nil_desperandum wrote:Firstly, in answer to your final question the answer is absolutely and without any room for you trying to duck and dive and dodge the facts - NO. The money that goes to the regions is NOT part of our rebate.
(Maybe your misunderstanding of this tells us a lot, and demonstrates clearly how easy it was for people like Johnson to dupe you by putting misleading figures on the side of a bus).
The rebate NEVER goes to Brussels, it is deducted at source. Treasury figures confirm this. The money that comes back to places like Burnley is out of our NET contribution, and comes out of the Regional Development Fund. It is as you say Treasury money that comes to us via Brussels.
But I stand by my point that it's money that we wouldn't otherwise have got.
As for your comments about a "permanent" Tory Govt. Nothing can ever be described as permanent, but with our FPTP system it's really hard to dislodge the Tories, and post- Brexit, if the Union breaks up, (which is highly likely under Johnson), then there will be an almost guaranteed "permanent" Tory majority in England, and I doubt that the north will be equal to the south.

Pedantry at its finest! But I wouldn't expect anything else from the message board arch pedant.

Taken from full fact website , an independent charity dedicated to finding facts.

"It’s been claimed that we send £350 million a week to the EU. That misses out the rebate, and it doesn’t represent the total economic costs and benefits of EU membership to the UK.

"£350 million is roughly what we would pay to the EU budget without the rebate. The UK actually paid closer to £250 million a week.  

The government then gets some of that money back, mainly through payments to farmers and for poorer areas of the country such as Wales and Cornwall."

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-memb ... 5-million/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the Office of National Statistics website-

"ONS reports that £4.4 billion came back to the UK public sector and private sector in credits in 2016.This included £359 million that came back through the European Regional Development Fund and £2.4 billion through the  Agricultural Guarantee Fund.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... 2017-10-31" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What part of "it's our money coming back do you refuse to understand?"

I get it. Somebody has pointed out your lies and challenged the church of the European Union. You see me a non-believer, a heathen. I can live with that. You cannot live with facts.

Final question before I set off for the Turf.

HAS THE EU ANY MONEY OF ITS OWN!?

Seeing as one of the evangelical zealots of the european union you won't answer it . I'll do it for you.


Answer - "No"





Enjoy the game your eminence.

RingoMcCartney wrote:Pedantry at its finest! But I wouldn't expect anything else from the message board arch pedant.

Taken from full fact website , an independent charity dedicated to finding facts.

"It’s been claimed that we send £350 million a week to the EU. That misses out the rebate, and it doesn’t represent the total economic costs and benefits of EU membership to the UK.

"£350 million is roughly what we would pay to the EU budget without the rebate. The UK actually paid closer to £250 million a week.  

The government then gets some of that money back, mainly through payments to farmers and for poorer areas of the country such as Wales and Cornwall."

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-memb ... 5-million/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the Office of National Statistics website-

"ONS reports that £4.4 billion came back to the UK public sector and private sector in credits in 2016.This included £359 million that came back through the European Regional Development Fund and £2.4 billion through the  Agricultural Guarantee Fund.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... 2017-10-31" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What part of "it's our money coming back do you refuse to understand?"

I get it. Somebody has pointed out your lies and challenged the church of the European Union. You see me a non-believer, a heathen. I can live with that. You cannot live with facts.

Final question before I set off for the Turf.

HAS THE EU ANY MONEY OF ITS OWN!?

Seeing as one of the evangelical zealots of the european union you won't answer it . I'll do it for you.


Answer - "No"





Enjoy the game your eminence.

