Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:43 pm

The Boris Plan

android · Post by **android** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:44 pm

Yes, Super Jonny Bercow has stayed true to form and cemented his reputation, as expected. Got to love him really - I will certainly miss him.

He mentioned that he could have used circumstances (letter now sent) to go either way with his decision. He did not mention the peculiar circumstance of the country being 10 days away from leaving the EU and the country bizarrely not knowing whether MPs support the deal or not! He had a choice and coincidentally he chose to please his Brexit blocker friends once more (Benn, Grieve, Starmer delighted no doubt).

It does not kill the deal perhaps but momentum is lost and must make leaving by the 31st October unlikely now (the minimum punishment for Johnson for having brought back a deal that might be supported - if only we knew!). There will be plenty of scope for further shenanigans and delay over Bill amendments and so on.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:45 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Me?

God knows.

But extension then GE makes sense.

But I have to be honest here, the tactics used by Johnson are **** poor.

Its unnecessary and could be alienating MPs.

He might end up having to deal with a CU amendment to his bill.

He need to focus on Brexit first and electioneering 2nd.

I think he has acted in a very childish manner!

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:51 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I think he has acted in a very childish manner!

Maybe he is following the example set by Boris when he refused to sign the letter.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:51 pm

android wrote:Yes, Super Jonny Bercow has stayed true to form and cemented his reputation, as expected. Got to love him really - I will certainly miss him.

He mentioned that he could have used circumstances (letter now sent) to go either way with his decision. He did not mention the peculiar circumstance of the country being 10 days away from leaving the EU and the country bizarrely not knowing whether MPs support the deal or not! He had a choice and coincidentally he chose to please his Brexit blocker friends once more (Benn, Grieve, Starmer delighted no doubt).

It does not kill the deal perhaps but momentum is lost and must make leaving by the 31st October unlikely now (the minimum punishment for Johnson for having brought back a deal that might be supported - if only we knew!). There will be plenty of scope for further shenanigans and delay over Bill amendments and so on.

But what do you think would have happened if he’d allowed the vote? Don’t you think that the same MPs that backed the Letwin amendment would have backed a similar amendment today? The government had then promised to withdraw the motion and the vote wouldn’t have taken place anyway.

Today was about one thing from the government’s point of view. An opportunity to cry ‘they’re stopping us doing Brexit!’ It looks like it’s played well with their target audience!

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:54 pm

Cryssys wrote:Maybe he is following the example set by Boris when he refused to sign the letter.

Apologies, I was not clear.

I meant Boris has been childish.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:54 pm

And to prove what I’ve just said (and said this morning)

‘PM's official spokesman:"We are disappointed that the Speaker has denied us the chance to deliver on the will of the people.
The public want Brexit done."’

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:56 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Apologies, I was not clear.

I meant Boris has been childish.

He's playing to his audience, the people whose vote and support he wants.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:56 pm

android wrote:Yes, Super Jonny Bercow has stayed true to form and cemented his reputation, as expected. Got to love him really - I will certainly miss him.

He mentioned that he could have used circumstances (letter now sent) to go either way with his decision. He did not mention the peculiar circumstance of the country being 10 days away from leaving the EU and the country bizarrely not knowing whether MPs support the deal or not! He had a choice and coincidentally he chose to please his Brexit blocker friends once more (Benn, Grieve, Starmer delighted no doubt).

It does not kill the deal perhaps but momentum is lost and must make leaving by the 31st October unlikely now (the minimum punishment for Johnson for having brought back a deal that might be supported - if only we knew!). There will be plenty of scope for further shenanigans and delay over Bill amendments and so on.

leaving the right way is a lot more important than an arbitrary date (set by the French) surely?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I think even the most stupid of moron could realise that i was expressing an opinion.

Not you though. Odd that, eh?

if you are expressing your opinion, then say so, it's quite easy, even for you to understand this, but odd isn't it that your trying to justify your fact statement as now an opinion, soon you'll be telling everyone you were joking about some of the other obnoxious statement like facts you make to people.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:03 pm

Jacob Rees Mogg praised the speaker when he stopped Mays deal for exactly the same reason

https://twitter.com/theonlypeterkay/sta ... 1831821312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Bercow chopped him off at the knees.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:03 pm

KateR wrote:if you are expressing your opinion, then say so, it's quite easy, even for you to understand this, but odd isn't it that your trying to justify your fact statement as now an opinion, soon you'll be telling everyone you were joking about some of the other obnoxious statement like facts you make to people.

