Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[nil_desperandum]

It occurs to me that logically and morally there's absolutely no way that Theresa May can vote for this deal because of her agreement with her allies the DUP, and promises she made them about the border, but I'm willing to bet that she does.

[AndyClaret]

Jolyon wastes more gullible remainers money, and loses again.

https://order-order.com/2019/10/18/gull ... ste-money/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and the Judge is scathing, the full judgement.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/defa ... f?sfvrsn=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KateR]

Lord Trimble stating he would back the deal and feels the DUP should also plus start NI talks.

I hope if this deal goes through it can bring the NI parties closer together and Stormont re-open, it could be an excellent outcome as a byproduct of the deal for the future.

I also believe that giving the DUP any veto is totally out of the question and that this never happens.

Meanwhile it seems NS is worried by Labour MP's supporting the deal enough for it to pass, should it go to the vote tomorrow, this deal would really hurt her obsession with an Iny2 I believe.

[RingoMcCartney]

Jolyon wastes more gullible remainers money, and loses again.

https://order-order.com/2019/10/18/gull ... ste-money/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and the Judge is scathing, the full judgement.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/defa ... f?sfvrsn=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now that is a great way to end the week on!

Fella on the radio earlier, said he , as a brexiteer, wanted to thank Gina Miller, for making sure parliament, not the government was responsible for passing any deal.

Had it not been for fellow brexiteer, Gina, in all likelihood, the country would, now, be lumbered with Teresa May's deal , and stuck in that undemocratic back stop in perpetuity!!!


Gu'lass Gina!

[Spijed]

TBF Letwin says his ammendment doesn't do what all the conspiracy theorists says it does.

But you do realise, don't you, that if Letwin's amendment succeeds, which it's almost certainly going to do, renders tomorrows vote meaningless?

[Right_winger]

Lord Trimble stating he would back the deal and feels the DUP should also plus start NI talks.

I hope if this deal goes through it can bring the NI parties closer together and Stormont re-open, it could be an excellent outcome as a byproduct of the deal for the future.

I also believe that giving the DUP any veto is totally out of the question and that this never happens.

Meanwhile it seems NS is worried by Labour MP's supporting the deal enough for it to pass, should it go to the vote tomorrow, this deal would really hurt her obsession with an Iny2 I believe.

The DUP look to have gambled a little too hard. The majority or people in NI will back the deal.

Wee fishy features won’t be in the slightest bothered about the deal as she will just twist it into yet more grievance for their ultimate goal indy. They can’t use their record in govt as everything they have touched has turned to excrement. Westminster Grievance is the only thing they’ve got for support coupled with anti British bigotry.

[AndyClaret]

But you do realise, don't you, that if Letwin's amendment succeeds, which it's almost certainly going to do, renders tomorrows vote meaningless?

Not according to him.

[CardyTheClaret]

But you do realise, don't you, that if Letwin's amendment succeeds, which it's almost certainly going to do, renders tomorrows vote meaningless?

How?

[Imploding Turtle]

Not according to him.

I suppose this would be the first time a politician is full of ****, then. Eh?

[AndrewJB]

He is happy with it because, despite attempts to denigrate him otherwise, it means we leave with a deal rather than no deal. IMO, the NI question shouldn’t be allowed to derail everything because that would discard the 52% that voted to leave. Also, he isn’t a disgrace to the country because, unlike the disreputable scumbags trying to thwart Brexit, he is trying to get it done and he sees this as the best deal we can get. Btw, it isn’t ‘his own artificial timetable’ it’s the latest date set by the EU. It’s interesting to note that the closer a deal is closer to getting done the vitriol from the remainers, and yourself, is becoming more venomous. BJ, for all his faults, is making a good fist of sorting out the cr4p sandwich that he was given by May. Btw, Corbin changes his mind every week, if not every day, on Brexit and the Lib Dem’s are full of sh!t so being called a liar appertains to all politicians, not just BJ.