I knew you'd come back with the same waffle. It's not pedantry to say No to a direct yes / no question. It's not pedantry to point out that when you say the answer is Yes then you're totally wrong, as I demonstrated and as your very own link demonstrates clearly.
When pointing out the difference between yes and no, right and wrong is simply dismissed as pedantry then it's a "Johnsonesque" level of waffle / dishonesty
From the very article you link, it's clear that the money for Regional Funding is not out of our rebate, they are 2 separate things. The rebate is deducted at source and that money NEVER goes out of the Treasury, so they can't then give us any part of that back. The funding that we have received comes out of the money that we actually send. It's a very important difference.
How can that be pedantry when I'm simply correcting a major misunderstanding on your part.
Other than that, why do you keep repeating that I don't understand it's our "own" money coming back? Please quote where I have said that it isn't. This may be considered pedantry by you, but I specifically (in my opening post) said that it was UK Treasury money coming to us (albeit via Brussels).
And, (purely to be pedantic), which "lies" have I told?
Enjoy the game. I'm off now.

That's some top Ringoing. Get something entirely wrong, post a link stating the opposite to what you're claiming in support of your stance and then claim that answering the question you asked is pedantry.

nil_desperandum wrote:I knew you'd come back with the same waffle. It's not pedantry to say No to a direct yes / no question. It's not pedantry to point out that when you say the answer is Yes then you're totally wrong, as I demonstrated and as your very own link demonstrates clearly.
When pointing out the difference between yes and no, right and wrong is simply dismissed as pedantry then it's a "Johnsonesque" level of waffle / dishonesty
From the very article you link, it's clear that the money for Regional Funding is not out of our rebate, they are 2 separate things. The rebate is deducted at source and that money NEVER goes out of the Treasury, so they can't then give us any part of that back. The funding that we have received comes out of the money that we actually send. It's a very important difference.
How can that be pedantry when I'm simply correcting a major misunderstanding on your part.
Other than that, why do you keep repeating that I don't understand it's our "own" money coming back? Please quote where I have said that it isn't. This may be considered pedantry by you, but I specifically (in my opening post) said that it was UK Treasury money coming to us (albeit via Brussels).
And, (purely to be pedantic), which "lies" have I told?
Enjoy the game. I'm off now.

Just listen to your self!

"The funding that we have received comes out of the money that we actually send. It's a very important difference."

You're actually agreeing with me!

It's our money coming back!!!

The only misunderstanding here is yours!

That the EU actually has any money of it's own!

It hasn't . That's the bottom line.

I know you see me as an idolatrous non-believer in your precious EU cult. But I'm only here to bring reality into the thread to counter the deluded beliefs that you and your fellow europhile disciples want to spout!

If you want to argue the toss about whether the money goes to brussels first, or whether it's part of a rebate, whether its deducted at source or whatever. Go ahead but you'll be arguing with yourself, and looking at the above post , massively shooting yourself in the foot! Its Saturday night and I've just watched our team got off to s great start in the the new season.

I'm looking forward to watching 3 belting goals tonight on Match of the Day. While I'm doing that you do your best to rid yourself of this almost pathological belief that the EU has any money if it's own to spend and research what the term " net contributor " means. Clue - it's nothing to do with what we hit the back of 3 times today.

I'm done with this conversation.

THE EU HAS NO MONEY OF ITS OWN.

RingoMcCartney wrote:Just listen to your self!

"The funding that we have received comes out of the money that we actually send. It's a very important difference."

You're actually agreeing with me!

It's our money coming back!!!

The only misunderstanding here is yours!
.

But the misunderstanding is entirely yours, because I've been agreeing with you all along. In my opening post I said it was Treasury money coming back to the NW via Brussels. I never once said it was EU money. (I've already asked you to show me where i made such a claim).
The difference we have is that you seem to believe that we would have got this money around here direct from Central Government had it not first gone to the EU first, and I - along with the majority - disagree.
Added to that you now state unequivocally that the funding comes out of the money we actually send, whereas yesterday you said it was a part of our rebate.
Aggi has already posted that the article you linked actually supported my point and contradicted your own, and that it wasn't pedantic of me to point that out.

