers I remember, I doubt it would survive the next election cycle, I guarentee it wouldnt last two.

The tories will not survive a brexit in name only in any case.

Given how fienishly difficult the job is I think you might be surprised. A lot of the invective, on both sides, stems as much as anything from the lack of progress and attendent frustration. The Major problem with May's deal was that in locking us into the Backstop and (probably) signing us up to taking future EU rules it really was Brexit in name only, all the downsides and none of the benefits.

By Contrast, No Deal represents some benefits - and so does a deal without the Backstop.


Not sure if I have been beaten to the punch, but the Government have released an official document on the expected impact of hard Brexit known as Operation Yellowhammer.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

BBC Summary (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652280)



This is the reason I believe in a second binding referendum (which would bypass parliament). There would be enough cross-party support to pass it. It would also sanction a No Deal Brexit if that is the will of the people. Happy to accept the result either way it goes. Even if it is unpopular, especially as majority of brexiteers believe they would lose. Unfortunately I feel this is the only real option to put it all to rest, especially since Boris cannot legally do a no deal Brexit anymore.

A "legally binding" referendum isn't really on the cards - enough damage has been done to our democracy without creating a precedent that Parliament can legally abdicate its authority to another body.

Another referendum is potentially on the cards, but if it includes a Remain option and that wins then I fear IA will be right and there will be riots. Remember, many leave voters are economically disadvantaged (AKA the great unwashed/plebs/insert other middle class slur) - they're already outside the mainstream of society in so far as they feel disenfranchised and have little to lose.

The London riots were triggered by one man being shot in a rather dodgy way even though he pretty obviously was a gangsta. If poor people feel they've been put through the ringer for three years for no reason other than for them to be "punished" as an example to intransigent plebs in other EU nations to "go along or else"... Well, that's not going to go down well, is it?

Given that the Remain Bloc said there would be no second Referendum I can't see one with Remain on the ballot unless the Lib Dems beats Labour to second place in the next election. Remember - right now the two main parties (who got a collective majority and much more than 50% of the vote) both support Leave. Pro-Leave parties also won the majority of seats in the EU election and Hard Brexit came first.

It might be comforting to think there's a quiet, dignified, pro-Remain majority somewhere but if they're so quiet they don't vote it's not worth much, is it?

[Beskar]

A "legally binding" referendum isn't really on the cards - enough damage has been done to our democracy without creating a precedent that Parliament can legally abdicate its authority to another body.

I am always for more democracy as you are aware. Supporting voting systems such as STV over FPTP.


if it includes a Remain option and that wins then I fear IA will be right and there will be riots.
There would certainly be unrest, but not as much as implied prediction. After all, in that scenario, wouldn't the majority be for remaining within the EU? It would mean those creating the unrest would be a minority. Now, if the referendum was for Hard Brexit and it was thwarted by Parliament, I would certainly be expecting pitchforks outside the window. So far, Pro-Remain have been the ones actively campaigning in larger numbers, though this could be reasoned with Brexit being the default current option, this is to be expected.


Remember - right now the two main parties (who got a collective majority and much more than 50% of the vote) both support Leave. Pro-Leave parties also won the majority of seats in the EU election and Hard Brexit came first.
I disagree with your assertion that Labour are 'pro-leave' as we have discussed previously. Labour party is predominantly pro-remain and actively want it to be the party's official position, though it is led by a incompetent nincompoop who happens to be pro-leave. So you end up with a very disorganised opposition which is what we have. If Labour were fundamentally pro-Leave, we would not be experiencing the current situation in Parliament, as you rightly point out, the combined might would be well above the 50% threshold. But this is not the case, with majority of Labour in vote remain including a large minority of conservatives (though abet smaller due to defections & purge). Though being more remain leaning, it would still accept a soft-Brexit as a majority position as a compromise.


It might be comforting to think there's a quiet, dignified, pro-Remain majority somewhere but if they're so quiet they don't vote it's not worth much, is it? Remain winning a second referendum would include a large number of those who voted for Brexit first time around who changed their position. Referendum would also include more radicalised Brexit voting base too, as IA has previously expressed through his own position being exacerbated by the frustration of the current situation.

