Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[CrosspoolClarets]

Not even Farage thinks he'll win 75 seats

I mean, if you are not posting that with a twinkle in your eye, then I'd lay off the sherry.

As I’ve written above, it was indeed a bit of fun, but in FPTP a sudden 75 seats may not be that far fetched. The Brexit Party are only about 10-1 to win the most English seats. I reckon a 30% vote share is plausible if the Tories and Labour both mess up badly.

[Devils_Advocate]

Honestly if he bring back a deal and the HOC vote it down they are many mps in leave seats that are ending their careers in shame.

It will be a noble sacrifice and they will be remembered as valiant martyrs

[Greenmile]

Its Saturday night and we have had few. My contribution is that the one thing that will cause riots is this HOC with no mandate votes for another referundum when BJ has a new deal that it could have approved...

It’s been a while since a brexiter has threatened us with riots if they don’t get their way. Your post almost invoked a sense of nostalgia.

[Lancasterclaret]

So what you're trying to say it could go either way. Now there's a thing.

Could be more than two ways surely?

Referendum?
Deal?
No Deal?
General Election?
Government of national unity?

Anymore?

[summitclaret]

You do know I wasn't being serious

[taio]

Could be more than two ways surely?

Referendum?
Deal?
No Deal?
General Election?
Government of national unity?

Anymore?

All of them lead to one of two outcomes

[nil_desperandum]

You can't have read his attachment and have posted that. It is clearly different from May's deal. If you have I am worried about you. Are you in denial now that we appear to be getting near to a deal to leave?

Don't worry about me. I read widely, and from what I can see in that attachment and in the papers the only change to May's despised deal, is the technical change to the backstop, (which was intended as a temporary measure anyway until a solution to the border issue could be found). So if the solution to the border is agreed to be moving it to the Irish Sea, then there's no need for the backstop and as I understand it everything else in the May deal goes through.
So, unless I'm reading it all wrong it's May's unpopular deal minus the backstop that MPs will be asked to vote on.
This is why the likes of Redwood, Dodds and Farage are so unhappy.

[Quickenthetempo]

Don't worry about me. I read widely, and from what I can see in that attachment and in the papers the only change to May's despised deal, is the technical change to the backstop, (which was intended as a temporary measure anyway until a solution to the border issue could be found). So if the solution to the border is agreed to be moving it to the Irish Sea, then there's no need for the backstop and as I understand it everything else in the May deal goes through.
So, unless I'm reading it all wrong it's May's unpopular deal minus the backstop that MPs will be asked to vote on.
This is why the likes of Redwood, Dodds and Farage are so unhappy.

I'm not looking into it until it becomes official but if you have read up on it and confident.

What's the latest on the divorce bill? Fishing rights? And Freedom of movement?

[Quickenthetempo]

Telegraph reporting ID will have to be shown now when voting, to be announced in the queens speech.

Not good news for Labour.

[nil_desperandum]

I'm not looking into it until it becomes official but if you have read up on it and confident.

What's the latest on the divorce bill? Fishing rights? And Freedom of movement?

I agree that no one actually knows, but there's absolutely no evidence, suggestion or rumour that any of those will be different to what is in the "May" Withdrawal Agreement, so (as I implied), if you want to know, then re-read the Withdrawal Bill that's been defeated 3 times.
Unlike some on here, I'm prepare to admit that I could be wrong, and this might not be the case, but there hasn't been the slightest hint that there will be any changes to the "agreed" Withdrawal Bill.
[If (for example) we were going to agree to pay more or less for the "divorce", then don't you think that it would have leaked out by now and the Express and Mail would be all over it).

[nil_desperandum]

Telegraph reporting ID will have to be shown now when voting, to be announced in the queens speech.

Not good news for Labour.

Do you think there's any chance at all of the Queen's Speech passing?

[Paul Waine]

Brexit has spent far more time being “negotiated” by the government than being considered by parliament.

Hi Andrew, how does that work? Do Gov't and Parliament exist in different time lines? I reckon we've all been going on about Brexit since the morning after the referendum in June-2016.