Dont go further down the rabbit hole nil. Everyone can see what you're saying and that he's an idiot talking rubbish so just let it go

Devils_Advocate wrote:Dont go further down the rabbit hole nil. Everyone can see what you're saying and that he's an idiot talking rubbish so just let it go

I'd already made that decision. I'm actually enjoying watching us beat Southampton again on SKY Game of the Day. Thanks for the advice though. UTC.

nil_desperandum wrote: The EU has invested massively in the regions of the UK, (regions like our own) to encourage new businesses and grow the economy, with the vast majority of the money going to deprived areas that have been neglected by central government.

This is you attempting to claim the EU has it's own money and it invested it in Burnley.

Then I pointed out that as the UK is a net contributor , any money we recieve is simply our own money coming back.

nil_desperandum wrote:The funding that we have received comes out of the money that we actually send

This was you confirming exactly what I'd said.

Your getting their nil desperandum. Baby steps nil desperandum, baby steps!




THE EU HAS NO MONEY OF ITS OWN.

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

Interesting read, seems to describe a number of people on here....

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49352250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Corbyn makes decisive move to boost chances of "no deal" brexit

Gotta love those capital letters.
Bold, too.
Truly orgasmic.

nil_desperandum wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49352250
Corbyn makes decisive move to boost chances of "no deal" brexit

Decisive? Corbyn claiming he wants to be PM makes a Johnson no-confidence vote less slikely to succeed, not more likely. If the Commons wants to replace Johnson, it would have to be an obviously temporary, single-purpose PM, not someone who fancies the job full-time and is deluded enough to think he might get it. Not with this House of Commons, anyway.

I know just the man you are looking for DSR

Devils_Advocate wrote:I know just the man you are looking for DSR

Hardly. He's neutral by definition. You wouldn't get the Speaker taking sides.

Desperate times call for desperate measures - bring on the Bercow

The current position is all looking like a GE in the coming months.

Parliament is going to block a no deal brexit and Boris will have to go to the country.

Lowbankclaret wrote:The current position is all looking like a GE in the coming months.

Parliament is going to block a no deal brexit and Boris will have to go to the country.

Sadly I think that Boris will get his "no-deal" by default while the pigs on the other side of the trough argue amongst themselves. Our best hope afterwards is a new government following an election who will go to the EU with the message that "OK we're out but we would like to restore some sort of friendly relations". This would mean paying over any money that Boris and his mad men have withheld and also actually having a grown up conversation about the Irish border.

keith1879 wrote:Sadly I think that Boris will get his "no-deal" by default while the pigs on the other side of the trough argue amongst themselves. Our best hope afterwards is a new government following an election who will go to the EU with the message that "OK we're out but we would like to restore some sort of friendly relations". This would mean paying over any money that Boris and his mad men have withheld and also actually having a grown up conversation about the Irish border.

The more interesting conversation might be between Ireland and the EU about the border. The UK (even under May) have said all along that we don't need a hard border; let's hope that the EU doesn't order Ireland to put up fences.

Boris does want friendly relations with the EU - but not the friendship of a master and his slave. The EU will only be friendly if they're in charge.

dsr wrote:Decisive? Corbyn claiming he wants to be PM makes a Johnson no-confidence vote less slikely to succeed, not more likely. If the Commons wants to replace Johnson, it would have to be an obviously temporary, single-purpose PM, not someone who fancies the job full-time and is deluded enough to think he might get it. Not with this House of Commons, anyway.

That's what I wrote. Decisive. If there's one way to guarantee a no deal brexit it's to have a Corbyn led coalition as the alternative. if there's to be a coalition then it has to be a moderate person who commands the respect of all parties, and preferably a Tory as they the largest party.
Ken Clarke would be the obvious candidate as the father of the house, and someone who has advocated making a compromise deal similar to May's deal and the Labour Party (CU / SM) proposal.
Very few MPs will unite behind Corbyn, not even Labour MPs!!

nil_desperandum wrote:That's what I wrote. Decisive. If there's one way to guarantee a no deal brexit it's to have a Corbyn led coalition as the alternative. if there's to be a coalition then it has to be a moderate person who commands the respect of all parties, and preferably a Tory as they the largest party.
Ken Clarke would be the obvious candidate as the father of the house, and someone who has advocated making a compromise deal similar to May's deal and the Labour Party (CU / SM) proposal.
Very few MPs will unite behind Corbyn, not even Labour MPs!!