Also demographics would come into play with a new vote too. There would be first time voters who are stereo-typically identify themselves as Europeans, and unfortunate cases where people who voted Brexit first time around who are no longer with us. Such as my Uncle. Cancer is a bitch.

[Greyblades]

Given how fienishly difficult the job is I think you might be surprised. A lot of the invective, on both sides, stems as much as anything from the lack of progress and attendent frustration. The Major problem with May's deal was that in locking us into the Backstop and (probably) signing us up to taking future EU rules it really was Brexit in name only, all the downsides and none of the benefits.

By Contrast, No Deal represents some benefits - and so does a deal without the Backstop.

EU court supremacy, tax and subsidy restictions, "political offenses" obligations and a 39 billion pound payment atop it?

I dont see enough people being happy to put this to bed with just the backstop removed.

[InsaneApache]

Bloody hell.

'Take a new oath of loyalty to Bruxelles'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=mjf_6gWvlPk

Now tell me about treason. If this aint it I don't know what is.

[edyzmedieval]

With the Supreme Court now in unanimity over the closure of Parliament - can this Brexit thing be put to solving once and for all, please? I don't expect it so but at least try and finish this charade.

[InsaneApache]

Funny that it was unanimous no dissenters at all....oh wait....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aanblxGdeUM

[InsaneApache]

"The last time we were in territory like this it was settled by war, civil war!"

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/dr-david-starkey-brutal-analysis-on-supreme-court/

[Beskar]

Funny that it was unanimous no dissenters at all....oh wait....

52% didn't agree to a hard Brexit, only a radical minority of that did. Leave was campaigned on getting a deal or various soft-Brexit options.

[InsaneApache]

52% didn't agree to a hard Brexit, only a radical minority of that did. Leave was campaigned on getting a deal or various soft-Brexit options.

Are you serious?

[Greyblades]

Probably, considering its verbatem one of the libdem/labour/rebel tories' favoured talking points; an attempt to dilute and delegitimaize the result through assumptions favourable to thier position.

52% of those who turned out voted to leave, no specification on the form it took was provided merely that we would indeed leave. Pity that the sabotage of May and Hammond's remainer faction ensured none of the even remotely palatable of potential soft brexits were allowed to materialize, but no amount of heel dragging will set back the clock and serves only exacerbate the backlash next election will bring on those that turned coat.

[rory_20_uk]

52% didn't agree to a hard Brexit, only a radical minority of that did. Leave was campaigned on getting a deal or various soft-Brexit options.

The ballot didn't say anything about these great deals. Why would the EU give leavers a better deal than staying?

Sounds a lot like "Hey! I bought lottery tickets to win the jackpot!!"

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

The ballot didn't say anything about these great deals. Why would the EU give leavers a better deal than staying? Sounds a lot like "Hey! I bought lottery tickets to win the jackpot!!"

Like the £350 million per week for the NHS. :laugh4:

Oh, I would love that to be true. But no chance.

[Pannonian]

Like the £350 million per week for the NHS. :laugh4:

Oh, I would love that to be true. But no chance.

I would fully support Brexit if the Leavers keep their campaign promises.

[rory_20_uk]

Like the £350 million per week for the NHS. :laugh4:

Oh, I would love that to be true. But no chance.

Exactly. There was no chance it was true. It was a claim just the same as politicians make every election.

In the UK, there is no requirement for politicians to keep any election promise and generally they don't.

And given this one was both extreme as well as unsubstantiated one would have to be a fool to believe it.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Exactly. There was no chance it was true. It was a claim just the same as politicians make every election.

In the UK, there is no requirement for politicians to keep any election promise and generally they don't.

And given this one was both extreme as well as unsubstantiated one would have to be a fool to believe it.

~:smoking:

Wouldn't any opposition be justified in blocking Brexit until Brexiteers have shown they can fulfil their promises?

[Beskar]

And given this one was both extreme as well as unsubstantiated one would have to be a fool to believe it.

Unfortunately, I knew a few of those fools."Well, they wouldn't put a lie like that on a bus!"

[InsaneApache]

Unfortunately, I knew a few of those fools."Well, they wouldn't put a lie like that on a bus!"