If you're too stupid to work out when someone is expressing an opinion or whether they're stating a fact then I'm not interested in helping you. It honestly never crossed my mind that someone would be so stupid as to think that my post was a statement of fact. The only way that could possibly be a statement of fact would be if they think i might possibly be psychic. Do you think I might be psychic?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:05 pm

Meanwhile in NI I see things went swimmingly well for all parties in there first get together in 3 years. Just another example of how divided the UK is in my opinion leading to thoughts of how will we ever come to a final agreement, frustration levels must be high for numerous parties regarding one thing or another.

I also have to say that the EU 27 appear to me to have been a good example of how you don't shoot your own messengers or yourself in the foot.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:06 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Jacob Rees Mogg praised the speaker when he stopped Mays deal for exactly the same reason

https://twitter.com/theonlypeterkay/sta ... 1831821312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Bercow chopped him off at the knees.

Brexiters love him for his hypocrisy, not in spite of it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:08 pm

KateR wrote:Meanwhile in NI I see things went swimmingly well for all parties in there first get together in 3 years. Just another example of how divided the UK is in my opinion leading to thoughts of how will we ever come to a final agreement, frustration levels must be high for numerous parties regarding one thing or another.

I also have to say that the EU 27 appear to me to have been a good example of how you don't shoot your own messengers or yourself in the foot.

EU coming out of this with loads of credit.

I mean, three years of this and we've discovered its not a dictatorship run by Germany, its actually a democracy, it doesn't have an army and Turkey isn't in it.

I mean, it sounds like the sort of place to be!

android · Post by **android** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:09 pm

martin_p wrote:But what do you think would have happened if he’d allowed the vote? Don’t you think that the same MPs that backed the Letwin amendment would have backed a similar amendment today? The government had then promised to withdraw the motion and the vote wouldn’t have taken place anyway.

Today was about one thing from the government’s point of view. An opportunity to cry ‘they’re stopping us doing Brexit!’ It looks like it’s played well with their target audience!

Ha ha you might be right Martin. Just got to love the consistency of our Johnny though. I just find it utterly ridiculous that after all the fuss about parliament and meaningful votes we don't know whether parliament supports the deal or not. Don't you think we should know that? Not sure what the form of words were today and whether amendments were allowed (don't they have to be tabled in advance) but with a bit of legendary "creativity" a way could have been found of giving MPs a meaningful vote. I mean a real meaningful vote not a repeat of Saturday now that the letter has been sent.

Where there's a will (to stop Brexit) there's a way. It seems likely that this deal could have gone through by 31st October but at the very least Parliament will expect Bercow to aid them in obtaining the minimum scalp of preventing Boris from delivering Brexit on 31st October. Let's see.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:11 pm

android wrote:Ha ha you might be right Martin. Just got to love the consistency of our Johnny though. I just find it utterly ridiculous that after all the fuss about parliament and meaningful votes we don't know whether parliament supports the deal or not. Don't you think we should know that? Not sure what the form of words were today and whether amendments were allowed (don't they have to be tabled in advance) but with a bit of legendary "creativity" a way could have been found of giving MPs a meaningful vote. I mean a real meaningful vote not a repeat of Saturday now that the letter has been sent.

Where there's a will (to stop Brexit) there's a way. It seems likely that this deal could have gone through by 31st October but at the very least Parliament will expect Bercow to aid them in obtaining the minimum scalp of preventing Boris from delivering Brexit on 31st October. Let's see.

And again, the government f***ed up on saturday. They should have gone ahead with the vote.

Blaming Bercow for doing the right thing to cover their failings is what this is, and its disappointing that you can't see it that way.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:13 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:EU coming out of this with loads of credit.

I mean, three years of this and we've discovered its not a dictatorship run by Germany, its actually a democracy, it doesn't have an army and Turkey isn't in it.

I mean, it sounds like the sort of place to be!

Lancs,
It’s not a democracy, even you should see that.

The EU army has been given an EU budget for its creation. I really struggle how your blind to the fact it’s well ons it’s way.

Yes it’s not there now but the plan is for it to be in place and functional at the end of Van Der Leyen’s leadership.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If you're too stupid to work out when someone is expressing an opinion or whether they're stating a fact then I'm not interested in helping you. It honestly never crossed my mind that someone would be so stupid as to think that my post was a statement of fact. The only way that could possibly be a statement of fact would be if they think i might possibly be psychic. Do you think I might be psychic?