Corbyn is the leader of the largest group of MPs opposing no deal. If Swinson and the renegade Tories are serious about stopping a no deal, then they’d get behind Labour on what is afterall just a time limited, one issue political group dedicated to stopping the country going over a cliff. Swinson especially, when you consider the things she voted for under the coalition.

AndrewJB wrote:Corbyn is the leader of the largest group of MPs opposing no deal. If Swinson and the renegade Tories are serious about stopping a no deal, then they’d get behind Labour on what is afterall just a time limited, one issue political group dedicated to stopping the country going over a cliff. Swinson especially, when you consider the things she voted for under the coalition.

Sorry. there's virtually no one who respects Corbyn's position over brexit, not even a lot of his shadow cabinet.

All this would go so much easier if all the MPs that voted remain were excluded from sorting out how we leave.

I am still of the opinion that Boris should put the question back to the people via a second 'clarification' referendum:

1. Leave the EU without a deal
2. Leave the EU with the current negotiated withdrawal agreement

If parliament is gridlocked and cannot make the decision then we will.

Mala591 wrote:I am still of the opinion that Boris should put the question back to the people via a second 'clarification' referendum:

1. Leave the EU without a deal
2. Leave the EU with the current negotiated withdrawal agreement

If parliament is gridlocked and cannot make the decision then we will.

Parties that oppose the current negotiated withdrawal agreement:

Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrat
SNP
Plaid Cymru
DUP
Change UK
Green
Brexit Party

Parties in favour of the current negotiated withdrawal agreement:

Sinn Fein. Or possibly not, because they don't turn up to vote.

May's deal is dead. Nobody likes it.

dsr wrote:The more interesting conversation might be between Ireland and the EU about the border. The UK (even under May) have said all along that we don't need a hard border; let's hope that the EU doesn't order Ireland to put up fences.

Boris does want friendly relations with the EU - but not the friendship of a master and his slave. The EU will only be friendly if they're in charge.

Sorry ....but if we have a no-tariff economy then something significant does have to happen at the Irish border to protect EU (and hence Irish) trade. As for Boris ....he wants to be in power. Nothing else matters to him.

keith1879 wrote:Sorry ....but if we have a no-tariff economy then something significant does have to happen at the Irish border to protect EU (and hence Irish) trade. As for Boris ....he wants to be in power. Nothing else matters to him.

Being in power and staying in power are two different things though.

I doubt he'd be satisfied if he got booted at the next GE, so if he wants to keep the job for longer he's going to need to do more than just deliver brexit and make some of the right noises.

BennyD wrote:All this would go so much easier if all the MPs that voted remain were excluded from sorting out how we leave.

So leave voters wanted out to get our democracy back and you want to take it away?

What you seem to be advocating is a dictatorship.

dsr wrote:Parties that oppose the current negotiated withdrawal agreement:

Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrat
SNP
Plaid Cymru
DUP
Change UK
Green
Brexit Party

Parties in favour of the current negotiated withdrawal agreement:

Sinn Fein. Or possibly not, because they don't turn up to vote.

May's deal is dead. Nobody likes it.

Out of interest how does this look for parties in favour of No Deal?

You might want to remove the Brexit Party as I dont think they have any elected members to our UK Parliament

Devils_Advocate wrote:Out of interest how does this look for parties in favour of No Deal?

You might want to remove the Brexit Party as I dont think they have any elected members to our UK Parliament

Seeing as 31% of the voters voted for the Brexit party at the last Euro elections, I think it's fair enough to leave them in as a guide to opinions. Sinn Fein, incidentally, don't have any elected members in the House either, but their opinions and those of the people who voted for them are still relevant.

keith1879 wrote:Sorry ....but if we have a no-tariff economy then something significant does have to happen at the Irish border to protect EU (and hence Irish) trade. As for Boris ....he wants to be in power. Nothing else matters to him.