EDIT: I got a leaflet thru my door this morning; "Peoples Vote" or something like it - maybe another Waitrose shoppers outing - seems there are plans for another march in central London on Sunday - meet around Park Lane (I guess they are expecting a lot of wealthy people to turn out). I wonder if there's a conflict with XR. If XR are (still) blocking the streets how will PV get past them?

[AndyClaret]

Farage/Boris brexit pact ?

From Dan Hodges in the Mail

Hopes of a Brexit breakthrough are rising. But I understand that if the talks eventually collapse, Boris Johnson is thinking the unthinkable.

'Downing Street are working up plans for cutting a seat deal with Nigel Farage,' a Minister reveals.

'Dom Cummings opposes it, and thinks we should just neutralise the Brexit Party by writing a hard commitment to No Deal into the manifesto.

But that would cause such a massive rebellion, Boris is wary of it. So he thinks the only other option might be to come to an arrangement with the Brexit Party.'

Brexit Party officials have confirmed to me they would be willing to consider a pact, but it would require a firm commitment to stand down in specific seats.

'A simple non-aggression deal wouldn't work,' a party insider says.

'In a lot of these seats, you could put a blue rosette on a gorilla and 30 per cent of the electorate would vote for it.

'We'd need them to step back and give us a clear run.'

I'm told the seat that would prove the litmus test for a putative agreement would be Peterborough, where the Brexit Party came second in June's by-election.

'The key to the whole thing is Peterborough,' my source tells me. 'If they step aside for us there, we're in business.'

If Farage suddenly pops up in Peterborough's Laxton Square, you know the game's afoot.

[Spijed]

Farage/Boris brexit pact ?

From Dan Hodges in the Mail

Hopes of a Brexit breakthrough are rising. But I understand that if the talks eventually collapse, Boris Johnson is thinking the unthinkable.

'Downing Street are working up plans for cutting a seat deal with Nigel Farage,' a Minister reveals.

'Dom Cummings opposes it, and thinks we should just neutralise the Brexit Party by writing a hard commitment to No Deal into the manifesto.

But that would cause such a massive rebellion, Boris is wary of it. So he thinks the only other option might be to come to an arrangement with the Brexit Party.'

Brexit Party officials have confirmed to me they would be willing to consider a pact, but it would require a firm commitment to stand down in specific seats.

'A simple non-aggression deal wouldn't work,' a party insider says.

'In a lot of these seats, you could put a blue rosette on a gorilla and 30 per cent of the electorate would vote for it.

'We'd need them to step back and give us a clear run.'

I'm told the seat that would prove the litmus test for a putative agreement would be Peterborough, where the Brexit Party came second in June's by-election.

'The key to the whole thing is Peterborough,' my source tells me. 'If they step aside for us there, we're in business.'

If Farage suddenly pops up in Peterborough's Laxton Square, you know the game's afoot.

So a clear admission that the Conservatives don't think they can get a majority on their own?

[Right_winger]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/0 ... sh-border/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndyClaret]

So a clear admission that the Conservatives don't think they can get a majority on their own?

A pact is sensible, and would guarantee a decent working majority.

[Lancasterclaret]

Did someone actually put a spiked online news report as actual evidence?

Wow

[Right_winger]

Did someone actually put a spiked online news report as actual evidence?

Wow

It’s an interview with an economist ex special advisor in N.Ireland. What don’t you agree with? Are you suggesting the interview was rigged/falsified or the person interviewed as incompetent with their views?

[AndyClaret]

It’s an interview with an economist ex special advisor in N.Ireland. What don’t you agree with? Are you suggesting the interview was rigged/falsified or the person interviewed as incompetent with their views?

It's what they do, argue with the source, not the content.

[martin_p]

Farage/Boris brexit pact ?

From Dan Hodges in the Mail

Hopes of a Brexit breakthrough are rising. But I understand that if the talks eventually collapse, Boris Johnson is thinking the unthinkable.

'Downing Street are working up plans for cutting a seat deal with Nigel Farage,' a Minister reveals.

'Dom Cummings opposes it, and thinks we should just neutralise the Brexit Party by writing a hard commitment to No Deal into the manifesto.

