Tall Paul wrote:I'm no socialist.
And neither are you a democrat........
Tall Paul wrote:I'm no socialist.
I can't see a way that this gets passed either. But for Boris it's still a win if he can bring together his party under a deal they are united behind, putting them into a stronger position going into a GE. There might be a few from labour that independently decide a deal is in the best interests of the country, but not enough I don't think. The reality is, that it's a "harder brexit" than the May deal and alongside the fractures it creates in the union, Labour have plenty of political ammo to justify voting it down they will think.Lowbankclaret wrote:So the DUP is voting no
Labour is voting no
Lib Den voting no.
SNP voting no.
It’s not going through Parliament.
Essentially it can't become official. He has no business saying that.Lancasterclaret wrote:Juncker saying we don't need an extension.
Hmmm
Be interesting to see how official that gets.
Certainly against normal EU policy.
EDIT - been pointed out that he's ruled out extensions before btw
V truewillsclarets wrote:Essentially it can't become official. He has no business saying that.
Lancasterclaret wrote:EU won't interfere in our internal affairs over this Damo.
They might realise a statement urging us to accept the deal, but they won't do anything before saturday as it would count as "interfering"
Again, its back to Johnsons mistakes at the start of his premiership that are coming back to haunt him.
Juncker telling porkies? Who'd a thunk it?willsclarets wrote:Essentially it can't become official. He has no business saying that.
Lancasterclaret wrote:EU source btw
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... 6603824128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It would be hilarious if Remoaners voted against the deal and we ended up with no deal.aggi wrote:Seems to be a lot of journalists suggesting that Juncker's "no extension" is pretty meaningless and that if push comes to shove the EU27 would agree to it. Always worth remembering that Juncker, et al don't have that much power in the EU. However much people want to pretend it's an undemocratic, juggernaut of an entity it is, in reality, run by the elected leaders from the member states.
Then dont vote for the Tories, it still doesn't change the fact that our future is in our hands.jrgbfc wrote:Or maybe people just don't trust the Tories when it comes to things like workers rights?
aggi wrote:Seems to be a lot of journalists suggesting that Juncker's "no extension" is pretty meaningless and that if push comes to shove the EU27 would agree to it. Always worth remembering that Juncker, et al don't have that much power in the EU. However much people want to pretend it's an undemocratic, juggernaut of an entity it is, in reality, run by the elected leaders from the member states.
Guido Fawkes is one of the funniest accounts on twitter.AndyClaret wrote:Remainers don't like unelected bureaucrats either, who knew !
Only the truly, truly, truly deluded ever thought it wasn't.Colburn_Claret wrote:Then dont vote for the Tories, it still doesn't change the fact that our future is in our hands.
Beth Rigby just clarified that after that she and Matt Frei asked him "are you ruling out an extension" twice, he said "yes".Lancasterclaret wrote:Just to clarify what Juncker said to the Brexiteers on here
"This deal means there is no need for any kind of prolongation.”
The key words are the first two.
Yeah, I know.aggi wrote:Interesting wording in the political declaration about future commitments to a "level playing field". It's obviously pushed these commitments down the line but it's looking like we'd still need significant alignment (and similar rules on state aid, sorry iibyw) to get a trade agreement:
It does not make any sense for him to assert that, he simply doesn't have that power. Not least because passing a motion on a deal is quite different from ratifying it. I can't see how this is legislated without a technical extension anyway.AndyClaret wrote:Beth Rigby just clarified that after that she and Matt Frei asked him "are you ruling out an extension" twice, he said "yes".
Firstly, most people don’t want to see working rights and environmental protections eroded. Secondly, the EU is powerful enough to call the tune in trade negotiations with other countries, so when it comes to one with us it’s going to be EU standards, or no to trade.Colburn_Claret wrote:The hypocrisy of this. IF labour are going to win the next GE, what the hell does it matter what working rights we agree to, they can always implement their own. The same goes for the environment.
As for adhering to EU standards, and this isn't about wether they are good or bad, just the fact that they don't impose their standards on any other country in the world that they, the EU trades with. When will you understand that leaving means they can't impose their standards on us either.
Over the last 100 years we've created the NHS, the Welfare State, we did it all without any threat from the EU. Our standards of working rights, and environment may never be perfect, but it stacks up against anything most European countries have to offer. They have remainers brainwashed into this idea that we aren't capable of running ourselves, we aren't capable of creating a society with higher standards than any country in the world, including the EU. That we aren't capable of competing and succeeding on the world stage as an industrialised nation in our own right. Its all ********. We have it in our own hands to make of this country what we want, but its down to us, not the EU, not America, just us. It's insulting, and very sad, that you have so little faith in the people of this country, wether that's your family, your friends, your neighbours, your work colleagues. Trust me, if we pull together and stop acting like frightened little school girls, there is nothing to stop us, but ourselves.
I dont doubt there isn't a remoaner equivalent and I wouldn't be surprised if you ran it Lancasterclaret.Lancasterclaret wrote:Guido Fawkes is one of the funniest accounts on twitter.
