#politicslive

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:34 pm

btw, with all this talk about an attempted "coup" and how Remainers are trying to "steal Brexit" (what an attitude to have as a politician) where are all the Leavers screaming about how these claims are "Project Fear"?
Osbourne said there might have to be an emergency budget and apparently that was scaremongering. What about suggesting there's an actual ******* coup going on? Is that not scaremongering?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:40 pm

Spiral wrote:You're peddling conspiracy theories. You missed the word deep-state, but it's essentially what you're arguing. Hoping for folks to be 'burned'? Your language, and that of some of the more fervent brexiteers, is becoming increasingly more violent. Do you condemn these words by UKIP member Kenneth Allen?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-46921529" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Deep-state?" "burning people?"
Now you're clearly making things up!!

Yes I condemn Kenneth Allan's words.

Do you condemn a far more prominent politician. A potential future Chancellors vile normalising of political violence?

Mr McDonnell - “I want to be in a situation where no Tory MP, no Tory or MP, no Coalition minister can travel anywhere in the country or show their face anywhere in public without being challenged by direct action.”

We will close you down, we will expose you, we’ll sit on your lawn, we’ll come into your offices, we’ll come to wherever you are to confront you,” he told the Coalition of Resistance delegates.

https://youtu.be/i2m5GGvsP_E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you condemn that?

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:44 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:"Deep-state?" "burning people?"
Now you're clearly making things up!!

Yes I condemn Kenneth Allan's words.

Do you condemn a far more prominent politician. A potential future Chancellors vile normalising of political violence?

Mr McDonnell - “I want to be in a situation where no Tory MP, no Tory or MP, no Coalition minister can travel anywhere in the country or show their face anywhere in public without being challenged by direct action.”

We will close you down, we will expose you, we’ll sit on your lawn, we’ll come into your offices, we’ll come to wherever you are to confront you,” he told the Coalition of Resistance delegates.

https://youtu.be/i2m5GGvsP_E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you condemn that?

Calling for someone to be headed, and calling for people to take direct action is the same thing now.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:45 pm

Have you heard the latest?

Someone suggesting that we just ignore the WTO rules and ignore them and give EU MFN status and just sit back and await the challenges.

Thats certainly taking back control, and basically pretending that "Britannia rules the waves, but also Britannia waives the rules"

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:49 pm

Why are Remoaners so scared of democracy and the results of democratic expressions like the 1st Peoples Vote of 2016 being enacted?

Are they frightened that all their predictions economic catastrophe will be prove to be wrong and leave them looking silly.?

Let's be honest everything they promised would happen, when we didn't join the Euro and when we voted to Leave the European Union, never materialised did it.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:52 pm

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:54 pm

Test User wrote:

Calling for someone to be headed, and calling for people to take direct action is the same thing now.

I condemned the former.

You won't condemn the call for activists to suppress , with intimidation and fear tactics , democratically elected MPs expressing their views.

Fair enough.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:59 pm

Test User wrote:

Your clearly someone with an very open mind.

I can feel the draught from here.........

Toodle pip.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:03 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Have you heard the latest?

Someone suggesting that we just ignore the WTO rules and ignore them and give EU MFN status and just sit back and await the challenges.

Thats certainly taking back control, and basically pretending that "Britannia rules the waves, but also Britannia waives the rules"

We were discussing this at work last week and we did wonder what the outcome would be.

The issue is basically that other nations could claim that by not inspecting, etc at the Ireland border they (and potentially, by extension, the EU) are receiving favourable trade terms.

If it all went badly we'd have to not inspect shipments from other countries (not really an option).

There are arguments that an exemption could be granted on security reasons. We also discussed whether there was an argument to be made that we would give parity in not inspecting goods coming over land borders (which would be the Irish situation).

It's also a game of brinkmanship with the EU given that the Irish have also said they'll not put up a border so the impact wouldn't just be on us.

My view is that we should give it a stab. The extra time as the various machinations work through would at least give us a chance to work out the next step.

Obviously it won't please the rabid "we must control all of our borders" group but they can't have everything.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:05 pm

"Block traffic to own the Tories " ....has the GCSE Politics class been making placards again ?...Mind you the accompanying drawings look like the work of a six year old.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:08 pm

It was just a comment I saw on twitter from one of the trade guys.

Is this that famed article 24 of WTO rules or is it just a blatant **** take to try to get everyone out of the current mess, or something else?

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:10 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I condemned the former.

You won't condemn the call for activists to suppress , with intimidation and fear tactics , democratically elected MPs expressing their views.

Fair enough.

No. I won't condemn someone for encouraging non-violent protest.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:12 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:It was just a comment I saw on twitter from one of the trade guys.

Is this that famed article 24 of WTO rules or is it just a blatant **** take to try to get everyone out of the current mess, or something else?

A decent quick summary here https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... r-borders/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(The bloke was senior information officer with the WTO Secretariat so may qualify as an expert.)