But that would cause such a massive rebellion, Boris is wary of it. So he thinks the only other option might be to come to an arrangement with the Brexit Party.'

Brexit Party officials have confirmed to me they would be willing to consider a pact, but it would require a firm commitment to stand down in specific seats.

'A simple non-aggression deal wouldn't work,' a party insider says.

'In a lot of these seats, you could put a blue rosette on a gorilla and 30 per cent of the electorate would vote for it.

'We'd need them to step back and give us a clear run.'

I'm told the seat that would prove the litmus test for a putative agreement would be Peterborough, where the Brexit Party came second in June's by-election.

'The key to the whole thing is Peterborough,' my source tells me. 'If they step aside for us there, we're in business.'

If Farage suddenly pops up in Peterborough's Laxton Square, you know the game's afoot.

So Johnson is going to head off the rebellion committing to no deal would cause by signing a pact with a party that is committed to no deal? If that’s true he must think his MPs are stupid.

[Spijed]

It's what they do, argue with the source, not the content.

I put up a link from an economist at the FT who said we'd be worse off under Boris Johnson's deal, as opposed to the Teresa May one. Yet that was rubbished by some on here.

What's the difference?

[Lancasterclaret]

It’s an interview with an economist ex special advisor in N.Ireland. What don’t you agree with? Are you suggesting the interview was rigged/falsified or the person interviewed as incompetent with their views?

Spiked is like Guido Fawkes (for the right) or the Canary (for the left).

Its a propaganda website in which truth isn't required, because it wants clicks from people who desperately want to believe what they think they know, and thats how they run.

I'm not going to give then a click because I have standards, but I'm going to guess that the Irish border issue isn't really important and its all been blown out of all proportion by remianer traitors who will face the full force of the gammon army when Brexit is delayed.

Obviously I'm paraphrasing!

[Lancasterclaret]

Times report on the areas that will be hit worse in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-d ... -mxt8nqzxm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndyClaret]

I put up a link from an economist at the FT who said we'd be worse off under Boris Johnson's deal, as opposed to the Teresa May one. Yet that was rubbished by some on here.

What's the difference?

They were rubbishing the substance, not the source.

[Lancasterclaret]

The backstop has been renamed, and the the deal is the same.

I don't see what the problem is?

I mean, no offense to the Brexiteers on here but you've been denying black is white for about three years so its not like we are all suddenly going to assume you are telling the truth on this one are we?

But seriously, the original WA took months to sort out, Johnson has only been doing this since he lost in court about shutting down Parliament.

There is a basic time limit there, which does suggest that its Mays deal + a tweaked backstop.

[Lancasterclaret]

A pact with the Brexit Party is a Farage fan boy dream.

100% guaranteed to split the Tory party

[CrosspoolClarets]

Lots of talk on the politics shows about a confirmatory referendum. Seems a very daft idea to me for Labour to support one. If Labour lose it their credibility will be in pieces before a general election. If they win it a large chunk of their own voters will hate them, and it won’t reduce demands for a third vote.

I do feel though that a confirmatory referendum on Johnson’s deal would be an easy win for Johnson (no risk of no deal, Brexit fatigue over, BJ better campaigner, heals divisions a bit, power of govt behind campaign, respects democracy, recent EU further integration plans).

[CrosspoolClarets]

The backstop has been renamed, and the the deal is the same.

Morning Lancs. I really wish you would stop parroting this line and stick to your sensible points. ClaretAndy put up a picture of that thread yesterday from the Rahuel chap who used to advise Theresa May, explaining exactly why this deal has crucial differences. Argue it is a bad deal by all means, but don’t argue it is the same deal.

[Devils_Advocate]

Interesting thread from Twitter highlighting the massive risk of Parliament agreeing to Johnsons deal. With the complex process to ratify the deal we could effectively be handing him back the power to force a No Deal as the requirements of the Benn Act will have been met.

Reading this I hope that that Parliament ensures Boris sends his request for an extension before looking to agree to anything

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/statu ... 7308179456

[AndyClaret]

Morning Lancs. I really wish you would stop parroting this line and stick to your sensible points. ClaretAndy put up a picture of that thread yesterday from the Rahuel chap who used to advise Theresa May, explaining exactly why this deal has crucial differences. Argue it is a bad deal by all means, but don’t argue it is the same deal.