Its the "go to" website if you like your Brexit news as Brexity as possible, and without any critical filters.
Well, not quite, "It's going to be EU standards, or WTO to trade" would be more like it. And yes, I can very much see that will be the EU demand. I can also see us rejecting it.AndrewJB wrote:Firstly, most people don’t want to see working rights and environmental protections eroded. Secondly, the EU is powerful enough to call the tune in trade negotiations with other countries, so when it comes to one with us it’s going to be EU standards, or no to trade.
Don't forget about making up stories about domestic abuse to get a few more clicks.Lancasterclaret wrote:Guido Fawkes is one of the funniest accounts on twitter.
Its the "go to" website if you like your Brexit news as Brexity as possible, and without any critical filters.
Well this is the political declaration that is a broad brush outline of the deal we want in the future. We could refuse those things but then we'd be unlikely to get a trade deal. Realistically any trade deal with the EU is going to contain restrictions on state aid (and realistically it's unlikely the UK is going to care that much about it given how minimal our state aid spending is compared to other EU countries).If it be your will wrote:Yeah, I know.
It's this repeated use of the word 'should' in the level playing field passage, though. That the UK 'should' do this or 'should' do that. I'm not sure what this means from a legal perspective. Can we just say "Quite right, yes! We 'should' have done that! But we didn't!"
I really don't know.
Indeed, it would be like the past few years where the ERG have done their best to stop us leaving the EU.AndyClaret wrote:It would be hilarious if Remoaners voted against the deal and we ended up with no deal.
But we've ended up in a better place now though.aggi wrote:Indeed, it would be like the past few years where the ERG have done their best to stop us leaving the EU.
Ahh. Just be reading this:aggi wrote:Interesting wording in the political declaration about future commitments to a "level playing field". It's obviously pushed these commitments down the line but it's looking like we'd still need significant alignment (and similar rules on state aid, sorry iibyw) to get a trade agreement:
They've done what?AndyClaret wrote:People's vote lot are frit, they've pulled a second referendum vote on Saturday.
Well it's a bit early for either leave or remain to have that view I'd say.AndyClaret wrote:But we've ended up in a better place now though.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/11 ... 8913044480" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Tall Paul wrote:They've done what?
I meant a more brexity deal than May's.aggi wrote:Well it's a bit early for either leave or remain to have that view I'd say.
So we'll be worse off but we will feel freer?AndyClaret wrote:I meant a more brexity deal than May's.
It will, but provided there's some sort of exit clause to any trade deal, it still leaves the opportunity - should political opinion shift - to head down a more socialist road if that's what we wanted. The complete absence of that option as a full member is the very reason I went for leave.aggi wrote:Well this is the political declaration that is a broad brush outline of the deal we want in the future. We could refuse those things but then we'd be unlikely to get a trade deal. Realistically any trade deal with the EU is going to contain restrictions on state aid (and realistically it's unlikely the UK is going to care that much about it given how minimal our state aid spending is compared to other EU countries).
Yep, the PD is just a vision for the future. If this Brexit deal is agreed, we have a general election and Labour get in for instance it could significantly change.If it be your will wrote:Ahh. Just be reading this:
https://www.ft.com/content/f917b2ac-f0c ... 5f11f42901" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And the 'level playing field' bit is only in the non-binding political declaration anyway. I thought the language seemed a bit watery for a legally binding document. In fact, if I squint hard enough, Boris's deal looks almost like a 'managed no-deal' for the UK mainland to me (the exception being the NI provisions).
From what I've seen so far, I'd go with this deal, I think. For a while there I was firmly in the 'no-deal' camp.
Who knows if that will get agreed though, particularly if the DUP don't vote for it. There's still a chance of it being voted down and ending up with a second referendum down the line.AndyClaret wrote:I meant a more brexity deal than May's.
Christ, and I thought I was pessimistic.If it be your will wrote:It will, but provided there's some sort of exit clause to any trade deal, it still leaves the opportunity - should political opinion shift - to head down a more socialist road if that's what we wanted. The complete absence of that option as a full member is the very reason I went for leave.
Not that I think that road is imminent. I think Corbyn and McDonnell have ended any chance of that for at least a generation. But maybe after I'm dead or something.
Thanks, that makes more a lot more sense than your post did.AndyClaret wrote:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/11 ... 8913044480
In your opinion.Lancasterclaret wrote:So we'll be worse off but we will feel freer?
That going to be the Conservative election slogan?
No, and I'm getting slightly weary saying this, in the opinion of experts.AndyClaret wrote:In your opinion.
so why don't labour vote for the deal, and then put their version of the PD in their manifesto and call for a general election ?aggi wrote:Yep, the PD is just a vision for the future. If this Brexit deal is agreed, we have a general election and Labour get in for instance it could significantly change.
Although the furore around the Withdrawal Agreement has somewhat hidden that it's only an interim step and it's what gets agreed afterwards will be really important.