Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:19 pm

KateR wrote:The point is "It can be used as a check if so desired". It doesn't make it a physical check, which you and others are alluding to, if it was a physical stop, and check against an electronic summary form the I would 100% agree that is ridiculous. They may well start with random stops as the system is introduced, these would be stops/checks/delay, but it would I believe quickly be reduced from say 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000, to 1 in 10,000, again these are just my thoughts. Surely you can actually think of things from different angles rather than just going with the negative every time as an example of why it is bad to leave.

As I said before, I fill in 100's of customs declarations forms when traveling, USA a good example, it is a form that is required for entry, you have to declare what you are bringing in, it was always a hard piece of paper, check box's, complete name and passport details. I have been stopped once and had baggage physically checked because I stated something on the form they thought might be illegal, they physically wanted to see it, they realized it was ok, off you go. In that one instance only in many many years I was stopped, checked and delayed.

That said paper form today is electronic and when I enter the USA it automatically adds my name, passport details etc leaving me to quickly tick boxes as it also checks my passport, my picture and fingerprints, I see no delays and the electronic system allows me to move through faster. In addition, at the end of the line of the same systems, these allow people who have completed the steps to become trusted to move through even faster, this could maybe be applicable to Trusted Traders.

So in the scenario you paint the paper declaration was a check of what you were bringing in. They then checked the form and decided that something looked illegal so they should check it.

So filling in a declaration is a check. dsr (and the government) are claiming filling in declarations are a ‘small administrative procedure’ and not a check. I think your example ably demonstrates why it is.

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:22 pm

KateR wrote:If you say so, I'm sure you believe it, that's what counts.

So cheap to throw around insults, but you haven't even said why it's so ridiculous to suggest that the goalposts on what an acceptable brexit is to brexiteers across the moderate to 'hard' spectrum, have moved. They have, demonstrably.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:23 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:You are comparing your trip to the US with a trailer load of groupage destined for both GB and the EU?

No offence Kate, but that is not even remotely similar.

I don't take offence, however I believe it is relevant to the point, of course I know it's different, but let's take it a step further; IF the UK retains the same laws regarding goods/agriculture/animals etc. (or makes them more stringent) then transports them would a stop/check be required, I would say it really shouldn't need it, but may.

If the laws change and we relax them then I can see reason where physical checks might be required, but that has nothing to do with the discussion on a form and a stop, where I think I have answered the point, you Martin etc. have provided zero evidence as to there will be a physical stop and slow down of transportation from what exists today, more paperwork absolutely.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:24 pm

KateR wrote:I think it is right to be afraid, I think it is right to question, I think it is right to want definitive answers, but just for the sake of agreement perhaps we could term things checks = electronic forms, physical checks = stopping/delaying any form of transport.

I certainly don't know what will happen and how this will be put into "thou shall do". However I believe some people are taking things, twisting them for there own ends and saying statements like facts that are fake, when I see it I will ask, try to understand more and call it out if I believe it's fake.

For the sake of mere laymen, I would think the majority of people when asked about "you are going to be checked" - "what does that mean to you" They would reply "being stopped" Just my opinion, I have no proof of this.

Right, so its your opinion.

Is your opinion based on experience in UK-EU logistics?

Is your opinion based on WTO knowledge?

Is your opinion based on working for a trade organisation?

Is your opinion based on working for a customs service?

You could throw a couple more in there, but essentially most of the people I know who have that experience say that these count as "checks"

android · Post by **android** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:26 pm

martin_p wrote:Ok, although it’s very confused I’ll concede the point that it would have taken a new programme motion to restart the debate. However, that doesn’t really diminish the point I was making that it was worth continuing with the process of ‘getting Brexit done’ if that is what Johnson is really about. So present a new programme motion on Wednesday allowing maybe three or four weeks for the process. That would likely be passed (it only needed about 10 MPs to change from no to yes). Then you have a date somewhere mid November for passing the bill. That sends a clear message to the EU that we want to get this done, they currently don’t have a clue what our plans are. This would have given more weight to Macron’s arguments who seemingly wants as short an extension as possible and maybe the EU then only offer an extension until the end of November. Suddenly Johnson is in a position where he has the basis for a deal passed its second reading and has a new end date, unfettered by the Benn Bill, with the threat of no deal focussing the mind on getting the bill passed. Yes, he’s missed his do or die deadline, but he’d already had the embarrassment of having to send the letter and for the sake of a one month delay surely he could just suck that up.