You need to find a better class of friends. :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Wouldn't any opposition be justified in blocking Brexit until Brexiteers have shown they can fulfil their promises?

No. They were not legally bound promises. And the courts have determined that apparently politicians are allowed to lie.

Did you display this dedication to the truth in every other case where politicians lie?

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Unfortunately, I knew a few of those fools."Well, they wouldn't put a lie like that on a bus!"

And such people are everywhere in every walk of life. Casting untold numbers of votes and making many important decisions.

When my father was a juror one person with him said the defendant must be innocent since he had honest eyes!

I personally would like a system of examination before one gets the right to vote but I realise this would be unworkable.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

No. They were not legally bound promises. And the courts have determined that apparently politicians are allowed to lie.

Did you display this dedication to the truth in every other case where politicians lie?

~:smoking:

Yes I do. I accept the opposition's right, heck duty, to oppose the government. That's why they're the loyal opposition. I expect the government to have to carry Parliament to carry out their legislation, and if they can't persuade Parliament, to have to drop their plans. Do you agree with this?

[rory_20_uk]

Yes I do. I accept the opposition's right, heck duty, to oppose the government. That's why they're the loyal opposition. I expect the government to have to carry Parliament to carry out their legislation, and if they can't persuade Parliament, to have to drop their plans. Do you agree with this?

Yes.

And the "opposition" has refused to have an election since they are more scared of loosing their jobs (and with Corbyn, possibly being responsible for reality for once) they refuse to do so.

Boris has lost 100% of his votes. He does not command the house. Boot him out! Vote of no confidence! Get an election! Why did Labour vote against this? Let's see what the electorate want (in as far as first past the post does that).

Woukd you agree to that?

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

You need to find a better class of friends. :laugh4:

Personally speaking in the world around me at the time, those below the age of 40 voted remain, those above voted Brexit (not absolute, obviously, my Grandmother voted Remain for example.)

Unfortunately, the few that said that pretty much dismiss my rebuttals based on my age compared to theirs. Also given the demographics of the area, those above 40 outnumber those below.

I feel this is one of those generational dividing issues, and the polls suggested at the time. In a decade, the populace could have a comfortable pro-remain stance. Part of this is that younger people identify as being European and not just British.

[Pannonian]

Yes.

And the "opposition" has refused to have an election since they are more scared of loosing their jobs (and with Corbyn, possibly being responsible for reality for once) they refuse to do so.

Boris has lost 100% of his votes. He does not command the house. Boot him out! Vote of no confidence! Get an election! Why did Labour vote against this? Let's see what the electorate want (in as far as first past the post does that).

Woukd you agree to that?

~:smoking:

Get the PM to call an election then. Why don't you petition him to do that, if that's what you want?

[rory_20_uk]

Get the PM to call an election then. Why don't you petition him to do that, if that's what you want?

Do you not agree the leader of the opposition should have agreed to the election when called?

Yes or no.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Do you not agree the leader of the opposition should have agreed to the election when called?

Yes or no.

~:smoking:

No. There's been an election in 2017. The will of the people as asked in 2017 has resulted in the present Parliament. The constitution says another election is not due until 2022. If you're questioning whether the will of the people is still the same, shouldn't you be pushing for the 2016 question to be asked again?

[edyzmedieval]

Will of the people doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, especially when you campaign on a deal with the European Union.

Take the example of Romania - in 2016, the ruling party was elected and had a comfortable majority to pass their agenda. An agenda of economic boom, development and a better deal with the EU. (sounds familiar?) Unfortunately, they diverted to serious corruption scandals and legalising corruption essentially so naturally, the people protested heavily, we sent their party president to jail, their popularity has cratered and they're on track to have a stinging defeat in Presidential elections next year.

When you lie to the people to get elected, consequences will happen.

[Greyblades]

Hence why they wont call an early election despite the ruling party having its majority broken; they know the current remainer majority parliament wont be there after the election and anything they do now with it will be undone by the next parliament.

I dont think there's a plan behind thier current actions, they're reduced to stalling brext at any cost in the desperate hope that something, anything will change in their favour before 2022 when the election law they are relying on to maintain the dealock runs out.