What I think is that you believe you know everything and have constantly on many threads, not just this one, made stupid statements of facts proving yourself to be a bigot, bombastic and totally insulting. I know you're not psychic, I think you believe you're psychic and a proven know it all, personally I think your psychotic

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:17 pm

A budget of 227 billion Euros no less.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... nion_0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:19 pm

KateR wrote:What I think is that you believe you know everything and have constantly on many threads, not just this one, made stupid statements of facts proving yourself to be a bigot, bombastic and totally insulting. I know you're not psychic, I think you believe you're psychic and a proven know it all, personally I think your psychotic

Kate,

Do as I did so you don’t need to read his diatribe.

Add him to your foe list, works a treat.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:21 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And again, the government f***ed up on saturday. They should have gone ahead with the vote.

Why would it matter if the MPs had been made to walk through the lobbies? The amended proposal was passed without opposition. What practical difference would it have made if it had been passed with a formal vote instead?

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:24 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Lancs,
It’s not a democracy, even you should see that.

The EU army has been given an EU budget for its creation. I really struggle how your blind to the fact it’s well ons it’s way.

Yes it’s not there now but the plan is for it to be in place and functional at the end of Van Der Leyen’s leadership.

source?

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:25 pm

The WAB (Withdrawal Agreement Bill) should be scrutinised by MPs and then should be voted on AS IT IS. If it passes without amendment then we can move forward, if it fails to pass then, and only then, should amendments be added and voted on.

To amend a potential international treaty before voting on it doesn't make any rational sense.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:29 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:A budget of 227 billion Euros no less.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... nion_0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was pleased to see that the UK were not shown as being part of this source document

If we have an EU army to protect us, with us being behind this physically, could a reduction in our military spending result from this I wonder?

android · Post by **android** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:29 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And again, the government f***ed up on saturday. They should have gone ahead with the vote.

Blaming Bercow for doing the right thing to cover their failings is what this is, and its disappointing that you can't see it that way.

I didn't think the unamended vote could have gone ahead on Saturday once Letwin had passed. Either way 2 wrongs don't make a right and we should have had a vote by now that tested whether parliament accepted the deal or not (imo).

Whether Bercow's judgment was right is a matter of opinion. It's just that his important judgments happen to have consistently pleased Benn, Grieve, Starmer and friends. The way he addresses various people is a bit of a giveaway as well but at least that makes him entertaining and is one reason I will miss him.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:36 pm

Mala591 wrote:The WAB (Withdrawal Agreement Bill) should be scrutinised by MPs and then should be voted on AS IT IS. If it passes without amendment then we can move forward, if it fails to pass then, and only then, should amendments be added and voted on.

To amend a potential international treaty before voting on it doesn't make any rational sense.

Ha Ha, hard for me to see any rational sense to anything in the last three years, we will just keep lurching from day to day until we finally have a GE, I really do not see any other rational way around this mess. I hope I am wrong and have been wrong before plenty of times, but to quote someone I can't remember ( ): ) Even a blind man on a galloping horse should be able to see this !

However to just to clarify, I do believe/agree the deal needs to be scrutinized, but not by every single MP, surely some committee of MP's from the opposition should be able to sit with Gov. personnel and go through it. Of course that's what I thought would happen 2+ years ago before actually sitting with the EU.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:39 pm

willsclarets wrote:source?

See the EU fact sheet linked.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... nion_0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:48 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:See the EU fact sheet linked.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... nion_0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see alot about pooling resources where we can to increase member state's security challenges, but nothing to suggest the UK would be forced to join an EU army which in the context of brexit was the assertion.
https://fullfact.org/online/EU-army-conscription/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:48 pm

KateR wrote:I was pleased to see that the UK were not shown as being part of this source document

If we have an EU army to protect us, with us being behind this physically, could a reduction in our military spending result from this I wonder?

I think we have either the highest or second highest ( if that’s wrong, there will be a queue of posters to correct it ) amount of forces of current EU members, so I expect they would want us to increase our contribution not reduce it if we remained by simple not allowing a rebate in the next round of budget negotiations, which is the EU’s objective at the moment.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:48 pm

KateR wrote:Ha Ha, hard for me to see any rational sense to anything in the last three years, we will just keep lurching from day to day until we finally have a GE, I really do not see any other rational way around this mess. I hope I am wrong and have been wrong before plenty of times, but to quote someone I can't remember ( ): ) Even a blind man on a galloping horse should be able to see this !

However to just to clarify, I do believe/agree the deal needs to be scrutinized, but not by every single MP, surely some committee of MP's from the opposition should be able to sit with Gov. personnel and go through it. Of course that's what I thought would happen 2+ years ago before actually sitting with the EU.