I’ve disliked Johnson ever since he was my part time mayor.

The deal the EU forced him to accept is one rejected by the U.K. some years back, because it would split the U.K. I know you don’t like the inconvenience of the Irish border, but the GFA was there all along - and leavers insisted it wouldn’t be a problem. Like all the leave promises, it was a lie.

Johnson was the only Tory in the leadership race to promise to leave by the 31st. All the others insisted that it might be prudent to extend briefly, but not him. You’ll see as you get to know him more - he’ll say anything to anyone, and make all kinds of amazing promises (like tax cuts and spending increases!), and not deliver.

[AndrewJB]

Not surprised. There have been three different solutions in the past to a parliament that can't make a decision. 1 - the King sacks them and rules as an autocrat. 2 - the Lord Protector sacks those who he doesn't agree with and runs it with yes-men. 3 - we have a general election.

1 and 2 aren't going to happen, so let's get on with 3. Election needed. What use is a parliament that is decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent? (Churchill)

Why do you persist with this fiction that parliament has wasted time? The vast majority Time was spent faffing in negotiation, and even then she didn’t bring it to parliament right away.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I’ve disliked Johnson ever since he was my part time mayor.

The deal the EU forced him to accept is one rejected by the U.K. some years back, because it would split the U.K. I know you don’t like the inconvenience of the Irish border, but the GFA was there all along - and leavers insisted it wouldn’t be a problem. Like all the leave promises, it was a lie.

Johnson was the only Tory in the leadership race to promise to leave by the 31st. All the others insisted that it might be prudent to extend briefly, but not him. You’ll see as you get to know him more - he’ll say anything to anyone, and make all kinds of amazing promises (like tax cuts and spending increases!), and not deliver.

Seriously, surely you don’t believe that?

The deal rejected a few years ago wasn’t the NI in the U.K. CU as is proposed now.

[Spijed]

Lewis Goodall
✔
@lewis_goodall
Biggest decision about tomorrow is what the govt decides to do if Letwin amendment passes. Do they pull the whole motion? Or proceed with it, knowing it no longer constitutes a meaningful vote?

[Imploding Turtle]

Seriously, surely you don’t believe that?

The deal rejected a few years ago wasn’t the NI in the U.K. CU as is proposed now.

He resigned as foreign secretary because he didn't want large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system.

[Colburn_Claret]

You can't beat a bit of "they need us more than we need them".

On an unrelated note, about 7% of Germany's exports go to the UK. About 45% of the UK's exports go to the EU.

It's got nothing to do with who needs it more than the other, we need each other. We need to trade with them, but they also need to trade with us. If you think they dont you're deluded.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's got nothing to do with who needs it more than the other, we need each other. We need to trade with them, but they also need to trade with us. If you think they dont you're deluded.

Lol. They ******* don't though. It'll hurt them if the lost all our trade, but it'd destroy us. You're deluded if you think anything different.

[Bin Ont Turf]

but it'd destroy us.

Like Luke Skywalker did to the Death Star.

[Colburn_Claret]

What do you mean?
It's in the WA, which as I predicted is substantially May's WA.
(95% unchanged according to the analysts, and the only changes, are to accommodate Johnson caving in over the Irish Sea border. May could have done this, but her loyal party would have been outraged)
The only other changes affect the "Future Arrangements" but these aren't legally binding anyway. They're a sort of road map.

As I said, I'm not happy with it.
I'm hoping it's all part of a cunning plan.
MPs vote against it.
Boris forced to ask for an extension.
Brussels says no extension.
Leave with no deal

The remainers conveniently forget that just because Boris asks, doesn't mean they'll necessarily give it. Even Brussels must realise that one way or another this has to come to a conclusion. If Parliament cant decide, then let Brussels make the decision.

