Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndyClaret]

Who knew that the Brexit blockers are scared to face the electorate ? they can't hide forever.

[martin_p]

This, Varadker has said as much.

Yes, we’d have to go back and renegotiate.

[martin_p]

Who knew that the Brexit blockers are scared to face the electorate ? they can't hide forever.

Even if true 140 Labour MPs wouldn’t be enough to stop an election given that it’s expected every other party would support it.

[AndyClaret]

macron to use his veto ?

[Spijed]

Who knew that the Brexit blockers are scared to face the electorate ? they can't hide forever.

If you read the tweets from Alex Wickham it seems half of the Tory party aren't keen on an election either!

You can't have it both ways.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/ ... 1645932545" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

An amendment with CU attached would kill the bill because Parliament can't unilaterally change the terms of the agreement with the EU.

Presumably technically correct, but if this went back to the EU in the next fortnight with the CU added rather than the Irish Sea solution, do you really think that the EU would knock it back?
They want this done and dusted, and the UK remaining in the CU would be a better outcome for them than the current deal.
I think that there would be a lot of pragmatists amongst the 27 trying to find a way to get it passed.

[Lowbankclaret]

Who knew that the Brexit blockers are scared to face the electorate ? they can't hide forever.

As the Attorney general told them in his witty retort.

Even these Turkeys cannot avoid Christmas forever.

[fidelcastro]

As the Attorney general told them in his witty retort.

Even these Turkeys cannot avoid Christmas forever.

Or maybe they're just trying to avoid a disastrous no deal?

[Lowbankclaret]

Presumably technically correct, but if this went back to the EU in the next fortnight with the CU added rather than the Irish Sea solution, do you really think that the EU would knock it back?
They want this done and dusted, and the UK remaining in the CU would be a better outcome for them than the current deal.
I think that there would be a lot of pragmatists amongst the 27 trying to find a way to get it passed.

The Tory Party would pull the bill as it’s not the deal they agreed.

[evensteadiereddie]

Is that both Labour and Tory turkeys ?

[AndyClaret]

If you read the tweets from Alex Wickham it seems half of the Tory party aren't keen on an election either!

You can't have it both ways.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/ ... 1645932545" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"some back benchers" isn't half, and it will be the remain ones too

[Elizabeth]

I think the amount of scrutiny time is a red herring. There are enough Remainer MPs from all parties in this current Parliament to ensure the WA bill fails whether it has 1 day or 100 days scrutiny. And Boris Johnson knows this and probably feels its better hanging on to the important vote he won last night and taking this armoury to a GE
I hear now a large number of Labour MPs are trying to talk Corbyn out of agreeing to one
I don't think it needs a genius to work out why.

[AndyClaret]

Or maybe they're just trying to avoid a disastrous no deal?

The only way to avoid no deal, is to vote for the deal.

[RingoMcCartney]

Didn't you just complain about someone not answering a question?

Who said I wasn't going to answer the question!? Why miss out on the opportunity to laugh at you!?

I'd genuinely be interested to find out how Lancasterclaret would feel, if a future government were to take us out of the European union without a referendum. Particularly if a 2nd referendum had already stopped brexit in the interim. Given the libdems , who he plans to vote for, said theyd revoke Article 50, without a referendum.

Thanks for your interest, perhaps we can both look forward to Lancasterclarets genuine answer to my genuine question.

[RingoMcCartney]

[quote="Greenmile"][/quote]

Context Greenmile context.

[fidelcastro]

The only way to avoid no deal, is to vote for the deal.

No it isn't.

Once no deal is off the table then i'm sure we'll have an election.

[AndyClaret]

No it isn't.

Once no deal is off the table then i'm sure we'll have an election.

no deal will never be off the table, it's Labours excuse because it's scared to face the wrath of the voters.

[KateR]

Are the MP’s scrutinizing the deal or are they not bothering because it is paused. I think I know the answer but I would really like to think our elected officials are trying to get a jump start on this now, not when it returns, if it does?