But instead he’s taken his ball home, more intent in fostering the ‘people v establishment’ narrative he and his advisers think will win him an election. So you have to conclude this is what this is about, doing what’s best for keeping Boris Johnson in power rather than actually ‘getting Brexit done’.

Thank you Martin!

I did get a lot of "no" "nope" and "100% " wrong on this from you and many others so just to clarify for the misinformed - the reason debate of the Bill ceased in parliament was 100% as a result of the vote by parliament which put the Bill in limbo and it was 100% not Boris Johnson's decision.

It kind of does wreck your argument really though doesn't it if you think about it fairly? You are saying the PM should have set out a new timetable for debate in parliament, which breached the 31 October date enshrined in law. Previously you didn't seem too keen on him ignoring the law (and at least the attempted prorogation was a breach of a law no-one knew existed and effectively a new law had to be created for him to have been deemed to breach (Major's Law of 4-6 days max)). And how arrogant would it be for him to assume that the EU would definitely give an extension and for how long? If the EU grant an extension then I'm sure they will allow time to either agree the withdrawal bill or, if it's 31 Jan, hold an election, in which case the new parliament would be responsible for getting it done or otherwise.

Obviously all sides are playing politics. It was obviously crucial for Labour to get Boris past 31 October, as there are bound to be some thickos who fall for the Boris "lied" stuff and it potentially keeps Farage in play. Most people will see that he did everything possible to "do" by giving parliament a deal they approved or a no deal option and he has many times offered to "die" (general election).

I'm liking the fact that you have also belatedly realised that "the threat of no deal focusses minds" on getting things done. If only you and others in parliament had realised that earlier! For all his faults, probably only someone with Johnson's type of personality could have managed to play the no deal card successfully after the Benn Act was passed!

P.S. Greenmile - the time to ask a person to admit that they were wrong is not when it has just emerged that that person was 100% correct.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:26 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Right, so its your opinion.

Is your opinion based on experience in UK-EU logistics?

Is your opinion based on WTO knowledge?

Is your opinion based on working for a trade organisation?

Is your opinion based on working for a customs service?

You could throw a couple more in there, but essentially most of the people I know who have that experience say that these count as "checks"

Now I can see why the likes of the UK government would like to imply that these are not "checks" but that doesn't change the fact that they are "checks".

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:26 pm

Really does look like Boris is stuck between a rock and a hard place regarding when to go for an election:

https://www.ft.com/content/f8859e1e-f5b ... a8fc8f2d65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:28 pm

Potentially bad news for the deal

Lab MP who voted for the deal going to the House of Lords on Tuesday.

One less vote could be absolutely crucial

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1186938129154035714" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:30 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Surely you make it legally binding then?

Look, I'm not going to lie here, I want us to leave with a deal because its better than a "No Deal" but am I ever going to believe that flag waving "just believe in Britain" ******** and mythical trade deals with countries we already have very good ones with is better than being in the EU?

Not a chance.

But if its legally binding, then we put this one to bed for the immediate future.

(same argument works for those who believe in completely the opposite)

Would that be a Scottish “immediate future” about 12-18 months? Do you think Ringo and his ilk will accept a legally binding remain victory? The next GE after the ref would see a surge in Brexit and BNP and a campaign to revoke the ref and leave - no government can be bound etc.

It’s a shitstorm that we cannot escape.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:32 pm

willsclarets wrote:So cheap to throw around insults, but you haven't even said why it's so ridiculous to suggest that the goalposts on what an acceptable brexit is to brexiteers across the moderate to 'hard' spectrum, have moved. They have, demonstrably.

I think you know why, but I will take the time to explain when I really didn't want to waste my time, so you can go on another tangent.

Because you always attack anything remotely to do with leave, because you only have one aim, because you work on here as one of the chief propaganda experts of remain and project fear.

Because you never once to think in a balanced view, do you really believe all those MP's who voted for Article 50 think the same or have some of them changed there minds, have they done exactly what you stated in your biased post, have LibDems changed, have labour changed. Have according to many polls people in the street changed there minds and previously voted leave but now want to stay.

