Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:26 am

Can you tax the wealthy more so that we have money for the essential public services we all need?

Yes, of course you can

Its striking a balance so that the rich are still rich, but not to the extremes like that what we are seeing all over the world, and that its a fair system for as many people as possible (impossible to have a tax system that is fair to all I suspect).

Its not a policy that is unpopular either, but its is a tough balance to get correct.

EDIT - there needs to be a reality check as well. People have to understand that you can't get decent public services with a low tax economy. It just doesn't work (and yes, I'm well aware that is incredibly simplifying it but I think its a valid point)

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:07 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:The problem isn't about working hard enough, or smart enough, or anything to do with work. The problem with capitalism is even more fundamental than that in that for one person to have thousands of times more money than he needs for a comfortable life it requires that thousands of people have less than they need. This is the real problem with capitalism.

For me the argument is beyond capitalism or socialism (or idealism), but naked power, and greed. I agree that wherever you find desperate poverty among a lot of people, you'll also find unimaginable wealth collected in a few hands - but this was the case before capitalism or socialism. The cosy relationship wealth has with power, whether funding it, propagandising for it, or even assuming it (as Trump has done) means that if we curb wealth, we create a space for more ordinary voices to be heard. And that is surely a more democratic thing.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:34 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Your a true communist.
Having been to China, the ultimate communist experiment that didn’t work and they have embraced a more capitalist structure.

Your methods simply do not work.
You end up poorer.

But like many your age your going to have to live through it to gain that experience.

When I read that post of AndrewJB's the country that sprang to mind for me was the United States, not China. Income tax in the US can be quite difficult to avoid in many ways. Leaving the country, becoming resident somewhere else, etc don't make a difference.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:33 pm

Will women vote for Borris Johnson at the next election?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49877508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From Norman Smith:
"I suspect there is a degree of nervousness in No 10 about whether Boris Johnson's standing with women voters is taking a bit of a hit through these steady trickle of stories we've had since he became PM.
We had the one last night about Charlotte Edwardes - which No 10 called "untrue".
But we also had the Jennifer Arcuri story - an odd tale of a businesswoman who didn't really seem to have the credentials to go on trade trips and to receive quite significant amounts of cash from the government and the mayor's office.
It then transpired that she was a friend of Mr Johnson. The PM has insisted he acted with "full propriety" and denied any wrongdoing.
But on top of all that we had Mr Johnson's pretty robust response to those female MPs in the Commons who were getting up, urging him to moderate his language.
That will prompt questions does Boris Johnson have a problem with women.
Is there something here which actually is quite damaging?"

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:36 pm

Spijed wrote:Will women vote for Borris Johnson at the next election?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49877508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From Norman Smith:
"I suspect there is a degree of nervousness in No 10 about whether Boris Johnson's standing with women voters is taking a bit of a hit through these steady trickle of stories we've had since he became PM.
We had the one last night about Charlotte Edwardes - which No 10 called "untrue".
But we also had the Jennifer Arcuri story - an odd tale of a businesswoman who didn't really seem to have the credentials to go on trade trips and to receive quite significant amounts of cash from the government and the mayor's office.
It then transpired that she was a friend of Mr Johnson. The PM has insisted he acted with "full propriety" and denied any wrongdoing.
But on top of all that we had Mr Johnson's pretty robust response to those female MPs in the Commons who were getting up, urging him to moderate his language.
That will prompt questions does Boris Johnson have a problem with women.
Is there something here which actually is quite damaging?"

To be fair to Johnson, if you go all out for the 45-75 white male vote, you are going to alienate pretty much every other demographic!

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:25 pm

Good article in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:39 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Can you tax the wealthy more so that we have money for the essential public services we all need?

Yes, of course you can

Its striking a balance so that the rich are still rich, but not to the extremes like that what we are seeing all over the world, and that its a fair system for as many people as possible (impossible to have a tax system that is fair to all I suspect).

Its not a policy that is unpopular either, but its is a tough balance to get correct.

EDIT - there needs to be a reality check as well. People have to understand that you can't get decent public services with a low tax economy. It just doesn't work (and yes, I'm well aware that is incredibly simplifying it but I think its a valid point)

It’s a really difficult balance to strike.