As he likes to sneer at others, he's denying realities, and the Raoul chap is the wrong type of expert, it's quite incredible.

[AndyClaret]

Interesting thread from Twitter highlighting the massive risk of Parliament agreeing to Johnsons deal. With the complex process to ratify the deal we could effectively be handing him back the power to force a No Deal as the requirements of the Benn Act will have been met.

Reading this I hope that that Parliament ensures Boris sends his request for an extension before looking to agree to anything

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/statu ... 7308179456

There will have to be a short, technical extension, i've no problem with that.

[Devils_Advocate]

There will have to be a short, technical extension, i've no problem with that.

Yes but it must be agreed in a way that if the deal doesnt get through all the stages and pass the default option is a longer extension and not No Deal

If that is in place and watertight I agree with you

[nil_desperandum]

Morning Lancs. I really wish you would stop parroting this line and stick to your sensible points. ClaretAndy put up a picture of that thread yesterday from the Rahuel chap who used to advise Theresa May, explaining exactly why this deal has crucial differences. Argue it is a bad deal by all means, but don’t argue it is the same deal.

Ok. Let's turn this round, since I was making the same point as Lancs yesterday.
Other than the removal of the backstop, (which wasn't a part of the WA, merely a temporary solution to the border issue), how is it different to May's deal?
The EU made it clear that they wouldn't be reopening negotiations on the WA, and there's absolutely no evidence anywhere that in the short period of negotiations that Johnson's had, that they have looked at anything other than removing the backstop. (This is essentially the Brady Amendment).
So the new deal appears to have removed by the backstop by moving the border.
In what other areas does the new WA differ from "May's"?
If you can provide evidence of this, then obviously both lancs and myself are wrong, and certainly from my point of view, I'll concede the point.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Nil-desp - I’m not wasting my Sunday answering that. Go back to the post I referred to (it is easy to spot, it is a picture) or even better find it on Twitter because the guy made about half a dozen tweets about it. You’ll find the question has been answered, in depth, by an expert who helped negotiate Mays deal.

[Devils_Advocate]

Nil-desp - I’m not wasting my Sunday answering that. Go back to the post I referred to (it is easy to spot, it is a picture) or even better find it on Twitter because the guy made about half a dozen tweets about it. You’ll find the question has been answered, in depth, by an expert who helped negotiate Mays deal.

Textbook

[Mala591]

Ok. Let's turn this round, since I was making the same point as Lancs yesterday.
Other than the removal of the backstop, (which wasn't a part of the WA, merely a temporary solution to the border issue), how is it different to May's deal?
The EU made it clear that they wouldn't be reopening negotiations on the WA, and there's absolutely no evidence anywhere that in the short period of negotiations that Johnson's had, that they have looked at anything other than removing the backstop. (This is essentially the Brady Amendment).
So the new deal appears to have removed by the backstop by moving the border.
In what other areas does the new WA differ from "May's"?
If you can provide evidence of this, then obviously both lancs and myself are wrong, and certainly from my point of view, I'll concede the point.

May's WA has a UK wide backstop with no unilateral exit. Johnson's WA has (reportedly) a NI only backstop (rest of the UK won't be in it) with the possibility of
unilateral exit by NI electorate majority vote.

So there is a MASSIVE difference between the two.

[taio]

Ok. Let's turn this round, since I was making the same point as Lancs yesterday.
Other than the removal of the backstop, (which wasn't a part of the WA, merely a temporary solution to the border issue), how is it different to May's deal?
The EU made it clear that they wouldn't be reopening negotiations on the WA, and there's absolutely no evidence anywhere that in the short period of negotiations that Johnson's had, that they have looked at anything other than removing the backstop. (This is essentially the Brady Amendment).
So the new deal appears to have removed by the backstop by moving the border.
In what other areas does the new WA differ from "May's"?
If you can provide evidence of this, then obviously both lancs and myself are wrong, and certainly from my point of view, I'll concede the point.

Removal of the backstop would be a pretty important difference to be fair.