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:12 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:"Block traffic to own the Tories " ....has the GCSE Politics class been making placards again ?...Mind you the accompanying drawings look like the work of a six year old.

Translation: "I can't argue against the point being made and that is inconvenient to me, so instead i'm just going to criticise the means by which it's made".

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:13 pm

(The bloke was senior information officer with the WTO Secretariat so may qualify as an expert.)

I'd run that one past Paul Waine first!

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:13 pm

You can translate it any way you like....it's childish rubbish.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:15 pm

Think Crosspool (possibly DSR?) put that link up couple of months ago.

I'm at the "anything is better than a No Deal" stage at the moment.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:16 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:You can translate it any way you like....it's childish rubbish.

So you have more criticism for someone using a cartoon to make a point about false equivalent than you do for someone suggesting that calling for someone to be beheaded is the same as non-violent protest.

You're just another hypocrite. There are millions of you. Maybe I should non-violently protest you, or would that be too much like a threat of beheading and be scary?

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:19 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think Crosspool (possibly DSR?) put that link up couple of months ago.

I'm at the "anything is better than a No Deal" stage at the moment.

Nah. **** it. No Deal. Let them have their wish. It will ruin this country. I want to watch them get upset and blame the rest of us for it. It'll be hilarious.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 pm

LancasterClaret, if you can't tell already i'm at the "malicious compliance" stage of Brexit already. You'll be here soon.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:23 pm

Nah mate, I'm in the deal stage, and once the deal is agreed and the referendum result respected, I'm back in the "campaigning to join the EU" stage.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:05 pm

Getting a bit of a trashing is this idea on twitter (journalists/trade people)

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/stat ... 1030009856" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:15 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Getting a bit of a trashing is this idea on twitter (journalists/trade people)

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/stat ... 1030009856" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We're going to be breaching something, whether it be the GFA or possibly MFN rules and the MFN rules do have some form of justification (Ireland have said they wouldn't enforce a border either which would add some weight).

If the EU doesn't reciprocate then that's a bonus for the UK. Imagine how much political capital you could make from "We didn't want a border" but the EU are insisting that ROI have one on their side.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:35 pm

Still prefer a deal of some description to be honest.

Can see problems on all the other EU borders straight away with this one

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:47 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Why are Remoaners so scared of democracy and the results of democratic expressions like the 1st Peoples Vote of 2016 being enacted?

Are they frightened that all their predictions economic catastrophe will be prove to be wrong and leave them looking silly.?

You couldn’t be further from reality if you tried. I pray the economic forecast are wrong. The fear is that they aren’t.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:50 pm

This is the, er, "coup" bill

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/10 ... 1486519300" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:55 pm

Ringo - it was a simple question that you seemed to have answered with a lot of waffle. It was yes/no question

Where, in the European Union Referendum Act 2015, does it say that the result of the referendum has to be enacted? (Hint: read paragraph 106 of the Gina Millar case)

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:03 pm

I still think that a customs union is the only deal that will have a majority support in parliament and will be 'welcomed' by the EU.

Yes, it will be a messy and fudged Brexit but might be the only option apart from no deal.

And it will allow us to have an independent immigration policy.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:16 pm

Mala591 wrote:I still think that a customs union is the only deal that will have a majority support in parliament and will be 'welcomed' by the EU.

Yes, it will be a messy and fudged Brexit but might be the only option apart from no deal.

And it will allow us to have an independent immigration policy.

That's fine, but there are Brexiteers who would object to such a compromise because it limits "independent trade policy" (and the same lot, I suspect in private, really couldn't give a toss for immigration). It's one of the major problems with the Brexit process - Brexiteers can't agree among themselves or demonstrate a consensus for what it looks like (substance-less soundbites and 'ra ra' speeches aside), and haven't yet come up with a credible plan. The closest they have to a coherent strategy (if you can call it that) is 'no deal' which absolutely is not what was advertised in 2016.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:26 pm

Spiral wrote:That's fine, but there are Brexiteers who would object to such a compromise because it limits "independent trade policy" (and the same lot, I suspect in private, really couldn't give a toss for immigration). It's one of the major problems with the Brexit process - Brexiteers can't agree among themselves or demonstrate a consensus for what it looks like (substance-less soundbites and 'ra ra' speeches aside), and haven't yet come up with a credible plan. The closest they have to a coherent strategy (if you can call it that) is 'no deal' which absolutely is not what was advertised in 2016.

Yes. But Labour support for a customs union might outnumber the lost hard line 'brexeteer' votes and so we have a way forward.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:32 pm

Mala591 wrote:Yes. But Labour support for a customs union might outnumber the lost hard line 'brexeteer' votes and so we have a way forward.