[Pannonian]

Hence why they wont call an early election despite the ruling party having its majority broken; they know the current remainer majority parliament wont be there after the election and anything they do now with it will be undone by the next parliament.

I dont think there's a plan behind thier current actions, they're reduced to stalling brext at any cost in the desperate hope that something, anything will change in their favour before 2022 when the election law they are relying on to maintain the dealock runs out.

The solution is simple. If you want to pass a Law, form a proposal that will pass through Parliament. That's the basic principle of lawmaking in any country that has a Parliament, Congress or other lawmaking body.

[Pannonian]

Will of the people doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, especially when you campaign on a deal with the European Union.

Take the example of Romania - in 2016, the ruling party was elected and had a comfortable majority to pass their agenda. An agenda of economic boom, development and a better deal with the EU. (sounds familiar?) Unfortunately, they diverted to serious corruption scandals and legalising corruption essentially so naturally, the people protested heavily, we sent their party president to jail, their popularity has cratered and they're on track to have a stinging defeat in Presidential elections next year.

When you lie to the people to get elected, consequences will happen.

There's an assumption in the UK, particular among the right, and more prevalent the further right you go, that will of the people results in an authority to do whatever you like without further checks and balances. As you have the Great Man theory of history, the far right also has the Great Man theory of politics, where one man, unconstrained by customs and law, shapes the world as they see fit, backed once and for all by the monolithic authority that is the Will of the People.

[rory_20_uk]

There's an assumption in the UK, particular among the right, and more prevalent the further right you go, that will of the people results in an authority to do whatever you like without further checks and balances. As you have the Great Man theory of history, the far right also has the Great Man theory of politics, where one man, unconstrained by customs and law, shapes the world as they see fit, backed once and for all by the monolithic authority that is the Will of the People.

Such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot? Cromwell, Robespierre?

Or has it nothing to do with Right / Left and it is Authoritarian regimes?

But no - just the Right.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

The solution is simple. If you want to pass a Law, form a proposal that will pass through Parliament. That's the basic principle of lawmaking in any country that has a Parliament, Congress or other lawmaking body.

Very good, and when the representatives of the people wont pass or overturn the laws the voters want, despite promising to do so when running for election, the people replace them with someone else who will next election.

This process is exactly why the majority of represetatives in parliament want to put election off as long as possible, now that their majority relies on those who have openly refused to do what they promised.

[Pannonian]

Such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot? Cromwell, Robespierre?

Or has it nothing to do with Right / Left and it is Authoritarian regimes?

But no - just the Right.

~:smoking:

I can add Corbyn to that list. But, unlike those who see themselves as centre right, there is no evidence of anything of that sort in the centre left. I value rule of law, lawmaking by Parliament, and the executive acting within bounds that I've been accustomed to all my life. Do you support lawmaking as Parliament's prerogative?

[Pannonian]

Very good, and when the representatives of the people wont pass or overturn the laws the voters want, despite promising to do so when running for election, the people replace them with someone else who will next election.

This process is exactly why the majority of represetatives in parliament want to put election off as long as possible, now that their majority relies on those who have openly refused to do what they promised.

I totally agree. Like I've said before, If a government implementing Leave will keep the promises made by Leave, I'd support Brexit myself. Do you think that a government implementing Brexit should keep the promises made by the Leave campaigns?

[rory_20_uk]

I can add Corbyn to that list. But, unlike those who see themselves as centre right, there is no evidence of anything of that sort in the centre left. I value rule of law, lawmaking by Parliament, and the executive acting within bounds that I've been accustomed to all my life. Do you support lawmaking as Parliament's prerogative?

Who are these centre right who are supporting this?
And how is the current absence of centre left with this view evidence they could not occur?

Parliament makes laws - although I know there are "King Henry 8 powers" but I am unclear what they are.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Who are these centre right who are supporting this?
And how is the current absence of centre left with this view evidence they could not occur?

Parliament makes laws - although I know there are "King Henry 8 powers" but I am unclear what they are.

~:smoking:

If you support Parliament as the lawmaking body, shouldn't you be pushing the government to make a proposal that will pass Parliament and enact your satisfactory Brexit? I know that IA has declared that the next referendum should be held in 40 years time, so presumably he and others like him won't like votes before their time. So if you want Brexit to be enacted, the government will have to work with the present Parliament. The constitution clearly states that the next one is due in 2022, so it's not the indefinite future.