All hypothetical but we can but dream.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's a good deal for Britain https://youtu.be/b4m_ajuNmSA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BennyD]

It's so we don't end up with a no deal by default, if a 500+ page long withdrawal agreement can't be legislated for by the 31st even if the motion is passed.

There isn’t going to be a no deal, unless it’s given to us by the remaniacs. No deal was put back on the table to concentrate the mind of the EU and it worked; the EU renegotiated the bit that they knew from the start would be unacceptable. There is a deal on the table and if our representatives vote for it, ‘no deal’ becomes immaterial. If the deal is accepted and signed off, the finer details can be thrashed out in due course because that’s what politicians do when they represent the people and not themselves.

[willsclarets]

Obsessed, OK if that is what you think, fine, absolutely not a problem.

I won't try to tell you how you behave or even think because I don't know, however I know I do come here to read, see peoples opinion and make a judgment on them as to what merit they have versus my thinking.

I don't think I have ever tried to undermine anyone's post but maybe people like you have that perception, which of course you are allowed, I know for a fact that reading the continuous post of the same thing time and time again is boring, but I suppose if what people continually post supports your point of view than anything remotely critical would be seen as undermining them.

You really shouldn't accuse people posting crap with what you post, but if it helps you get through the day being your smug self, then knock yourself out

Oh the irony of you liking this post Ringo Have a little look at our conversation about the EU and Catalonia, there was only one person with any semblance of an argument and the other repeated the same crap again and again. None of your posts, and I mean zero, have any merit.

[willsclarets]

There isn’t going to be a no deal, unless it’s given to us by the remaniacs. No deal was put back on the table to concentrate the mind of the EU and it worked; the EU renegotiated the bit that they knew from the start would be unacceptable. There is a deal on the table and if our representatives vote for it, ‘no deal’ becomes immaterial. If the deal is accepted and signed off, the finer details can be thrashed out in due course because that’s what politicians do when they represent the people and not themselves.

That's just not true. But no surprises there.

[nil_desperandum]

There isn’t going to be a no deal, unless it’s given to us by the remaniacs.

Try telling that to the ERG. They've been non too subtle today in suggesting that they'll support Johnson tomorrow because they believe that once it's passed they can a manipulate a "no deal" next year.
remaniacs - as you choose to call them - (and in fact many who want a deal) have legislated to try to ensure that "No deal" is ruled out but such is the level of trust in the current MP and his cabinet, that they have been having to go to extreme lengths to try to ensure that Cummings (Johnson) won't / can't pull off some kind of political stunt.

[If it be your will]

It's a good deal for Britain https://youtu.be/b4m_ajuNmSA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you still haven't realised the EU is a neoliberal playground?

It's disappointing, that. I really thought you would've done by now.

[BennyD]

That's just not true. But no surprises there.

Please explain.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Interesting response by the Head of the IMF and particularly her comments on the impact on UK economy:

Ms Georgieva, 66, claimed that the worst economic effects of Brexit will have passed if MPs approve the deal on Saturday. “There are still implications for the UK economy . . . in the order of 2 percentage points with the caveat that a lot of that impact has already been absorbed.”

The Times report is headlined: IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva ‘jumped for joy’ on hearing Brexit deal

I've added the underlines, of course.

I’m a little confused Paul. Many thanks for posting this.

Remainers on this board have been all over IMF news for the last 3 years. Suddenly, when their chief economist announces that a Boris FTA will reduce our GDP by 2% compared to the baseline growth, and most of that 2% has already been faced, our Remain voting friends are nowhere to be seen?

Surely it is a good thing that the UK will continue to thrive post Brexit? Every time I have said that we would face a small dip but then carry on growing, I’ve been mocked for it. Shall we now mock the IMF?

[BennyD]

Try telling that to the ERG. They've been non too subtle today in suggesting that they'll support Johnson tomorrow because they believe that once it's passed they can a manipulate a "no deal" next year.
remaniacs - as you choose to call them - (and in fact many who want a deal) have legislated to try to ensure that "No deal" is ruled out but such is the level of trust in the current MP and his cabinet, that they have been having to go to extreme lengths to try to ensure that Cummings (Johnson) won't / can't pull off some kind of political stunt.