Until now, the Irish and EU government have shared the position that it isn't possible to have tariffs on cross-border trade unless there is a hard border. But that was when the UK government believed it and was willing to do anything to stop it.

Now that the UK government does not believe border posts are necessary and isn't going to put them there, the Irish government suddenly has a different outlook. I'm pretty sure they will suddenly discover that a hard border isn't necessary after all.

dsr wrote:Seeing as 31% of the voters voted for the Brexit party at the last Euro elections, I think it's fair enough to leave them in as a guide to opinions. Sinn Fein, incidentally, don't have any elected members in the House either, but their opinions and those of the people who voted for them are still relevant.

Sinn Fein have 7 MPs the Brexit Party have none. The 31% of voters who voted for the Brexit Party in the last Euro elections are represented by the parties they voted for in the UK general elections. The Brexit Party have no parliamentary input into Brexit whatsoever no matter how much you wish they had

Now would you like to actually answer the question I asked. If you don't know or would rather avoid the question thats fair enough and i'll happily leave you to confabulate on your own

Devils_Advocate wrote:Sinn Fein have 7 MPs the Brexit Party have none. The 31% of voters who voted for the Brexit Party in the last Euro elections are represented by the parties they voted for in the UK general elections. The Brexit Party have no parliamentary input into Brexit whatsoever no matter how much you wish they had

Now would you like to actually answer the question I asked. If you don't know or would rather avoid the question thats fair enough and i'll happily leave you to confabulate on your own

I know what makes up the House of Commons. When I was talking about the possibility of a referendum on no deal vs. May's deal, I didn't think it necessary to restrict the list of political parties to those with votes in the House of Commons. Hence Brexit and Sinn Fein were included on the list.

In favour of no deal? Or more specifically, in favour of leaving with no deal unless a fair deal can be agreed? Conservative and Brexit and, presumably, DUP. Against? the others. I thought it was rhetorical, didn't realise you actually needed it answering.

So given a choice where the only options were No Deal or May's deal with no option of anything else happening then I suspect May's deal wouldn't be quite as dead as you proclaim.

Dont get me wrong Mala591's little list is as pointless as all his previous ones but if we are talking about Parliamentary support for a solution then No Deal and May's Deal are just different ends of the same smelly turd

nil_desperandum wrote:Sorry. there's virtually no one who respects Corbyn's position over brexit, not even a lot of his shadow cabinet.

It’s not about Corbyn’s position on anything, but the agreed course of action for a temporary government to stop a no deal Brexit. It looks as though the rebel Tories are on board as are the Greens, SNP, and Plaid. Just the LibDems to persuade now. Considering Swinson justified her support of austerity politics because “it was in the national interest” I’d imagine she’ll become as pragmatic as that soon.

dsr wrote:Seeing as 31% of the voters voted for the Brexit party at the last Euro elections, I think it's fair enough to leave them in as a guide to opinions. Sinn Fein, incidentally, don't have any elected members in the House either, but their opinions and those of the people who voted for them are still relevant.

I don’t want Europe meddling in our affairs! Don’t you know we voted to take our sovereignty back!!

Looks like we will have America running our affairs soon - so much for the sovereignty you desire.
Direct statements I've read this week regarding the conditions we would need to meet to get that trade agreement we will be wanting - with no possibility of walking away with no deal - include Adopting US food safety regs. , giving US companies access to the health service and most alarmingly aligning with American foreign poliy. Some sovereignty

cblantfanclub wrote:Looks like we will have America running our affairs soon - so much for the sovereignty you desire.
Direct statements I've read this week regarding the conditions we would need to meet to get that trade agreement we will be wanting - with no possibility of walking away with no deal - include Adopting US food safety regs. , giving US companies access to the health service and most alarmingly aligning with American foreign poliy. Some sovereignty

What a shame you haven't linked them. It's hard to debunk rubbish when the rubbish is only vaguely quoted.