[rory_20_uk]

If you support Parliament as the lawmaking body, shouldn't you be pushing the government to make a proposal that will pass Parliament and enact your satisfactory Brexit? I know that IA has declared that the next referendum should be held in 40 years time, so presumably he and others like him won't like votes before their time. So if you want Brexit to be enacted, the government will have to work with the present Parliament. The constitution clearly states that the next one is due in 2022, so it's not the indefinite future.

No you are confused. This logic is meaningless: Brexit is leaving. It requires no legislation as was set out by EU law. The statement has been given over 2 years ago.

Parliament makes laws.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

I totally agree. Like I've said before, If a government implementing Leave will keep the promises made by Leave, I'd support Brexit myself. Do you think that a government implementing Brexit should keep the promises made by the Leave campaigns?

Yes, pity that now finally we have a leave govenment after three years of a remain one; this parliament is doing everything to prevent it even trying.

[Pannonian]

Yes, pity that now finally we have a leave govenment after three years of a remain one; this parliament is doing everything to prevent it even trying.

Johnson, a confirmed Leaver, is PM. Should we expect him to keep his promise that he famously campaigned in front of? All he has to do is present a satisfactory proposal in front of Parliament, and it will be passed. When is he going to put this proposal before them?

[Pannonian]

No you are confused. This logic is meaningless: Brexit is leaving. It requires no legislation as was set out by EU law. The statement has been given over 2 years ago.

Parliament makes laws.

~:smoking:

So what's all the bother about this Parliament obstructing Brexit? Why are you calling for a new Parliament, if this one does not affect matters?

[edyzmedieval]

Why would Corbyn be on the list that includes dictators? There's a huge difference between totalitarianism and social democracy / labour movement.

[rory_20_uk]

So what's all the bother about this Parliament obstructing Brexit? Why are you calling for a new Parliament, if this one does not affect matters?

They are trying to pass laws to delay, and nothing to actually provide anything that could be called a solution. A massive game of hot potato / chicken where they are all positioning themselves to blame the others - those that aren't petrified that they might be deselected for doing what they want not for what their electorate want.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Why would Corbyn be on the list that includes dictators? There's a huge difference between totalitarianism and social democracy / labour movement.

He's no social democrat. He's a full on Marxist.

If he gets into Number 10 as a caretaker government leader you'll need a crow bar to get him out.

[CrossLOPER]

Marxist

I think that is one of those words that greyblades says "has become meaningless by incessant misuse".

[InsaneApache]

I think that is one of those words that greyblades says "has become meaningless by incessant misuse".

Well the fact is he's an old style commie, and like all socialists regimes whether international of national it ends up the same, piles of bodies, prison camps and mass starvation. How anyone could even consider socialism is a good thing with regards it's history is astounding.

[Greyblades]

Johnson, a confirmed Leaver, is PM. Should we expect him to keep his promise that he famously campaigned in front of? All he has to do is present a satisfactory proposal in front of Parliament, and it will be passed. When is he going to put this proposal before them?

Good question.

Main reason there isnt a deal right now I hear is that parliament's current composition joined with the "no no-deal" bill has kicked the stool out from under Boris' negociating position and the EU hasnt assented to anything better than the chequers deal.

As for why boris hasnt decided to present a good deal to parliament before taking it to the EU; not sure, I assume something about not wanting to use up political capital on votes that probably would be rendered moot by the EU.

[Furunculus]

This conundrum explains precisely why negotiating with foriegn powers has always been a prerogative of the executive, as it was understood as a matter of plain sense that negotiating by committee doesn't bring goox results.

[Montmorency]

Well the fact is he's an old style commie, and like all socialists regimes whether international of national it ends up the same, piles of bodies, prison camps and mass starvation. How anyone could even consider socialism is a good thing with regards it's history is astounding.

Labour socialism has done pretty good for the UK over the years. Have you read Labour's current manifesto? What do you dislike in it?