Once it’s passed there’s not much they can do. Putting No Deal back on the table was simply a negotiating tool to force the EU into re-negotiating the May deal, and it worked. BJ didn’t want a No Deal and we now have the deal he has worked for and got. Why single out the PM? I wouldn’t trust any of the self important arseh0les who are trying their damndest to torpedo any deal. Wake up man, they are the idiots trying to pull the political stunts; the Benn act, the Letwin amendment etc, etc.

[nil_desperandum]

Once it’s passed there’s not much they can do. Putting No Deal back on the table was simply a negotiating tool to force the EU into re-negotiating the May deal, and it worked. BJ didn’t want a No Deal and we now have the deal he has worked for and got. Why single out the PM? I wouldn’t trust any of the self important arseh0les who are trying their damndest to torpedo any deal. Wake up man, they are the idiots trying to pull the political stunts; the Benn act, the Letwin amendment etc, etc.

I think you missed my point. Not sure.
There's been a lot of speculation today that the ERG are supporting Johnson's / May's deal this time because they have concluded that they can convert it into "no deal" at the end of the transition period.
There doesn't seem any logical reason why otherwise they would support the deal given their total aversion to it before, and the fact that they actually proposed a bill that is currently in law to expressly rule out the "Irish Sea" border which was a red line for them and the DUP.
Incidentally, suggesting that Letwin and Benn, (along with Grieve presumably) are idiots doesn't really help support your argument. It's totally reasonable that you hold a different view to them, but they are extremely well-qualified, experienced, intelligent men, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

[martin_p]

I’m a little confused Paul. Many thanks for posting this.

Remainers on this board have been all over IMF news for the last 3 years. Suddenly, when their chief economist announces that a Boris FTA will reduce our GDP by 2% compared to the baseline growth, and most of that 2% has already been faced, our Remain voting friends are nowhere to be seen?

Surely it is a good thing that the UK will continue to thrive post Brexit? Every time I have said that we would face a small dip but then carry on growing, I’ve been mocked for it. Shall we now mock the IMF?

Well if you’re going to be consistent then yes you should.

[Damo]

I think this deal has proved that remainers are against leaving no matter what we agree to.
Fingers crossed it gets through parliament tomorrow, then the rational folk can get on with trading under a stable economy again.

[Paul Waine]

I’m a little confused Paul. Many thanks for posting this.

Remainers on this board have been all over IMF news for the last 3 years. Suddenly, when their chief economist announces that a Boris FTA will reduce our GDP by 2% compared to the baseline growth, and most of that 2% has already been faced, our Remain voting friends are nowhere to be seen?

Surely it is a good thing that the UK will continue to thrive post Brexit? Every time I have said that we would face a small dip but then carry on growing, I’ve been mocked for it. Shall we now mock the IMF?

Hi CPC, I found it a little odd that many posters on this thread didn't appear to be aware of IMF views when I posted the extract from The Times article - I admit I didn't check back thru the several pages of new posts from Friday morning, but there was no indication that some "experts" were seeing the Brexit deal as good news for both EU and UK economies.

Interesting that the "bad news" is 2% lower growth over the past 3 years. So, I'm sure a lot will be saying, well if that's the worst... let's end the uncertainty and get on with BJ's Brexit.

I get the impression that there are many missing the details: 1) agree BJ's deal - exit 31-Oct-2019; 2) transition period starts and runs to 31-Dec-2020; 3) FTA to be negotiated with EU27 in this period; 4) FTAs can be negotiated with other countries also during this period; 5) If alternative arrangements haven't been made for NI Irish border, then BJ's "double customs" (for want of a name) operates from 1-Jan-2021.