But delivering Brexit that way would destroy the Tory party. May would get a deal through parliament and Brexit would be delivered. But the ERG would form a break away party, probably inviting Farage and other disaffected UKIPers and Labour would be a shoe in at the next election. That’s what drives May, not getting a consensus in parliament.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:42 pm

You've took the words right out of my mouth, martin. May wants the Conservative party to exist after all this. I'd tend to agree with you though, Mala591, regards Labour voting for a customs union. It's their stated policy to negotiate a comprehensive customs union and if May put something like it to parliament, I suspect it would be workable.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:42 pm

A rational solution might then be for MPs to choose between:

1. May's deal Brexit (with backstop)
2. A customs union Brexit (no need for backstop)
3. A no deal WTO Brexit

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:45 pm

We can rule out No.3 straight away. No chance parliament votes for no deal. It might be the default legal position if there's nothing in place by March 29th, but there are still quite a few more constitutional and parliamentary levers that could be pulled before then which could rule it out legally.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:56 pm

Mala591 wrote:A rational solution might then be for MPs to choose between:

1. May's deal Brexit (with backstop)
2. A customs union Brexit (no need for backstop)
3. A no deal WTO Brexit

...4. Remain

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:57 pm

Greenmile wrote:...4. Remain

It's anti-democratic and literally fascism if we change our mind.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:59 pm

Test User wrote:It's anti-democratic and literally fascism if we change our mind.

Sorry, yeah, I forgot.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:01 pm

All those nutters who talk about overthrowing the largest ejaculation of democrablah blah blah on the subject of a second referendum wold sort of have a point if MP's decided to cancel Brexit without taking it to the people. The only way we remain with any semblance of legitimacy is through a referendum, not a vote in the HoC.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:01 pm

But on the plus side, my Hi-viz vest company sales will go through the roof.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:16 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Useful article on the customs union and single market

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:37 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Still prefer a deal of some description to be honest.

Can see problems on all the other EU borders straight away with this one

Well that would be nice.

The problems on the other EU borders aren't really our problem, they're leverage if anything.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:08 pm

Spiral wrote:All those nutters who talk about overthrowing the largest ejaculation of democrablah blah blah on the subject of a second referendum wold sort of have a point if MP's decided to cancel Brexit without taking it to the people. The only way we remain with any semblance of legitimacy is through a referendum, not a vote in the HoC.

In theory i think the HOC could revoke Article 50 without a public vote,but politically that could be problematic,if parliament wants a 2nd vote Article 50 would have to be extended,i suspect this will be the outcome after all the other options are voted down,how individual MP'S campaign in the event of another vote could be intriguing in particular a certain Mr Corbyn.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:11 pm

The EU has border problems long before Brexit. Cyprus for example. A country officially all in the EU but EU law is suspended in the Turkish bit.

The so called integrity of the single market has always had cracks at the seams, it is just political will that prevents them being flexible with the U.K.

I do agree with them protecting their freedoms, but the Irish border as a special case could easy be solved just like in those other areas. They would much rather we cave in and stay in the Customs Union though, much easier for the EU.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:21 pm

You could argue that the deal that May negotiated was exactly that Crosspool.

I'm still astonished that the political dogma of the DUP trumped what would have made NI the place to invest in the UK but there you go.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:40 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:This is the, er, "coup" bill

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/10 ... 1486519300" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So if this gets agreed the EU will just wait until 26 feb and know that is it. No need for them to budge. Now that would be the HOC interfering in the negotiations.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:44 pm

Or it forces the PM and the Brexity bunch to get their act together to sort out a deal

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:18 am

Burnley Ace wrote:Where, in the European Union Referendum Act 2015, does it say that the result of the referendum has to be enacted? (Hint: read paragraph 106 of the Gina Millar case)

I really don't see the point of the question. Are you suggesting that it is fine and dandy for a politician to say literally anything to win approval, but do the opposite when he feels like it? Should politicians have no accountability whatsoever?

It's equally valid, of course, to say that if the result had been in favour of Remain, a government could have taken us out of the EU. That presumably would be equally legit in your mind?

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:27 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Or it forces the PM and the Brexity bunch to get their act together to sort out a deal

The time for doing that was a year and a half ago. These MPs are safeguarding the country from ruin. And some on the Labour side reckon May is secretly grateful too.

Now Labour beginning to make louder noises about a second referendum, and to be fair, if all the government can come up with is her deal or no deal (nothing resembling a soft Brexit option), then remain will have to be on the ballot too.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:18 am

dsr wrote:I really don't see the point of the question?

We keep being told by leavers that we have to leave as it was a binding referendum and the people have spoken and nothing can change. I’m just pointing out that we have a representative democracy and the referendum wasn’t binding (on either side). I prefer a Government that works on the rule of Law, not the rule of leaflet (which I presume is what you are referring to), I want MPs to do what they are elected to do - represent all their constituents, not just a select few, and do what’s best for the country, not slavishly follow an opinion poll from 2 years ago.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:22 am

One thing that is clear as a bell from these threads is that only one side wants to compromise on a close referendum result.

And despite different Brexit plans ON THIS VERY BOARD, people still say they know exactly what the 17.4 million voted for.