I did not insult you, I am sure everyone would know if I insulted you, I may have baited you in reverse and you clearly bit hard. Yet for just a second take some time to think about what I said before you tell me how stupid and wrong I am and that clearly only people who want to leave change there minds, I dare you, prove me right please.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:33 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:Would that be a Scottish “immediate future” about 12-18 months? Do you think Ringo and his ilk will accept a legally binding remain victory? The next GE after the ref would see a surge in Brexit and BNP and a campaign to revoke the ref and leave - no government can be bound etc.

It’s a shitstorm that we cannot escape.

But leaving doesn't stop that.

Unless you are saying we have to let the absolute nutters have their way or else?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:39 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Right, so its your opinion.

Is your opinion based on experience in UK-EU logistics?

Is your opinion based on WTO knowledge?

Is your opinion based on working for a trade organisation?

Is your opinion based on working for a customs service?

You could throw a couple more in there, but essentially most of the people I know who have that experience say that these count as "checks"

I tried to be logical and sue some form of "what check" means, which you ignored, that is disappointing but yes I'll get over it.

Then you ask a series of question you know very well the answer to because I have said so before, all your questions are for me irrelevant, we were on a topic of Mainland UK and NI only and what the word check meant and the angst over why one Gov. official says one thing and another say different and how one of them is lying, we all know which one Martin was referring to as it is his pet line. That is the point I was discussing not the EU/continent which I think will be different, this difference may well transcend goods going to the EU via NI, I am not discussing try to change anyone's mind in that regard, At the risk of repeating myself, it was around CHECK and two Gov. statements to that effect, where both COULD possibly be right.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:43 pm

KateR wrote:I tried to be logical and sue some form of "what check" means, which you ignored, that is disappointing but yes I'll get over it.

Then you ask a series of question you know very well the answer to because I have said so before, all your questions are for me irrelevant, we were on a topic of Mainland UK and NI only and what the word check meant and the angst over why one Gov. official says one thing and another say different and how one of them is lying, we all know which one Martin was referring to as it is his pet line. That is the point I was discussing not the EU/continent which I think will be different, this difference may well transcend goods going to the EU via NI, I am not discussing try to change anyone's mind in that regard, At the risk of repeating myself, it was around CHECK and two Gov. statements to that effect, where both COULD possibly be right.

No, I haven't ignored it at all.

its your opinion, which you are 100% entitled to have but it has to be based on something other than "well I'm right and this is what I think" if you are going to argue its not a check.

I had to do this kind of thing for 10 years, and to me it is most definitely a check

To the trade guys, its a "check"

To the DUP, its a "check"

Surely you can concede you can see where we are all coming from?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:43 pm

Kate R is just about the very definition of projection when it comes to this subject and thread

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:44 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So you still think a physical border between the North and the South would be fine?

I do wish you'd start to listen, but then again English voters who want Brexit seemingly are prepared to throw anything under a bus to make sure they get what they want*

*which of course varies from person to person

You have known for ages that I always said that there shouldn't be a need for a border because checks can be made electronically. It's Remainers who said that there must be a hard border (in a no-deal Brexit) because there is no technology available to make checks based on (electronic) paper trails.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:45 pm

dsr wrote: You have known for ages that I always said that there shouldn't be a need for a border because checks can be made electronically. It's Remainers who said that there must be a hard border (in a no-deal Brexit) because there is no technology available to make checks based on (electronic) paper trails.

So why aren't these checks being used so we don't need to have a customs border on the Irish Sea?

You are not as clever as you think you are dsr.

Always remember that.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:47 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:No, I haven't ignored it at all.

its your opinion, which you are 100% entitled to have but it has to be based on something other than "well I'm right and this is what I think" if you are going to argue its not a check.

I had to do this kind of thing for 10 years, and to me it is most definitely a check

To the trade guys, its a "check"

To the DUP, its a "check"

Surely you can concede you can see where we are all coming from?

I can concede it is a check, I really don't care what you call it, can you concede it is not a physical stop and delay to transportation when it sets off on it's journey, can you concede that it might just be possible when two different people says something around the transport route it might just be they are both right, just a remote possibility since I think neither of them are experienced Supply Chain or Logistical GURU's.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:49 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Kate R is just about the very definition of projection when it comes to this subject and thread

Thank you, you're views and thoughts are always welcome.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:50 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So why aren't these checks being used so we don't need to have a customs border on the Irish Sea?

You are not as clever as you think you are dsr.

Always remember that.