[AndyClaret]

Are the MP’s scrutinizing the deal or are they not bothering because it is paused. I think I know the answer but I would really like to think our elected officials are trying to get a jump start on this now, not when it returns, if it does?

It's a ruse, Labour ran out of questions with more than an hour of the debate left.

[tiger76]

Presumably technically correct, but if this went back to the EU in the next fortnight with the CU added rather than the Irish Sea solution, do you really think that the EU would knock it back?
They want this done and dusted, and the UK remaining in the CU would be a better outcome for them than the current deal.
I think that there would be a lot of pragmatists amongst the 27 trying to find a way to get it passed.

Shame our government aren't as pragmatic isn't it.i honestly thought Johnson was trying to compromise with this legislation,but once parliament voted down his manic timetable he threw his toys out of the pram,so what if the WA gets amended that's the job of a responsible parliament,it's not their fault that the PM set an unrealistic deadline.

The grown-up response from the government should have been they applaud parliament for finally supporting the WA in principle at least,and they understand why the timetable bill was defeated,and in the meantime the bill would continue it's progress through the house,but no BJ didn't get his own way so he stamped his feet like a petulant child.

Just as we were finally getting somewhere,and there was a light at the end of the tunnel,and the details of brexit were at last receiving attention,Boris pulls the bill,you do have to wonder if this is a serious attempt to find a solution or window dressing in preparation for an election.

[RingoMcCartney]

Have you considered the possibility that ending free movement will actually increase illegal trafficking and exploitation? If it's the only way to get into the country I suggest that it will make even more lucrative for people traffickers.

Once they're here the gangs would have even more control over them and their ability to exploit/enslave/blackmail them would be even greater.

To be fair, it's a very valid argument and one well made. I genuinely believe that tighter controls on who enters the country, logic would suggest, make it more difficult for those that want to make financial gains from their deplorable trade.

I do take on board the prohibition of alcohol effect that you're describing. However, it's my opinion, and it's only my opinion, the ending of free movement, would make life trickier for the scumbags involved, could help to fight people trafficking, modern day slavery and human exploitation.

[KateR]

LC
As a recognized export on here. Can you advise me in regard as to the Customs declaration forms that will be required, is this a piece of paper required before goods actually set off? Will this piece of paper be required to be inspected at borders against the goods leading to delays. Or is it more an extra piece of paper to be completed electronically?

Also in regard to the above is it applicable to all or would Trusted Traders for example be treated somewhat differently?

[Lancasterclaret]

LC
As a recognized export on here. Can you advise me in regard as to the Customs declaration forms that will be required, is this a piece of paper required before goods actually set off? Will this piece of paper be required to be inspected at borders against the goods leading to delays. Or is it more an extra piece of paper to be completed electronically?

Also in regard to the above is it applicable to all or would Trusted Traders for example be treated somewhat differently?

In regards to the NI-UK customs declarations Kate?

If it is, it is apparently a electronic form that has to be completed but I don't know anymore than that. And thats only off what the journalists got from the PM spokespersons this aft.

It makes no sense to make this any harder than it has to be, but at the same time because of the nature of the deal (which no one knows enough about yet) it will be a lot more complex than what is currently required.

That why proper scrutiny of the bill is required, because stuff like this isn't reported by the government, and needs Parliament to find it all out (or journalists, or whoever)

[android]

You make some good points android but imo your influence would be strengthened if you occasionally admitted when you were wrong.

Thanks Greenmile - I would find that therapeutic! If you can point out where I was wrong then I will happily admit it.

But your entry into the fray did increase my confidence that I was probably right. I think Devils Advocate had belatedly sussed this when he suggested that we move on. So I did a little more checking and I now know that I was right (unless Bercow is wrong about parliamentary rules).

The vote by parliament to defeat the timetable motion put the Bill into limbo. It can only be brought out of limbo by the government proposing a new timetable motion. This requires notice to be given, therefore the debate could not have continued last night (unless Bercow chose to be creative with the rules)! So by Johnson saying the legislation would be paused, he was only reflecting the reality of parliament's decision to place the Bill into limbo. He could have tried to propose a new timetable motion for today - but how could he suggest a timetable taking us beyond 31 October when the law says we leave on 31 October? He has no real choice but to see what the EU decide.