[AndrewJB]

Johnson’s Surrender Bill. “I want Brexit so bad, I’ll hand over Northern Ireland”

[Mala591]

Johnson’s Surrender Bill. “I want Brexit so bad, I’ll hand over Northern Ireland”

Imo it is time that the 'problem child' (NI) left home (UK) and matured into a self-sufficient and independent adult.

[AndrewJB]

Imo it is time that the 'problem child' (NI) left home (UK) and matured into a self-sufficient and independent adult.

That’s the line from the press. Two years ago it was: “NI is in need of urgent funding to resolve years of underinvestment” to explain the massive bung. Now they no longer need the political support, NI is now “the problem child”. NI is 1.8 million fellow citizens. Our government is the irresponsible parent.

[RingoMcCartney]

I was at Alton Towers actually. It was very wet but still had fun.

Could you do me a quick favour though Ringo? Could you tell me who said that the Nissan factory would close if we voted to leave?

Another Remoaner with selective memory loss!




Car plant regions defy bosses’ Brexit vote warnings
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/new ... ay-EU.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Car plant regions defy bosses’ vote warnings: Firms' bases vote to leave despite call to stay in EU

Fears that the boom in British car manufacturing would be derailed by Brexit failed to sway voters in the UK’s main production centres.

From Sunderland to Luton, Solihull in the Midlands and Bridgend in Wales, where thousands of automotive jobs are based, the electorate voted to leave the EU despite the warnings of union bosses, manufacturers and industry bodies."



"The British car industry issued a clear warning: leaving the EU could put jobs at risk.

But just a few days later Sunderland, the home of Nissan, delivered its verdict: a resounding 61.3 per cent of people voted for Brexit regardless."

After a resounding Brexit vote, Sunderland fears for Nissan plant
https://www.ft.com/content/900d015a-3ba ... b487ebd80a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[martin_p]

Another Remoaner with selective memory loss!




Car plant regions defy bosses’ Brexit vote warnings
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/new ... ay-EU.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Car plant regions defy bosses’ vote warnings: Firms' bases vote to leave despite call to stay in EU

Fears that the boom in British car manufacturing would be derailed by Brexit failed to sway voters in the UK’s main production centres.

From Sunderland to Luton, Solihull in the Midlands and Bridgend in Wales, where thousands of automotive jobs are based, the electorate voted to leave the EU despite the warnings of union bosses, manufacturers and industry bodies."



"The British car industry issued a clear warning: leaving the EU could put jobs at risk.

But just a few days later Sunderland, the home of Nissan, delivered its verdict: a resounding 61.3 per cent of people voted for Brexit regardless."

After a resounding Brexit vote, Sunderland fears for Nissan plant
https://www.ft.com/content/900d015a-3ba ... b487ebd80a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So just to summarise, no body actually said the Nissan plant would close if we voted to leave.

[RingoMcCartney]

So just to summarise, no body actually said the Nissan plant would close if we voted to leave.

To summarise, workers defied the warnings of, union bosses, manufacturers and industry bodies, that their jobs would be on the line, should they vote Leave.

Fast forward to Thursday this week.

The new Nissan Juke rolled off the Sunderland production line.

Remoaners left looking both silly and heartbroken.


Dry your eyes daft lad.

[nil_desperandum]

May's WA has a UK wide backstop with no unilateral exit. Johnson's WA has (reportedly) a NI only backstop (rest of the UK won't be in it) with the possibility of
unilateral exit by NI electorate majority vote.

So there is a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Except the backstop was intended to be a TEMPORARY solution to the Irish border problem, (NOT A PART OF THE WA) and it would end when another compromise / solution was found. Johnson appears to have proposed a solution to this, so there's no need for the backstop.
So I'll ask again. How is it different to May's deal? Let's have some detail.
They could have passed May's deal earlier and then come up with this solution to the backstop at any point - so far as I can see, and so far as I read.
(Not responding to you in particular Mala, as there are others on here, who don't seem to recognise that the substantive part of May's WA is unchanged and has not been discussed since Johnson took office. It's only the backstop that's been moved, and that's exactly what the Brady Amendment to May's deal was.)
Nowhere - incidentally - have I expressed a view on whether I think it should be passed or will pass, but the likes of Farage and Redwood know that it's going to be May's deal with the temporary backstop removed, and hence their reservations about it.