Yes, I wish I was as much of a know-it-all as you.

Put it this way - a tiny semantic difference in whether or not filling in a form counts as a check, is not justification to overturn a referendum result.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:51 pm

KateR wrote:I can concede it is a check, I really don't care what you call it, can you concede it is not a physical stop and delay to transportation when it sets off on it's journey, can you concede that it might just be possible when two different people says something around the transport route it might just be they are both right, just a remote possibility since I think neither of them are experienced Supply Chain or Logistical GURU's.

But that is the whole point Kate.

We can agree that it is a "check" because we both are normal human beings.

The Conservatives refuse to accept its a check because it destroys their whole argument on this.

Do you see it now?

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:52 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:But leaving doesn't stop that.

Unless you are saying we have to let the absolute nutters have their way or else?

Neither does remaining- it’s a Gordian Knot and there is no outcome that is going to appease those that hold an unmovable position. It’s the irresistible force paradox!!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:53 pm

dsr wrote:Yes, I wish I was as much of a know-it-all as you.

Put it this way - a tiny semantic difference in whether or not filling in a form counts as a check, is not justification to overturn a referendum result.

Tells me all I need to know.

Go to your safe space mate, you need to.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:55 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:Neither does remaining- it’s a Gordian Knot and there is no outcome that is going to appease those that hold an unmovable position. It’s the irresistible force paradox!!

It is

So what is the least worst outcome (and this is where I've been coming from since Day 1) for the economy and hence how people react (I've always argued that if everybody is earning enough, then these kind of things just are not important)?

Remain

Okay, so that is going to be hard to pull off, so we then have to leave but with the most advantageous economic deal

Leave, but SM/CU alignment.

Not this absolute economy wrecker.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:56 pm

Andy/Kate

Liking Dsr little hissy fit when his whole argument was shot down in flames?

Disappointed

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:But that is the whole point Kate.

We can agree that it is a "check" because we both are normal human beings.

The Conservatives refuse to accept its a check because it destroys their whole argument on this.

Do you see it now?

Not really, I can see one did, yes the leader, but another did not. Do you believe this check is such a big issue that the present sleeping WA should be changed and that the EU would agree to the change. I certainly again repeat that this should be fully understood before it accepted, however I am sure we both agree there are far to many people/groups who will look at it and sit on both sides of the "is it acceptable" for it to be unanimously agreed.

Finally got a word in that I really never thought would be used on here, unanimously,

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:05 pm

KateR wrote:Not really, I can see one did, yes the leader, but another did not. Do you believe this check is such a big issue that the present sleeping WA should be changed and that the EU would agree to the change. I certainly again repeat that this should be fully understood before it accepted, however I am sure we both agree there are far to many people/groups who will look at it and sit on both sides of the "is it acceptable" for it to be unanimously agreed.

Finally got a word in that I really never thought would be used on here, unanimously,

According to this report, Johnson implicitly did know about it and went ahead anyway.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardell ... th-juncker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:07 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Andy/Kate

Liking Dsr little hissy fit when his whole argument was shot down in flames?

Disappointed

I liked it because it put the whole of this particular discussion around the word "check" for me in perspective, what we think/agree on in that term really is irrelevant. I like any post that makes me stop and think, not necessarily change my mind, I have liked many of your posts and numerous others from the remain camp where they highlight something and have a point. It is the posts that are just attacks that I dislike, and they are from both sides, I think I sit nearer to the middle on this issue, I can see and have said so that leaving is not going to be easy and some will suffer, however I can see no way back, therefore I am somewhat blinkered to that. I also think people should be pulling together therefore to make leave be the least painful it can be, to many are not trying, they are just about stopping the leave process or delaying for as long as absolutely possible, not helpful to the country all IMO.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:10 pm

KateR wrote:Not really, I can see one did, yes the leader, but another did not. Do you believe this check is such a big issue that the present sleeping WA should be changed and that the EU would agree to the change. I certainly again repeat that this should be fully understood before it accepted, however I am sure we both agree there are far to many people/groups who will look at it and sit on both sides of the "is it acceptable" for it to be unanimously agreed.

Finally got a word in that I really never thought would be used on here, unanimously,

I think it’s just another example of Boris a Johnson lying (and you don’t even need to meet him to know that).