If you (or Martin, Devils Advocate, Tall Paul, Claret in Exile, Tiger 76) have evidence to the contrary please produce it. Otherwise maybe you might like to take your own advice?

[Tall Paul]

Thanks Greenmile - I would find that therapeutic! If you can point out where I was wrong then I will happily admit it.

But your entry into the fray did increase my confidence that I was probably right. I think Devils Advocate had belatedly sussed this when he suggested that we move on. So I did a little more checking and I now know that I was right (unless Bercow is wrong about parliamentary rules).

The vote by parliament to defeat the timetable motion put the Bill into limbo. It can only be brought out of limbo by the government proposing a new timetable motion. This requires notice to be given, therefore the debate could not have continued last night (unless Bercow chose to be creative with the rules)! So by Johnson saying the legislation would be paused, he was only reflecting the reality of parliament's decision to place the Bill into limbo. He could have tried to propose a new timetable motion for today - but how could he suggest a timetable taking us beyond 31 October when the law says we leave on 31 October? He has no real choice but to see what the EU decide.

If you (or Martin, Devils Advocate, Tall Paul, Claret in Exile, Tiger 76) have evidence to the contrary please produce it. Otherwise maybe you might like to take your own advice?

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnso ... t-11842260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The EU is poised to accept the prime minister's request for a fresh Brexit delay after he paused the progress of legislation aimed at ratifying his divorce deal.

Boris Johnson took the action after MPs rejected his timetable to pass the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which is needed to put his Brexit deal into UK law.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKBN1X12BA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Tuesday the government would pause legislation to ratify its Brexit deal with the European Union while the bloc decides whether to offer a delay to Britain’s planned Oct. 31 exit.

Speaking after parliament rejected the government’s planned timetable for the legislation, Johnson said: “The EU must now make up their minds over how to answer parliament’s request for a delay.”

“I will speak to EU member states about their intentions. Until they have reached a decision we will pause this legislation. Let me be clear, our policy remains that we should not delay,” he said.

You must have some links to support your argument, if you've been checking?

[Mala591]

LC
As a recognized export on here. Can you advise me in regard as to the Customs declaration forms that will be required, is this a piece of paper required before goods actually set off? Will this piece of paper be required to be inspected at borders against the goods leading to delays. Or is it more an extra piece of paper to be completed electronically?

Also in regard to the above is it applicable to all or would Trusted Traders for example be treated somewhat differently?

Writing a few lines of computer code to create an electronic customs declaration form seems a small price to pay to avoid a customs land border across Ireland.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... 29171.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; What we could have done stead.

[KateR]

In regards to the NI-UK customs declarations Kate?

If it is, it is apparently a electronic form that has to be completed but I don't know anymore than that. And thats only off what the journalists got from the PM spokespersons this aft.

It makes no sense to make this any harder than it has to be, but at the same time because of the nature of the deal (which no one knows enough about yet) it will be a lot more complex than what is currently required.

That why proper scrutiny of the bill is required, because stuff like this isn't reported by the government, and needs Parliament to find it all out (or journalists, or whoever)

Thank you and is it was in regard to NI-UK

Seems to me, but as you say much more info is need that the form does not mean the same as checks, but will wait and see, but appreciate the feedback.

[Greenmile]

Thanks Greenmile - I would find that therapeutic! If you can point out where I was wrong then I will happily admit it.

But your entry into the fray did increase my confidence that I was probably right. I think Devils Advocate had belatedly sussed this when he suggested that we move on. So I did a little more checking and I now know that I was right (unless Bercow is wrong about parliamentary rules).