I'm sure there are several who will be happy to tell me where this is not correct.

[martin_p]

I think this deal has proved that remainers are against leaving no matter what we agree to.

I knew you’d passed that Mensa test on merit. Well done, remainers want to remain in the EU.

It’s not going to happen of course but that doesn’t mean remainers have to get onboard and support something they don’t believe in.

[dsr]

I knew you’d passed that Mensa test on merit. Well done, remainers want to remain in the EU.

It’s not going to happen of course but that doesn’t mean remainers have to get onboard and support something they don’t believe in.

There are two contradictory desires among people who voted Remain in the referendum. One - they would prefer to stay in the EU; two - they would prefer that the referendum result is put into practice. You can't have both.

Some people are so in love with EU membership that they couldn't countenance leaving and would happily put democracy into the dustbin. Some people are so in love with democracy that they will accept the referendum result without reservation and accept that they have lost. And some people have mixed feelings and will on balance come down one way or the other - or perhaps remain on the fence.

But don't assume that all Remainers want to remain in the EU. Argue if you like that all Remainers would have preferred to stay in the EU; but some of them, at least, accept that they can't.

[martin_p]

There are two contradictory desires among people who voted Remain in the referendum. One - they would prefer to stay in the EU; two - they would prefer that the referendum result is put into practice. You can't have both.

Some people are so in love with EU membership that they couldn't countenance leaving and would happily put democracy into the dustbin. Some people are so in love with democracy that they will accept the referendum result without reservation and accept that they have lost. And some people have mixed feelings and will on balance come down one way or the other - or perhaps remain on the fence.

But don't assume that all Remainers want to remain in the EU. Argue if you like that all Remainers would have preferred to stay in the EU; but some of them, at least, accept that they can't.

If they don’t want to remain in the EU then by definition they are ex-remainers!

[CrosspoolClarets]

I knew you’d passed that Mensa test on merit. Well done, remainers want to remain in the EU.

It’s not going to happen of course but that doesn’t mean remainers have to get onboard and support something they don’t believe in.

They shouldn’t. I agree.

They should get on board of course but not for that reason - it should be to show a bit of integrity and class in respecting a democratic vote, then by all means lobbying to get back in after a couple of years.

[martin_p]

They shouldn’t. I agree.

They should get on board of course but not for that reason - it should be to show a bit of integrity and class in respecting a democratic vote, then by all means lobbying to get back in after a couple of years.

You can respect a democratic vote without agreeing with the outcome. No one seems to have a problem with people laying into governments over the years and not agreeing with them, actively campaigning against them, trying to frustrate them. Are you saying once we elect a government everyone who didn’t vote for them should just shut up and support them?

[Jakubclaret]

You can respect a democratic vote without agreeing with the outcome. No one seems to have a problem with people laying into governments over the years and not agreeing with them, actively campaigning against them, trying to frustrate them. Are you saying once we elect a government everyone who didn’t vote for them should just shut up and support them?

Ways & means, arguing on a political thread on football forum probably isn’t 1 of the best ideas, respecting a democratic vote whilst not in agreement will bring resentment, allow yourself to agree whilst respecting & it won’t lead to bitterness.

[Greenmile]

... don't assume that all Remainers want to remain in the EU...

[dsr]

Based on the definition of Remainer being someone who voted Remain in the referendum.

[Imploding Turtle]

So you still haven't realised the EU is a neoliberal playground?

It's disappointing, that. I really thought you would've done by now.

It's a ******* skit!

[aggi]

I’m a little confused Paul. Many thanks for posting this.

Remainers on this board have been all over IMF news for the last 3 years. Suddenly, when their chief economist announces that a Boris FTA will reduce our GDP by 2% compared to the baseline growth, and most of that 2% has already been faced, our Remain voting friends are nowhere to be seen?

Surely it is a good thing that the UK will continue to thrive post Brexit? Every time I have said that we would face a small dip but then carry on growing, I’ve been mocked for it. Shall we now mock the IMF?