Every MP has a right and duty to scrutinize the deal and to add perspective the House spent 2 months reviewing and debating the Finance Bill for next years budget. This decision will impact a generation not just a year so to try and steamroll it through is just ridiculous.

Im sorry if doing things properly with due diligence and care frustrates you but if we are going to make such a momentous change as ending our membership of the EU then this unfortunately is needed and die in a ditch made up timetables are utterly worthless

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:54 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:A budget of 227 billion Euros no less.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... nion_0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Surely the 227 billion is just a total/combined figure of the defence budgets of individual countries that are members of the EU.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:55 pm

willsclarets wrote:I see alot about pooling resources where we can to increase member state's security challenges, but nothing to suggest the UK would be forced to join an EU army which in the context of brexit was the assertion.
https://fullfact.org/online/EU-army-conscription/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was commenting about constant denial that an EU army has not been created. When it is being created with a massive budget.

The EU model is to move towards a complete union, on finance, law and security. I don’t want that.

But some are in complete denial that’s where it’s heading.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:56 pm

dsr wrote:Why would it matter if the MPs had been made to walk through the lobbies? The amended proposal was passed without opposition. What practical difference would it have made if it had been passed with a formal vote instead?

To assess whether the deal had parliamentary support.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:58 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Every MP has a right and duty to scrutinize the deal and to add perspective the House spent 2 months reviewing and debating the Finance Bill for next years budget. This decision will impact a generation not just a year so to try and steamroll it through is just ridiculous.

Im sorry if doing things properly with due diligence and care frustrates you but if we are going to make such a momentous change as ending our membership of the EU then this unfortunately is needed and die in a ditch made up timetables are utterly worthless

Well this may come as a complete surprise to you, but I think you are totally wrong, just my opinion of course.

Out of curiosity could you provide me some source that shows every MP/representative of every EU 27 countries was provided with the full unadulterated details for them to scrutinize prior to voting to accept on the EU side of things, I would be very interested to see this please.

Furthermore I'm not sure why you and others keep refer to "if" we are going to leave in one guise or another.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:00 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:See the EU fact sheet linked.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... nion_0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That’s about closer cooperation in research and development of military equipment and security, nowhere does it mention the creation of a ‘european army.’

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:01 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I was commenting about constant denial that an EU army has not been created. When it is being created with a massive budget.

The EU model is to move towards a complete union, on finance, law and security. I don’t want that.

But some are in complete denial that’s where it’s heading.

But, we already have the choice on whether to participate or not and infact have already chosen not to. Do you agree with the below statement? If so, why does our defence policy necessitate leaving the EU.

The UK could not be “forced” to participate in EU military policies even if we stay in the EU.

Whether or not EU nations wish to create an “EU army”, and regardless of what that might actually entail, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security or defence. On issues like this, member countries effectively have a veto, so the UK would only take part if it chose to.

There are no formal plans in place for an EU army, and so there are no “EU regulations” on drafting people into it.

The EU does have various policies for defensive and security cooperation. For example, under the Common Security and Defence Policy, EU countries can pool military funding and resources. The UK participates in military operations through this policy.

The EU has also established Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) a strategy which aims to “jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations” which the UK has chosen not to participate in.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:01 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I think we have either the highest or second highest ( if that’s wrong, there will be a queue of posters to correct it ) amount of forces of current EU members, so I expect they would want us to increase our contribution not reduce it if we remained by simple not allowing a rebate in the next round of budget negotiations, which is the EU’s objective at the moment.

I don't think/believe the EU expect any contribution from the UK as of today or the last few years, my thought was maybe we can reduce our own budget on defense spending and use it elsewhere, another example of benefits of leaving the EU IMO.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:01 pm

KateR wrote:Well this may come as a complete surprise to you, but I think you are totally wrong, just my opinion of course.

Out of curiosity could you provide me some source that shows ever MP/representative of every EU 27 countries was provided with the full unadulterated details for them to scrutinize prior to voting to accept on the EU side of things, I would be very interested to see this please.

Furthermore I'm not sure why you and others keep refer to "if" we are going to leave in one guise or another.

It’s the EU parliament that will scrutinise the EU side of things, not each individual country.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:02 pm

taio wrote:Surely the 227 billion is just a total/combined figure of the individual countries that are members of the EU.

No that’s an EU budget.
Nothing to do with individual states defence budgets.

Why does a union of countries put together on a basis of frictionless trade on goods, need a defence budget.

Quoted from the fact sheet.

•The Permanent Structured Cooperation will help Member States to jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations, enhancing the EU’s capacity as an international security partner and maximising the effectiveness of defence spending.