The vote by parliament to defeat the timetable motion put the Bill into limbo. It can only be brought out of limbo by the government proposing a new timetable motion. This requires notice to be given, therefore the debate could not have continued last night (unless Bercow chose to be creative with the rules)! So by Johnson saying the legislation would be paused, he was only reflecting the reality of parliament's decision to place the Bill into limbo. He could have tried to propose a new timetable motion for today - but how could he suggest a timetable taking us beyond 31 October when the law says we leave on 31 October? He has no real choice but to see what the EU decide.

If you (or Martin, Devils Advocate, Tall Paul, Claret in Exile, Tiger 76) have evidence to the contrary please produce it. Otherwise maybe you might like to take your own advice?

It’s not my advice, it’s yours. I thought you might recognise your own words.

[KateR]

Writing a few lines of computer code to create an electronic customs declaration form seems a small price to pay to avoid a customs land border across Ireland.

I certainly agree with this yet the actual reality of this seems somewhat cloudy in regard as to whether completing this form means stops/checks/delays in crossing which I think should be avoided if at all possible.

[Lowbankclaret]

I think the amount of scrutiny time is a red herring. There are enough Remainer MPs from all parties in this current Parliament to ensure the WA bill fails whether it has 1 day or 100 days scrutiny. And Boris Johnson knows this and probably feels its better hanging on to the important vote he won last night and taking this armoury to a GE
I hear now a large number of Labour MPs are trying to talk Corbyn out of agreeing to one
I don't think it needs a genius to work out why.

On nail the hit head the.

[Greenmile]

Context Greenmile context.

Firstly can I say that I love how it looks like you’ve posted this without any context?

I appreciate that’s just down to how the quote function works though, so it seems like you’re saying it’s perfectly acceptable to lie if you’re talking to a politician on a national broadcast, but not if you’re speaking to some halfwit on the internet.

(I’m not accepting your assertion that Martin lied or made anything up, btw, just taking your argument to its logical conclusion)

[android]

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnso ... t-11842260


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKBN1X12BA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


You must have some links to support your argument, if you've been checking?

My source was Hansard to check the bits I saw on the telly. But you have to look at several exchanges to get to the bottom of it. As it was the Brexiteers that Bercow was having to agree with, Bercow was reluctant to explicitly spell it out in one response in the way he would likely have done if it was say Hilary Benn he was talking to rather than Rees Mogg. It's in there though.

I suppose the correct way to characterise this is that Parliament paused the legislation and Johnson has chosen not to try to reactivate yet (which he can only do with a new timetable) until he hears from the EU. You'd have to be really desperate to criticise Johnson for that but it suits the anti Brexit brigade to frame it that way - even nil seems to have fallen for it and he's normally fairly reasonable!

And yes, Greenmile, I recognised my words obviously, but I wasn't wrong was I?

[KateR]

Firstly can I say that I love how it looks like you’ve posted this without any context?

I appreciate that’s just down to how the quote function works though, so it seems like you’re saying it’s perfectly acceptable to lie if you’re talking to a politician on a national broadcast, but not if you’re speaking to some halfwit on the internet.

(I’m not accepting your assertion that Martin lied or made anything up, btw, just taking your argument to its logical conclusion)

But you have posted factual lies on the internet, but when questioned/corrected you mentioned you had read it and then got mixed, yet you are the quickest draw when you feel there is a lie or misinterpretation in an attempt to discredit and put people down.

Also you can add derogatory, bombastic and down right know it all to the above

[KateR]

thought this was interesting and supports many theories, especially when trotted out by the remainers flagship news outlet.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-fears" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Greenmile]

My source was Hansard to check the bits I saw on the telly. But you have to look at several exchanges to get to the bottom of it. As it was the Brexiteers that Bercow was having to agree with, Bercow was reluctant to explicitly spell it out in one response in the way he would likely have done if it was say Hilary Benn he was talking to rather than Rees Mogg. It's in there though.

I suppose the correct way to characterise this is that Parliament paused the legislation and Johnson has chosen not to try to reactivate yet (which he can only do with a new timetable) until he hears from the EU. You'd have to be really desperate to criticise Johnson for that but it suits the anti Brexit brigade to frame it that way - even nil seems to have fallen for it and he's normally fairly reasonable!