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:12 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:According to this report, Johnson implicitly did know about it and went ahead anyway.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardell ... th-juncker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't doubt that for a second, yet for the greater good of getting a deal, which might help the majority and knowing that a physical stop would not be required, felt it was an acceptable trade off in negotiations, and used the term check as meaning, no there will not be, as in there are not going to be stops and delays.

It is politics afterall.

I will wait regarding the outcome of the scrutiny as to whether stops/delays will be required, if they are then that is not a good thing or irrelevant at all and we will have an accord.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:22 pm

martin_p wrote:I think it’s just another example of Boris a Johnson lying (and you don’t even need to meet him to know that).

Martin, I know that, we all know that, what I don't get with you at all is that a large number of people will 100% agree with you, he lies, I have said it before you know. However for all that, said large majority just don't care for whatever reasons, it is that fact which you refuse to accept and keep banging on about it, but hey ho, knock yourself out. Maybe you like people like me saying you're 100% correct, that is the reason you do it, I don't know, I don't care. It's an irrelevant fact, pretty much like Ringo tells you, the vote was leave, get over it, it's boring to repeat facts that virtually every single person on both sides of the debate agree with, whether it's you or Ringo.

You're blinkered, you don't try to see any positive, you are not saying ok, we are leaving, let's look at the bad of the deal and see where we can improve, no matter how little.

android · Post by **android** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:22 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Worth mentioning again that the Conservatives and the Brexit Party are disagreeing that this is the Brexit that was voted for.

Which does mean that this deal isn't what every Brexiteer voted for, so thats a fairly huge hole in the Brexiteer argument.

Surely it also blows a hole in John McGreal's case for a confirmatory referendum? All we have is a withdrawal agreement but an unknown future relationship. I can see how we could have another Leave v Remain referendum or a referendum on an actual deal (future relationship) but not just on a withdrawal agreement?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:23 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Andy/Kate

Liking Dsr little hissy fit when his whole argument was shot down in flames?

Disappointed

"know it all"

he's got a point.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:49 pm

End of the peace process in Northern Ireland?

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

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:56 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:It is

So what is the least worst outcome (and this is where I've been coming from since Day 1) for the economy and hence how people react (I've always argued that if everybody is earning enough, then these kind of things just are not important)?

Remain

Okay, so that is going to be hard to pull off, so we then have to leave but with the most advantageous economic deal

Leave, but SM/CU alignment.

Not this absolute economy wrecker.

If we automatically stay in alignment with, or just stay in, Sm/CU and the legal ramifications thereof, what is it we are leaving? That just feeds into the BP Vassal state argument.

There is no deal as good as remaining in and any deal that can be agreed is a fudge that will leaves millions of people angry.

The options for a referendum should be a complete break or remain.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:14 pm

Election on December 12th, is Corbyn frit ?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:26 pm

Spijed wrote:End of the peace process in Northern Ireland?

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10866072" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure why the DUP aren't mentioning the incidents that have regularly occuring before the Brexit referendum, but regardless it's always going to be fragile over there because those who want to cause terror etc will do it regardless of Brexit.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:35 pm

Taking all politics and brexit out of this.
Who actually thinks that a GE 2 weeks before Christmas is a good idea?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:19 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Taking all politics and brexit out of this.
Who actually thinks that a GE 2 weeks before Christmas is a good idea?

Not me, think maybe two weeks after New Year might be good but only so that ALL MP's have to work through Christmas and New Year,

I did hear from somewhere recently that it was not a good idea to have a GE in winter because it's simply to cold. Thinking about it you might say that could be very true for the elderly, which is probably not good for the Tories and BJ.

However in the meantime it will be interesting to see how voting for a GE is (if) presented actually goes, also heard the potential for an amendment to that as well such that who can vote is changed. I (think) I read JC wants to give the vote to EU nationals living here but who are not a British citizen and also lower the voting age. That would certainly be a debate to liven up the HOC I think

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:23 pm

KateR wrote:Martin, I know that, we all know that, what I don't get with you at all is that a large number of people will 100% agree with you, he lies, I have said it before you know. However for all that, said large majority just don't care for whatever reasons, it is that fact which you refuse to accept and keep banging on about it, but hey ho, knock yourself out. Maybe you like people like me saying you're 100% correct, that is the reason you do it, I don't know, I don't care. It's an irrelevant fact, pretty much like Ringo tells you, the vote was leave, get over it, it's boring to repeat facts that virtually every single person on both sides of the debate agree with, whether it's you or Ringo.