The really rich can avoid paying tax if they feel they need to. So attacking them too much and you lose money not gain it.

As I have shown the lower paid have been taken out of paying tax.

You could end up with the 45% in the middle paying a much higher rate and that leads to a lot of resentment of the non payers. Which was seen a few years ago before the welfare system was changed.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:45 pm

Far too many people seem to think that being forced to ask for an extension is a big problem for BJ. He would simply say that the undemocratic remainder alliance has prevented him from getting a meaningful brexit and that would be true. He can't get a meaningful brexit through HOC. I get that that would give him a bigger problem with Farage, but so would JC.

My guess is that if forced to ask he will simply say to the EU that any extension should be subject to a GE and no more than 3 months.

As regards language, the continued use of the phrase a government of national unity to describe a solely remain grouping is a disgrace. Every time it is said, it adds votes to leave. Talk about double standards.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:54 pm

unfortunately the Tax issue is like many in the Brexit argument and depends where you are personally in the Tax scheme and the wealth map with how it will affect yourself, your family, etc. rather than how will it affect the country as a whole. Tax brackets can lead to individuals looking at others and making sweeping simple statements, let's Tax the rich that's how we can make a difference, well yes it will but not necessarily for the better.

Some people can make a choice to individually change there Tax status on what they earn, also plenty of people/companies out there who make there living helping others with there Tax returns.

Personally I have always wanted to be paying 99% in Tax.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:06 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:To be fair to Johnson, if you go all out for the 45-75 white male vote, you are going to alienate pretty much every other demographic!

Also Lancs,

If I am being asked to pay more tax for Police, prisons, longer sentences, hospitals, infrastructure. I can stomach that and not gunna complain to much.

Going back to headlines of families earning more money on benefits than a family in work. Forgot the name of the programme where families swap. A family from Rochdale with several kids we’re on more in benefits than a family with two kids and I think working three jobs. That’s when the country is ******. Councils being forced to build 6 bedroom houses to house benefit claiming children machines.

That I am going to complain about a lot.

Do I believe in supporting people who fall on misfortune or who become ill, absolutely.

But when being on welfare pays more than working as it will under Corbyn, that a step way to far.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:07 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Also Lancs,

If I am being asked to pay more tax for Police, prisons, longer sentences, hospitals, infrastructure. I can stomach that and not gunna complain to much.

Going back to headlines of families earning more money on benefits than a family in work. Forgot the name of the programme where families swap. A family from Rochdale with several kids we’re on more in benefits than a family with two kids and I think working three jobs. That’s when the country is ******. Councils being forced to build 6 bedroom houses to house benefit claiming children machines.

That I am going to complain about a lot.

Do I believe in supporting people who fall on misfortune or who become ill, absolutely.

But when being on welfare pays more than working as it will under Corbyn, that a step way to far.

is that the norm, or exceptional Lowbank?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:09 pm

From the Guardian:

"Signs have emerged that the hardline position of the Conservative party’s most Eurosceptic backbenchers has softened just days before Boris Johnson’s team are due to enter a “tunnel” of secret negotiations with Brussels.

Mark Francois, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, has opened the door to a potential Brexit deal, indicating he would look at one even if it included a version of the controversial Irish border backstop to which the Eurosceptic ERG was once implacably opposed.

During a heated and sometimes bad-tempered event on the party conference fringe, he indicated that the so-called “Spartan” wing of the party was in the mood for a deal. Referring to the bloc of 28 backbenchers who voted against Theresa May’s Brexit deal three times, he said:

It has been sometimes been said that we will vote against anything regardless. That’s not true.

If there is some form of deal, be it over the backstop or anything else, then I and my colleagues will look at it and read it very carefully, because at the end of the day you are talking about international treaty law. So I’ll look at a deal if there is one."

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:12 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:is that the norm, or exceptional Lowbank?

I don’t care, it’s just wrong on every level.

Unlimited welfare without a cap drove the wrong behaviours.

You can have 20 kids for me, just don’t expect me through taxation to pay for it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:14 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I don’t care, it’s just wrong on every level.

Unlimited welfare without a cap drove the wrong behaviours.