I'm a little confused too. You want people to agree that being worse off is good?

[If it be your will]

It's a ******* skit!

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean the clip, I didn't even watch it, I was just meaning generally, like.

[Imploding Turtle]

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean the clip, I didn't even watch it, I was just meaning generally, like.

No worries. I've never been under any illusions that the EU is a neo-liberal project. But it's much, much better than the neoliberal extremism we're going to see without their protections and without their economic impact. You are in for a huge surprise if you think this country is going to become less neolib as a result of the economic catastrofuck that we're about to enjoy.

[Damo]

I knew you’d passed that Mensa test on merit. Well done, remainers want to remain in the EU.

It’s not going to happen of course but that doesn’t mean remainers have to get onboard and support something they don’t believe in.

It's possible to be against leaving the EU, while accepting that we should leave the EU.
Plenty of posters on here have expressed that opinion.
In your defence, I know you dont accept leaving on any terms. It must have been a hard few days, given how Brexit news dictates your mood

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I think this deal has proved that remainers are against leaving no matter what we agree to.
Fingers crossed it gets through parliament tomorrow, then the rational folk can get on with trading under a stable economy again.

Farage's "Brexit" party is also against it.

How do you square that circle?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

They shouldn’t. I agree.

They should get on board of course but not for that reason - it should be to show a bit of integrity and class in respecting a democratic vote, then by all means lobbying to get back in after a couple of years.

I can't believe you are suggesting Nigel Farage's Brexit Party lobbies to get back in after a couple of years.

[willsclarets]

Please explain.

Today's vote is not by any stretch "meaningless" except in legally binding terms. The amendments, quite rightly, ensure that the withdrawal agreement is given due process in ratification. In this instance a motion to pass the deal would be a technical extension and we'd leave on this deal. I'm not sure why so many people are against this, I know there's an appetite to just get it done, but legislative confirmation can't be bound into a motion passed after short debate (ie the motion shouldn't bypass the Benn Act)

In direct answer to your main query, if the amendments stop the motion satisfying the Benn Act, this also removes the possibility that the hardliners from the ERG pass this motion today then block it before legislation. At this point, no deal is the only option because the extension request will have been withdrawn.

It is also especially important to put this agreement through the scrutiny it deserves, because of the possibility of still leaving on a no deal after the initial transition period if a trade deal fails to materialise. Many hard brexiteers who rejected May's deal are backing this one, mainly because it allows the eventuality of a no deal even if this deal is passed. There needs to be necessary clarity (and legally binding amendments) that ensure the government takes the time it needs to negotiate a trade deal. This, rather than an opportunity for those who always wanted an opportunity to take us out on a no deal and see this motion as a way to facilitate it.

In short, this doesn't stop your brexit. It just makes sure we give it the time it deserves to be stamped by law.

[taio]

Farage's "Brexit" party is also against it.

How do you square that circle?

Simply because it's for different reasons.

[AndyClaret]

I think you missed my point. Not sure.
There's been a lot of speculation today that the ERG are supporting Johnson's / May's deal this time because they have concluded that they can convert it into "no deal" at the end of the transition period.
There doesn't seem any logical reason why otherwise they would support the deal given their total aversion to it before, and the fact that they actually proposed a bill that is currently in law to expressly rule out the "Irish Sea" border which was a red line for them and the DUP.
Incidentally, suggesting that Letwin and Benn, (along with Grieve presumably) are idiots doesn't really help support your argument. It's totally reasonable that you hold a different view to them, but they are extremely well-qualified, experienced, intelligent men, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

They wouldn't have the numbers for a no deal, we already know this.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Simply because it's for different reasons.

No it isn't, neither remainers or the Brexit party like the deal, you are saying one side ought to shup up and get on with it because they lost and the other what?

The usual hypocrisy from Brexiters, now Farage would prefer an extension