As for Brexit, the best option for a negotiated withdrawal seems to be to throw out all the Conservative parameters and just negotiate a new deal that cleaves closer to the EU. What's hampered May have been the Hard Brexiters among her party, not the Remainers. Maintain a full customs union.

Far be it from me to speak for Labour, but at this point it seems to me their whole 2019 orientation in campaigning should have been to make explicit commitments while offering something to both sides (while marginalizing the overwhelmingly Tory hard Brexit minority):

We are a Remain party and prefer Remain. To that end we back a second referendum, binding, to clarify the public opinion on critical points. HOWEVER, if the people do return a Leave result here is our bespoke vision for the type of Brexit we ought to have...

At least they seem to have been doing something productive (https://prospect.org/world/labour-secret-weapon-uk/)...


As Brexit looms, a surge of community organizing from within is bridging political divides and refocusing the British Labour Party.

[Beskar]

Well the fact is he's an old style commie, and like all socialists regimes whether international of national it ends up the same, piles of bodies, prison camps and mass starvation. How anyone could even consider socialism is a good thing with regards it's history is astounding.

Interesting select view of History you have. British invented the concentration camp during the Boer war. There is also the genocide of Native Americans and the Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion rights, slavery, etc. Looks like we are screwed by being a democracy!

In short, if you cherry pick bad examples, then you can make anything look bad.

If you look up the principles of Socialism, none of them are 'stick people in prison camps'. What happened in reality is a certain brand of authoritianism capitalised on the ideology to expliot masses, mostly in countries which are originally not mature enough to embrace it. This resulted in Totalitarian 'communist' governments.

However, if you look at the track record of Social Democracy (socialist regime!), it is doing very well, in places like Scandinavia.

One thing Corbyn does have is a cult of personality, the incessent droning of "Corbyn, Corbyn, Jeremy Corbyn" is cringe worthy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Anti-Brexit forces have, I think, waged a successful campaign to reverse the referendum. A 'hard' Brexit will be delayed and deferred (and no 'deal' enacted) until sweeping electoral change in parliament allows parliament to rescind the withdrawal or another plebiscite repudiates the first with a 51.5% to 48.5% reversal.

I am not sure what price (direct or indirect) the EU will extract after the retraction.

[rory_20_uk]

Anti-Brexit forces have, I think, waged a successful campaign to reverse the referendum. A 'hard' Brexit will be delayed and deferred (and no 'deal' enacted) until sweeping electoral change in parliament allows parliament to rescind the withdrawal or another plebiscite repudiates the first with a 51.5% to 48.5% reversal.

I am not sure what price (direct or indirect) the EU will extract after the retraction.

No price could be directly extracted since the UK could cancel at any point. That is the Law.

The EU would gain that the most independant country in Europe was brought to heel. I doubt anyone else would dare even bother trying.

I have no idea what the next election would bring. I hope Labour implode and the Lib Dems become the opposition.

Every other plebiscite the EU has had they lost the first time and after judicious massaging they won the second. We can't have the populace blocking what their masters want.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Interesting select view of History you have. British invented the concentration camp during the Boer war. There is also the genocide of Native Americans and the Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion rights, slavery, etc. Looks like we are screwed by being a democracy!

In short, if you cherry pick bad examples, then you can make anything look bad.

If you look up the principles of Socialism, none of them are 'stick people in prison camps'. What happened in reality is a certain brand of authoritianism capitalised on the ideology to expliot masses, mostly in countries which are originally not mature enough to embrace it. This resulted in Totalitarian 'communist' governments.

However, if you look at the track record of Social Democracy (socialist regime!), it is doing very well, in places like Scandinavia.

One thing Corbyn does have is a cult of personality, the incessent droning of "Corbyn, Corbyn, Jeremy Corbyn" is cringe worthy.

Ahh the old "That wasn't real socialism" meme. Pathetic.

[CrossLOPER]

Well the fact is he's an old style commie, and like all socialists regimes whether international of national it ends up the same, piles of bodies, prison camps and mass starvation. How anyone could even consider socialism is a good thing with regards it's history is astounding.

Can you show me where in Europe I can find these, because there are plenty of governments that follow socialist policies and do well enough.

You can probably find more issues with roots in capitalism, to be honest.


Ahh the old "That wasn't real socialism" meme. Pathetic.