[taio]

Except the backstop was intended to be a TEMPORARY solution to the Irish border problem, (NOT A PART OF THE WA) and it would end when another compromise / solution was found. Johnson appears to have proposed a solution to this, so there's no need for the backstop.
So I'll ask again. How is it different to May's deal? Let's have some detail.
They could have passed May's deal earlier and then come up with this solution to the backstop at any point - so far as I can see, and so far as I read.
(Not responding to you in particular Mala, as there are others on here, who don't seem to recognise that the substantive part of May's WA is unchanged and has not been discussed since Johnson took office. It's only the backstop that's been moved, and that's exactly what the Brady Amendment to May's deal was.)
Nowhere - incidentally - have I expressed a view on whether I think it should be passed or will pass, but the likes of Farage and Redwood know that it's going to be May's deal with the temporary backstop removed, and hence their reservations about it.

We'll have to wait a few days for the detail to be confirmed. The point about the backstop being temporary (or not) was clearly a key reason why May's deal failed. Those who opposed it were not convinced it would end up being temporary, or at least the EU would have much less appetite for finding a replacement solution had the backstop already been agreed. Therefore, changing the backstop is fundamental if we are to now get a deal.

[Spijed]

We'll have to wait a few days for the detail to be confirmed. The point about the backstop being temporary (or not) was clearly a key reason why May's deal failed. Those who opposed it were not convinced it would end up being temporary, or at least the EU would have much less appetite for finding a replacement solution had the backstop already been agreed. Therefore, changing the backstop is fundamental if we are to now get a deal.

And an enormous problem for the DUP:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... se-dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[taio]

And an enormous problem for the DUP:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... se-dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes. It's why I said if - because it may not get agreed by the EU or parliament. It's a hugely complex negotiation and was always going to be.

[AndyClaret]

Except the backstop was intended to be a TEMPORARY solution to the Irish border problem, (NOT A PART OF THE WA) and it would end when another compromise / solution was found. Johnson appears to have proposed a solution to this, so there's no need for the backstop.
So I'll ask again. How is it different to May's deal? Let's have some detail.
They could have passed May's deal earlier and then come up with this solution to the backstop at any point - so far as I can see, and so far as I read.
(Not responding to you in particular Mala, as there are others on here, who don't seem to recognise that the substantive part of May's WA is unchanged and has not been discussed since Johnson took office. It's only the backstop that's been moved, and that's exactly what the Brady Amendment to May's deal was.)
Nowhere - incidentally - have I expressed a view on whether I think it should be passed or will pass, but the likes of Farage and Redwood know that it's going to be May's deal with the temporary backstop removed, and hence their reservations about it.

Why are people saying Boris's deal is a harder Brexit than May's if they are exactly the same ?

[martin_p]

To summarise, workers defied the warnings of, union bosses, manufacturers and industry bodies, that their jobs would be on the line, should they vote Leave.

Fast forward to Thursday this week.

The new Nissan Juke rolled off the Sunderland production line.

Remoaners left looking both silly and heartbroken.


Dry your eyes daft lad.

It’s not my argument. But you were asked where anyone has said the Nissan plant would close, you didn’t supply any evidence of that.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It’s not my argument. But you were asked where anyone has said the Nissan plant would close, you didn’t supply any evidence of that.

It's only recently that Nissan CEO has said that the future of the plant could be in jeopardy in the event of a no deal brexit, but even then the reports are dependent on which papers are reporting the story.
Pro-remain are implying it's been predicted, Pro-Leave are naturally stating no such thing.

They didn't say much about it a couple of years ago when the results were announced, but in all fairness they were busy cooking the books producing false, positive, financial records, plus they were seeking financial incentives from the government that Brexit wouldn't cause them an issue.

If Sunderland closes it will be a mixture of no deal brexit and a further financial collapse of Nissan that does it.

They're already getting rid of the night shift, apparently to optimise production of the two models there.