But essentially, you're wrong about the UK being forced to do a trade deal with the USA. It will be like the EU trade deal; if it is a favourable deal to both sides then both sides will want to sign it; if it isn't, they won't. (Each side, of course, has its own idea of what is favourable.)

cblantfanclub wrote:Looks like we will have America running our affairs soon - so much for the sovereignty you desire.
Direct statements I've read this week regarding the conditions we would need to meet to get that trade agreement we will be wanting - with no possibility of walking away with no deal - include Adopting US food safety regs. , giving US companies access to the health service and most alarmingly aligning with American foreign poliy. Some sovereignty

We keep getting dragged into the American wars...

As for the rest of it, we only accept what we want to accept, no one is forcing anything plus if we want to get a favourable trade deal with the EU then we can't lower are standards that much.

Easy to find them all on the Internet. The need to accept US food standards and genetically modified food is a quote from Zippy Duval - President of the American farm bureau.

cblantfanclub wrote:Easy to find them all on the Internet. The need to accept US food standards and genetically modified food is a quote from Zippy Duval - President of the American farm bureau.

BBC article:

"Mr Duvall said the British public should have the right to buy cheaper US produce if they wanted to.

"A lot of our farmers don't understand why other countries implement tariffs on our products but then they don't want us to implement any tariffs on our end, so we need to level that playing field, tear down all those barriers and let our people be able to make the choice of what food they want to eat and where it's grown at."

Zippy? I'm surprised no-one's come up with any jokes about Bungle.

But anyway, he is a farmers' lobbyist. Obviously he is in favour of being able to export food freely. And I don't think that the agricultural policy, whatever it may be, can be more of a shambles than the Common Agricultural Policy.

Was it Zippy who was talking about the UK foreign policy as well? That's the more interesting one.

If the Irish border situation isn’t sorted out we won’t get any trade deals with the US. There’s too many Irish-American votes for that to get past Congress.

And I doubt the US will fall for the lies from folk like dsr when they say “but it’s all the EU’s fault - nothing to do with us!”

Greenmile wrote:If the Irish border situation isn’t sorted out we won’t get any trade deals with the US. There’s too many Irish-American votes for that to get past Congress.

And I doubt the US will fall for the lies from folk like dsr when they say “but it’s all the EU’s fault - nothing to do with us!”

Obviously if the UK doesn't build a border and the Irish Republic does, there will still be people - yourself included, no doubt - who blame the UK for it. There's not a lot that can be done about that.

AndrewJB wrote:It’s not about Corbyn’s position on anything, but the agreed course of action for a temporary government to stop a no deal Brexit. It looks as though the rebel Tories are on board as are the Greens, SNP, and Plaid. Just the LibDems to persuade now. Considering Swinson justified her support of austerity politics because “it was in the national interest” I’d imagine she’ll become as pragmatic as that soon.

Ok. I generally agree with much of what you post, but we're miles apart on this. Simple question.
Do you seriously think that if Johnson loses a vote of confidence that a "remain / people's vote" coalition would have Corbyn as interim Prime Minister?
He simply would not get the support. If MPs of other parties were to agree to a Labour PM leading a coalition, they might agree to Starmer, (who has generally had "good brexit"), Yvette Cooper, (who has already worked closely with Nick Boles), or Hillary Benn.
I must say, I can't really see the logic of Corbyn leading a coalition either. If he wants to win a General Election on a Labour manifesto, he should stay out of any agreement / coalition with other parties, let other members of his party get involved and wait for the election that will follow.

Chuka Umunna is surely the man for the job. He's been a member of most of the relevant parties at some point during the year, so surely he can be relied on to believe whatever they want him to believe.

dsr wrote:Obviously if the UK doesn't build a border and the Irish Republic does, there will still be people - yourself included, no doubt - who blame the UK for it. There's not a lot that can be done about that.