You could at least try to refute his argument. I know that critical thinking and research are for those Uni-going twits, but you could at least try doing something other than screaming "fake news" when someone proves you wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting select view of History you have. British invented the concentration camp during the Boer war. There is also the genocide of Native Americans and the Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion rights, slavery, etc. Looks like we are screwed by being a democracy!.

As a progressive you surely believe human society moves forwards - so surely those 18th-19th century examples are less pertinent than the numerous 20th Century Socialist ones?

[Pannonian]

As a progressive you surely believe human society moves forwards - so surely those 18th-19th century examples are less pertinent than the numerous 10th Century Socialist ones?

Are only progressives charged with wanting to see these times behind us? Or are we fairly unanimous in not wanting these times to return? For most of my life I've believed the latter, but the current lot seem to want to go back to the 1930s on the Axis side, while their popularity goes up with each stunt.

Also, presumably you mean 20th century. 10th century socialism only really existed in those who really believed in following Jesus's lifestyle.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are only progressives charged with wanting to see these times behind us? Or are we fairly unanimous in not wanting these times to return? For most of my life I've believed the latter, but the current lot seem to want to go back to the 1930s on the Axis side, while their popularity goes up with each stunt.

Also, presumably you mean 20th century. 10th century socialism only really existed in those who really believed in following Jesus's lifestyle.

I made the correction - thanks.

My point to Beskar was two-fold.

1. Socialism claims to be progressive yet in recent memory it has impeded progress more than helped and it recent memory it has been the worst culprit.

2. Many conservatives tend to see history as cyclical rather than progressive, which is to say humanity has not "progressed" so much as we have moved through phases on civilisation and barbarism.

At the moment the West is doing badly and it's not inconceivable our society will collapse - you could make the argument that British society already largely has - even pre-Brexit.

[Beskar]

1. Socialism claims to be progressive yet in recent memory it has impeded progress more than helped and it recent memory it has been the worst culprit.

Scandinavia doesn't look that way. Social Democracies (which are socialist) have a very good track record. Labour party is a Social Democratic party.

What people on the right tend to do is point to Communist China and the USSR, and similar nations. Yet those were Totalitarian regimes and they pretty much exist today, even if Russia rebranded from "left" to the "right". There are also many examples of right-wing governments such as Franco and various other tinpot dictators. Problem is, these are growing, with Brazil, Russia, Hungary, USA (Trump), etc the global establishment is creating the era of the "Strongmen".

[InsaneApache]

Social Democrats are not Socialist. They do not support the state controlling the means of production. Rather they are content to leave the means of production in private hands and tax it heavily to fund social programs for the citizens. Socialism is a stage progressing towards a communist utopia. A lot of Yanks get the two mixed up as you apparently do.

The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics is a bit of a clue.

Might be better if this theme was left here or started in another thread lest we derail this one.

[Pannonian]

Social Democrats are not Socialist. They do not support the state controlling the means of production. Rather they are content to leave the means of production in private hands and tax it heavily to fund social programs for the citizens. Socialism is a stage progressing towards a communist utopia. A lot of Yanks get the two mixed up as you apparently do.

The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics is a bit of a clue.

Might be better if this theme was left here or started in another thread lest we derail this one.

They're what I'd like Britain to be more like. Instead, your lot is pushing Britain towards tyranny.

[InsaneApache]

They're what I'd like Britain to be more like. Instead, your lot is pushing Britain towards tyranny.

You want the UK to be more like the USSR? :inquisitive:

[Beskar]

Might be better if this theme was left here or started in another thread lest we derail this one.

I agree. I don't think we actually disagree on the topic, I think conflicting use of terminology is the error here.

[Pannonian]

You want the UK to be more like the USSR? :inquisitive:

Social democratic Europe. You knew that, but you persist in asking anyway. I'll return the favour and ask you a question. What do you make of the complaints from MPs regarding death threats?

[CrossLOPER]

Social democratic Europe. You knew that, but you persist in asking anyway. I'll return the favour and ask you a question. What do you make of the complaints from MPs regarding death threats?

You are trying to argue with someone presenting arguments in bad faith. He's not interested in anything other than "showing it to the libtards". When you understand this, you can augment your approach appropriately.