You're blinkered, you don't try to see any positive, you are not saying ok, we are leaving, let's look at the bad of the deal and see where we can improve, no matter how little.

You think it’s boring that our PM is a pathological liar? I get that people don’t care, I’ll never understand why, you’d think a level of honesty would be a basic requirement for a PM. So I’ll continue to point out his lies every time he tells another whopper. You’re going to be really bored!

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:30 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Taking all politics and brexit out of this.
Who actually thinks that a GE 2 weeks before Christmas is a good idea?

Canvassers will love it i'm sure

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:34 pm

martin_p wrote:You think it’s boring that our PM is a pathological liar? I get that people don’t care, I’ll never understand why, you’d think a level of honesty would be a basic requirement for a PM. So I’ll continue to point out his lies every time he tells another whopper. You’re going to be really bored!

Never doubted it for a minute

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:40 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Election on December 12th, is Corbyn frit ?

Don't worry an election won't happen anytime soon,Labour/Lib Dems and the SNP all ruling it out,the SNP is especially amusing as Ian Blackford publicly called for an election during yesterday's PMQ'S.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:55 pm

tiger76 wrote:Don't worry an election won't happen anytime soon,Labour/Lib Dems and the SNP all ruling it out,the SNP is especially amusing as Ian Blackford publicly called for an election during yesterday's PMQ'S.

SNP guy just said Boris is running scared of an election

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:01 pm

Some of his cabinet appear to be but Cummings seems to have more influence on Johnson so you never know.
What else could possibly go wrong ?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:04 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:Some of his cabinet appear to be but Cummings seems to have more influence on Johnson. What else could possibly go wrong ?

yes, the remainer ones, time for a clearout.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:10 pm

so the Queens speech was approved in HOC.

Are the number of votes dwindling or am I missing something, perhaps some MP's did not attend as it was not important or some abstained, although I though they showed those, anyway doesn't matter it passed which I was pleased to see.

Plus Speaker refusing the LibDem referendum to be aired was a pleasant surprise for me.

Who is the new Speaker going to be?

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:18 pm

Why would arch remainer Bercow want to see a referendum voted down at this stage?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:28 pm

summitclaret wrote:Why would arch remainer Bercow want to see a referendum voted down at this stage?

I don't see him any worse than say JS who wanted the reading, if he is the arch remainer then surely he would have supported JS, hence my surprise. Immaterial really though, Mr Bercow's time is coming to an end so I hope that particular discussion stops but I suspect not.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:40 pm

KateR wrote:so the Queens speech was approved in HOC.

Are the number of votes dwindling or am I missing something, perhaps some MP's did not attend as it was not important or some abstained, although I though they showed those, anyway doesn't matter it passed which I was pleased to see.

Plus Speaker refusing the LibDem referendum to be aired was a pleasant surprise for me.

Who is the new Speaker going to be?

I can only guess that the opposition feared voting the QS down could be construed as a possible confidence vote,and decided to hold off for now,it's another moral victory for Johnson,although it's hard to see any of those 26 bills seeing the light of day.

604 voted on the QS.which is roughly 25 down on the brexit votes a couple of days ago.

Labour's amendment said the speech did not address rebuilding the economy or tackle the "housing crisis", and "further pushes public services into crisis". It also called on the government to introduce measures on these issues, as well as the "climate emergency".

Labour complaining again,If they're so concerned they know what to do,call an election get into power and enact their ideas.

Lindsay Hoyle Chorley MP is heavily favoured for the speaker's chair.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:51 pm

tiger76 wrote:I can only guess that the opposition feared voting the QS down could be construed as a possible confidence vote,and decided to hold off for now,it's another moral victory for Johnson,although it's hard to see any of those 26 bills seeing the light of day.

604 voted on the QS.which is roughly 25 down on the brexit votes a couple of days ago.

Labour's amendment said the speech did not address rebuilding the economy or tackle the "housing crisis", and "further pushes public services into crisis". It also called on the government to introduce measures on these issues, as well as the "climate emergency".

Labour complaining again,If they're so concerned they know what to do,call an election get into power and enact their ideas.

Lindsay Hoyle Chorley MP is heavily favoured for the speaker's chair.

Hoyle would be an excellent speaker IMO.