And yes, Greenmile, I recognised my words obviously, but I wasn't wrong was I?

I’m not saying I know for sure either way, but you’re certainly coming across as someone who can’t admit they’re wrong. Lots of people have disagreed with you and provided (some) evidence. You’re just muttering vaguely about Hansard and anti- Brexit conspiracy theories.

As i say, I’m not sure who’s right but I found it amusing that you seem incapable of taking your own advice.

[Mala591]

I certainly agree with this yet the actual reality of this seems somewhat cloudy in regard as to whether completing this form means stops/checks/delays in crossing which I think should be avoided if at all possible.

In reality NI businesses have been asked to accept an extremely complicated new system and although I am not a fan of the DUP they are right to demand more time to analyse the new WA proposals. Imo parliament should be granted two weeks to debate the issues and the Lords allowed an additional two weeks to add their views.

So Johnson needs to ask the EU for a three week extension if he is genuinely interested in getting his agreement ratified.

[Greenmile]

But you have posted factual lies on the internet, but when questioned/corrected you mentioned you had read it and then got mixed, yet you are the quickest draw when you feel there is a lie or misinterpretation in an attempt to discredit and put people down.

Unless you mean I’ve posted incorrect information and then corrected myself when I realised I was wrong (are you talking about the Rambo thing?), then I’m going to have to ask you for examples.

Also you can add derogatory, bombastic and down right know it all to the above

Why, thank you. I do my best.

[KateR]

Unless you mean I’ve posted incorrect information and then corrected myself when I realised I was wrong (are you talking about the Rambo thing?), then I’m going to have to ask you for examples.



Why, thank you. I do my best.

Rambo indeed, and you clearly (IMO) posted it as a fact to someone to support your thoughts, you didn't research it, you were very politely corrected and you, thankfully, acknowledge you were wrong.

And you are more than welcome, I also do my best.

[Jakubclaret]

But you have posted factual lies on the internet, but when questioned/corrected you mentioned you had read it and then got mixed, yet you are the quickest draw when you feel there is a lie or misinterpretation in an attempt to discredit and put people down.

Also you can add derogatory, bombastic and down right know it all to the above

He's not alone in that respect, it's a constant battle challenging the inaccuracies, some have it down to a fine art & it happens at the drop of a hat. It's easy to spot when you armed with the correct accurate information.

[Greenmile]

Rambo indeed, and you clearly (IMO) posted it as a fact to someone to support your thoughts, you didn't research it, you were very politely corrected and you, thankfully, acknowledge you were wrong.

And you are more than welcome, I also do my best.

That’s not really lying though, is it? Not like (to pluck a random example from thin air) calling up a radio station and pretending that you voted for someone you didn’t.

Edit - and the reason i didn’t research it is that I was merely posting it as an interesting fact (albeit a misremembered one). If I was trying to use it as evidence to persuade someone or support my argument, I’m pretty sure I would have double-checked it first.

[android]

I’m not saying I know for sure either way, but you’re certainly coming across as someone who can’t admit they’re wrong. Lots of people have disagreed with you and provided (some) evidence. You’re just muttering vaguely about Hansard and anti- Brexit conspiracy theories.

As i say, I’m not sure who’s right but I found it amusing that you seem incapable of taking your own advice.

Not the best idea then to try to throw my words back at me on something you do not understand! DA had even given you a bit of clue that he had now realised I was right. I suspect Martin has sussed that too.

This came from Martin saying that the government had paused the bill and put it in limbo. I simply pointed out that this was not true and that it was the defeat of the timetable motion that had paused the bill and put it in limbo. This is a fact not an opinion.

[KateR]

That’s not really lying though, is it? Not like (to pluck a random example from thin air) calling up a radio station and pretending that you voted for someone you didn’t.