So an unelected committee can put soldiers in theatre where they like but you have not voted for them.

What could possibly go wrong.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:16 pm

KateR wrote:I don't think/believe the EU expect any contribution from the UK as of today or the last few years, my thought was maybe we can reduce our own budget on defense spending and use it elsewhere, another example of benefits of leaving the EU IMO.

Unfortunately because of the worldwide situation, I believe we need to increase our defence spending.

The position in the Middle East being one.
Whilst I don’t want us getting involved, protection of oil shipping is absolutely necessary or the price of petrol will rise massively.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:18 pm

martin_p wrote:It’s the EU parliament that will scrutinise the EU side of things, not each individual country.

thank you, exactly what I thought.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:21 pm

KateR wrote:thank you, exactly what I thought.

And I’m sure they’ll get the time they need to properly scrutinise the deal, as should our parliament.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:24 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Unfortunately because of the worldwide situation, I believe we need to increase our defence spending.

The position in the Middle East being one.
Whilst I don’t want us getting involved, protection of oil shipping is absolutely necessary or the price of petrol will rise massively.

One we will have to agree to disagree on, I think defence spending should be reduced, not stopped but that's for another time and place.

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:25 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:No that’s an EU budget.
Nothing to do with individual states defence budgets.

Why does a union of countries put together on a basis of frictionless trade on goods, need a defence budget.

Quoted from the fact sheet.

•The Permanent Structured Cooperation will help Member States to jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations, enhancing the EU’s capacity as an international security partner and maximising the effectiveness of defence spending.

So an unelected committee can put soldiers in theatre where they like but you have not voted for them.

What could possibly go wrong.

You've just cited the very thing we've opted out of.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:33 pm

martin_p wrote:And I’m sure they’ll get the time they need to properly scrutinise the deal, as should our parliament.

Yes and I'm sure some business man/women in Estonia/Bulgaria etc. are preparing to take the EU to court because they don't like the smell of the deal ensuring through the courts that the EU can not proceed to actually vote and agree on any deal.

I already agreed parliament should scrutinize but I do not agree every single MP should, a slight difference but important I think, however it doesn't matter what I feel, we have every ex leader, every business leaders not only scrutinizing the 35K foot level of the deal without seeing any details and taking it to the courts or throwing amendments in willy nilly. I mean opposition leaders actually stated they could not support the deal within 45 seconds of the high level being announced, can't wait until they get to see the minutia of the deal and tell everyone how they cant vote for it because of this clause or that clause. This regardless of what there constituents voted for

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:34 pm

KateR wrote:Yes and I'm sure some business man/women in Estonia/Bulgaria etc. are preparing to take the EU to court because they don't like the smell of the deal ensuring through the courts that the EU can not proceed to actually vote and agree on any deal.

I already agreed parliament should scrutinize but I do not agree every single MP should, a slight difference but important I think, however it doesn't matter what I feel, we have every ex leader, every business leaders not only scrutinizing the 35K foot level of the deal without seeing any details and taking it to the courts or throwing amendments in willy nilly. I mean opposition leaders actually stated they could not support the deal within 45 seconds of the high level being announced, can't wait until they get to see the minutia of the deal and tell everyone how they cant vote for it because of this clause or that clause. This regardless of what there constituents voted for

Maastricht scrutiny - five months

Lisbon scrutiny - three months

WA - three days

Ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe it

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:40 pm

KateR wrote:Yes and I'm sure some business man/women in Estonia/Bulgaria etc. are preparing to take the EU to court because they don't like the smell of the deal ensuring through the courts that the EU can not proceed to actually vote and agree on any deal.

I already agreed parliament should scrutinize but I do not agree every single MP should, a slight difference but important I think

But parliament is made up of MPs and every single MP has a vote, that doesn’t make sense.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:40 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Maastricht scrutiny - five months

Lisbon scrutiny - three months

WA - three days

Ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe it

WA - three and a half years

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:40 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Attlee was a better prime minister than Churchill. Arguably the Pitts were better “war PMs” and in terms of achievements, Palmerston, Gladstone, Disraeli (widening the franchise), and Asquith are ahead too. All a matter of opinion, of course. Churchill is often held up as a kind of “peoples’ choice“ best PM - though a better judge should be the people of the time, who turfed him in a Labour landslide. Johnson is far from being in any of this company. To go to Brussels and return with a worse deal than May’s is not an achievement of merit. You don’t want to consider his past failures - fine, but he’s racked up a fair few failures very quickly as PM.

True, but that’s only because of the assholes trying to screw the people are hell- bent on trying to prevent Brexit and overturn democracy.