My first post in this thread, so forgive me I havn't read it all (TLDR)

I like Trump. He's upsetting all the right people.

Oh and as a businessman he know how it goes. It shows in the economy.

Another thing he's stitched on for a 2020 win.

That is all.

[Pannonian]

You are trying to argue with someone presenting arguments in bad faith. He's not interested in anything other than "showing it to the libtards". When you understand this, you can augment your approach appropriately.

I know it very well. I've described the Anglo-American (location) far right (orientation) Bannonite (central figure of) politics, that takes the form of Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US. People who support Brexit in the UK will commonly support Trump in the US. And the methodology is the same. The red light should light up whenever someone argues for either of those, so that common debating tricks are recognised and given no quarter. Because, as you say, their arguments are given in bad faith. I've pleaded elsewhere for a reasonably common basis from which a political discussion can be had, independent of political orientation.

[InsaneApache]

Social democratic Europe. You knew that, but you persist in asking anyway. I'll return the favour and ask you a question. What do you make of the complaints from MPs regarding death threats?

Do you mean the ones that are colluding with foreign powers to stop Brexit?

[Pannonian]

Do you mean the ones that are colluding with foreign powers to stop Brexit?

Do you think it is justified then, to judge by your question?

[CrossLOPER]

Do you mean the ones that are colluding with foreign powers to stop Brexit?
It's hilarious, because the rest of Europe is actually pretty happy to get rid of you, and would more readily do so if not for Russian aggression. So yes, collusion. Somewhat in the same way one would be trying to lead a drunk friend home, but is strongly considering leaving him there for being a jerk most of the time.

[Pannonian]

It's hilarious, because the rest of Europe is actually pretty happy to get rid of you, and would more readily do so if not for Russian aggression. So yes, collusion. Somewhat in the same way one would be trying to lead a drunk friend home, but is strongly considering leaving him there for being a jerk most of the time.

It's even more ridiculous than your sketch, farcical though it already is. IA is implying that said death threats are justified if they're aimed at traitors, defined as those who collaborate with foreign powers. Which then begs the question of who is collaborating with foreign powers. When you look into that, in whatever depth, IA's ire at those who collude with foreign powers gets ever more hilarious and hypocritical.

[Beskar]

The whole #JoSwinsonIsATory just adds fuel to the fire to the dislike I have of Corbyn's Momentum sponsored cult of personality.

I mean...
https://i.imgur.com/aWpx2Sv.jpg

Could easily be flipped to:
"Stop No Deal Brexit", "Let No Deal Happen Because We Refuse to let anyone but Corbyn be Prime Minister"

[Furunculus]

They've been doing the same to john mcternan for years now.

[Pannonian]

The whole #JoSwinsonIsATory just adds fuel to the fire to the dislike I have of Corbyn's Momentum sponsored cult of personality.

I mean...
https://i.imgur.com/aWpx2Sv.jpg

Could easily be flipped to:
"Stop No Deal Brexit", "Let No Deal Happen Because We Refuse to let anyone but Corbyn be Prime Minister"


Swinson is STILL dragging her heels over ‘government of national unity’ – because she’s a Tory-supporting Brexiteer?

Smearing Swinson with Tory support over the issue of Brexit. Except that Swinson never voted for the referendum (she was outside Parliament at the time), and Corbyn, not Swinson, voted for article 50 to be triggered. And of course Corbyn was the first person to call for article 50 to be invoked, beating Farage, Johnson and all the others to the mark.

I dislike Corbyn only marginally less than I dislike Brexit.

[edyzmedieval]

Do you mean the ones that are colluding with foreign powers to stop Brexit?

I don't really think foreign powers are colluding to stop Brexit - on the contrary, most of the continent would like the UK gone and the whole leave/not leaving antics.

Theresa May's first year in power was marked by more or less hope this would be an orderly and elegant goodbye but it turned extremely sour and now it's turning into serious bickering even inside the EU.

[Greyblades]

The impression I get is that pretty much all of the member states are fed up with the process, which makes the EU itself's seemingly endless patience for the remainer's delaying tactics all the more baffling.

Not to mention the aggravating antics of a certain brexit coordinator.