Edit - and the reason i didn’t research it is that I was merely posting it as an interesting fact (albeit a misremembered one). If I was trying to use it as evidence to persuade someone or support my argument, I’m pretty sure I would have double-checked it first.

you entered something in to a debate where you were trying to influence someone with a different opinion as you, you used it as a clear example of someone's thinking, it was as I have said on other posts fake news posted to try and influence readers to your way of thinking, which you clearly believe is superior and the only right way of thinking. When people disagree with you then you attack.

you couched you reply in lovely conciliatory prose, as someone has pointed out a couple of times today, you were wrong, you lied, maybe not deliberately I will concede because I will never know the truth, but you were wrong, perhaps you might reply in a more civilized manner to others rather than trying to be the chief keyboard warrior of CM.

Just to put it out there, I have been wrong before and will be again, I have lied, I have broken the law, I am not perfect but I do try to be a better person.

[Greenmile]

Not the best idea then to try to throw my words back at me on something you do not understand! DA had even given you a bit of clue that he had now realised I was right. I suspect Martin has sussed that too.

This came from Martin saying that the government had paused the bill and put it in limbo. I simply pointed out that this was not true and that it was the defeat of the timetable motion that had paused the bill and put it in limbo. This is a fact not an opinion.

So why are all the media saying Boris paused the bill? Do they not understand it as well as you do?

[martin_p]

Not the best idea then to try to throw my words back at me on something you do not understand! DA had even given you a bit of clue that he had now realised I was right. I suspect Martin has sussed that too.

This came from Martin saying that the government had paused the bill and put it in limbo. I simply pointed out that this was not true and that it was the defeat of the timetable motion that had paused the bill and put it in limbo. This is a fact not an opinion.

Well no, I agreed to disagree, I didn’t have time for another circular argument. But if we’re using Hansard the PM’s first response after the programme vote included the words

‘Secondly, however, I will speak to EU member states about their intentions and, until they have reached a decision, we will pause this legislation.’

[Greenmile]

you entered something in to a debate where you were trying to influence someone with a different opinion as you, you used it as a clear example of someone's thinking...

I really didn’t. Here’s the link.

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... o#p1126635" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s ironic that you’re misrepresenting the context of what I said in this conversation about lying.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

So why are all the media saying Boris paused the bill? Do they not understand it as well as you do?

I suppose it's similar to saying the recent prorogation of parliament was illegal when the supreme court actually stated it was unlawful.
Almost like they didn't understand the difference between the two but went ahead and stated it was illegal anyway.

[KateR]

That’s not really lying though, is it? Not like (to pluck a random example from thin air) calling up a radio station and pretending that you voted for someone you didn’t.

Edit - and the reason i didn’t research it is that I was merely posting it as an interesting fact (albeit a misremembered one). If I was trying to use it as evidence to persuade someone or support my argument, I’m pretty sure I would have double-checked it first.

To answer the other point, saying you'll kill a loved one, when they do something wrong, that's not really lying is it when in fact we don't kill said person?

Saying we'll leave by 31 Oct, do or die, I mean come one that doesn't really mean he will die/kill himself does it? However you will be on the front lines shouting about this lie when a GE comes around wont you? You will use it over and over again to try and prove you're point around he is untrustworthy, you could be right, but you are clearly in the same bracket aren't you?

[KateR]

I really didn’t. Here’s the link.

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... o#p1126635" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s ironic that you’re misrepresenting the context of what I said in this conversation about lying.

NO I am most definitely not, it's my perception

I see you did not highlight the "first" in your link did you, another misdirection that failed, the first Rambo if I remember was probably before you were born and was written and filmed as a movie about how poorly US Vet's were treated by the US population on there return home from a war most didn't want.

[Greenmile]

I suppose it's similar to saying the recent prorogation of parliament was illegal when the supreme court actually stated it was unlawful.
Almost like they didn't understand the difference between the two but went ahead and stated it was illegal anyway.

Did many of the major media outlets actually call it “illegal”? Genuine question. A quick Google search only throws up one example (from “business insider” - I can’t say I’ve heard of them tbh)

(At the risk of adding grist to Kate’s mill, I believe I made that mistake myself, until you (maybe someone else) pointed it out, whereupon I corrected myself)