Let’s leave aside the obvious “do we want to control our borders or not?” / WTO most-favoured nations rules etc arguments for now.

Would it be necessary for any borders or checkpoints to be installed if Brexit was cancelled?

Are the Irish govt forcing us to leave the EU?

No? Then any border problems will be our (Brexiters’) fault.

We already know that you will (continue to) blame the EU for everything that is the fault of our govt, but it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The US govt won’t sign any trade agreements with us unless the Irish border situation is not ruined due to Brexit, which is an inevitability in a no-deal scenario.

Greenmile wrote:Let’s leave aside the obvious “do we want to control our borders or not?” / WTO most-favoured nations rules etc arguments for now.

Would it be necessary for any borders or checkpoints to be installed if Brexit was cancelled?

Are the Irish govt forcing us to leave the EU?

No? Then any border problems will be our (Brexiters’) fault.

We already know that you will (continue to) blame the EU for everything that is the fault of our govt, but it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The US govt won’t sign any trade agreements with us unless the Irish border situation is not ruined due to Brexit, which is an inevitability in a no-deal scenario.

We've also laid aside the obvious "will there be a hard border in Ireland after Brexit?" question. There won't. The Irish economy will be worse hit than the UK economy after Brexit, which will I dare say damage the standing of the government, and if they build border points as well they will lose more votes. And governments don't like losing votes. Unless the EU gets really sticky with them, they will find that an open border isn't as hard as they claimed to think.

And if they don't, it's still not our fault. We can't be blamed for every decision made by every other country. Ireland has a choice to build walls or not, and if they choose to, there is no justification in saying that it's our fault for making them make the choice. Especially if the choice is decided by their master in the EU, as any decision to build a wall would be.

Corbyn is not going to get the support he needs.
You may remember he lost a a vote of no confidence by his own MP’s by a large margin.

Few people have any trust in him.

Boris is obviously in GE preparation mode.

Get your voting heads on, your going to need them.

dsr wrote:We've also laid aside the obvious "will there be a hard border in Ireland after Brexit?" question. There won't. The Irish economy will be worse hit than the UK economy after Brexit, which will I dare say damage the standing of the government, and if they build border points as well they will lose more votes. And governments don't like losing votes. Unless the EU gets really sticky with them, they will find that an open border isn't as hard as they claimed to think.

And if they don't, it's still not our fault. We can't be blamed for every decision made by every other country. Ireland has a choice to build walls or not, and if they choose to, there is no justification in saying that it's our fault for making them make the choice. Especially if the choice is decided by their master in the EU, as any decision to build a wall would be.

It's this kind of reckless irresponsibility that will leave other countries with no choice but to distrust us in the future. You can't create the sort of mess that we've created, and then just walk away blaming everyone else for the inevitable chaos that follows.

If the UK government decides to leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, they know full well that it will lead to checks on goods and people between us and other EU member states. They know full well that it undermines the GFA, which is a formal, International Treaty lodged with the UN.

You can sit there and blame the EU all you like, but everyone in the world will know exactly who trashed that agreement, and defaulted on their financial obligations, and they won't be forthcoming with goodwill when we need their co-operation on things like trade in the future.

Lowbankclaret wrote:Corbyn is not going to get the support he needs.
You may remember he lost a a vote of no confidence by his own MP’s by a large margin.

Few people have any trust in him.

Two separate issues here.
If Corbyn calls a vote of no-confidence in Johnson (over no deal) will he win?. Most likely yes.
If he then tries to form a coalition govt. under his leadership will he succeed? - most likely not.
Conclusion: we'll most likely have a coalition govt led by someone else, and in normal circumstances Corbyn would be finished, but we don't live in normal times, so he'd probably stay on as Labour Party leader, and effectively we'd have 2 Labour Parties and 2 Tory Parties, and in those circumstances neither of those parties would really want a general election, so the coalition might last a while longer than anticipated.