You can have 20 kids for me, just don’t expect me through taxation to pay for it.

But its quite important.

Its clearly not the norm, so if the welfare system isn't working now (and it isn't), then it will just get worse if you keep changing it.

And we have the massive issue of the older generation and care. How on earth are we going to pay for that?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:17 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:To be fair to Johnson, if you go all out for the 45-75 white male vote, you are going to alienate pretty much every other demographic!

Am not so sure where you base your comments from but of course your opinion is yours but certainly not mine

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:22 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:But its quite important.

Its clearly not the norm, so if the welfare system isn't working now (and it isn't), then it will just get worse if you keep changing it.

And we have the massive issue of the older generation and care. How on earth are we going to pay for that?

I agree that’s going to be a massive issue and a large cost.
Currently being paid for by selling people’s houses and kids paying for their parents care.

But not sure Labour spending millions per year going backwards to making it better on welfare then working.

However there is probably some merit in a national care service. But it’s going to be major expensive.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:23 pm

KateR wrote:Am not so sure where you base your comments from but of course your opinion is yours but certainly not mine

Well, if you want to show me how Johnson is appealing to anyother demographic, feel free.

Pretty common knowledge that Johnson strategists are really worried about his appeal to females in particular.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:27 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Well, if you want to show me how Johnson is appealing to anyother demographic, feel free.

Pretty common knowledge that Johnson strategists are really worried about his appeal to females in particular.

Dont underestimate how many females love to be felt up by random blokes

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:28 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I don’t care, it’s just wrong on every level.

Unlimited welfare without a cap drove the wrong behaviours.

You can have 20 kids for me, just don’t expect me through taxation to pay for it.

So when it comes to extremely wealthy people we should tread very lightly, and not ask too much of them lest they get offended and leave the country; but when it comes to people who have fallen on hard times we must treat them with suspicion as though they're gaming the system, have a harshness to the regime, and if they've dared to have more than two children, well that's their own problem?

Edited for this: We know that a few thousand people have or attempted to commit suicide after being found "fit for work" by a third party company suckling on the teat of the state. We know that under austerity £20 Billion has been cut from benefits budget, and some of that has gone toward tax cuts for the rich, but how much was wasted on trying to get universal credit to work?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:29 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Well, if you want to show me how Johnson is appealing to anyother demographic, feel free.

Pretty common knowledge that Johnson strategists are really worried about his appeal to females in particular.

On one post you say they're going all out for the male vote, on the next you say they're worried about the female vote. Make your mind up.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:35 pm

dsr wrote:On one post you say they're going all out for the male vote, on the next you say they're worried about the female vote. Make your mind up.

I don't see an issue with what I've posted.

Cons want the Brexit Party vote (first demographic) but are worried about Johnsons polling amongst the female demographic

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:35 pm

I think it's about time that Boris gave the EU one last chance to amend the withdrawal agreement. Backstop to have a THREE year expiry date. This allows FIVE years (including the 2 years implementation period) for a permanent NI/ROI border solution to be developed.

So the EU have two options - expiry date on the backstop or no-deal Brexit.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:37 pm

I don't see the poor tactics of attacking people outside there policies as a proper way for people to behave and therefore I will adhere to my principals of innocent until proven guilty. When I say this I mean from any party and personally anyone coming up with this now from the alleged incident of 1999 I believe (might be 2009 but shows how little attention I paid to this non-event)

He may, I don't know, be targeting those males but seems very short sighted if he is, therefore since I don't think any of the main parties miss things like this that he or the party are. Am skeptical that gender or sexuality enters into any of the parties main themes, there will of course be minor derivatives of who the wish to appeal to and adopt policies to target where they think they are light, but not at a detrimental to that where they feel strong.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:38 pm

Mala591 wrote:I think it's about time that Boris gave the EU one last chance to amend the withdrawal agreement. Backstop to have a THREE year expiry date. This allows FIVE years (including the 2 years implementation period) for a permanent NI/ROI border solution to be developed.

So the EU have two options - expiry date on the backstop or no-deal Brexit.

The problem is that there isn't the parliamentary time to do that without an extension, and that is before you even factor in the parliament numbers against him.

Its a huge ask to expect female Lab MPs (amongst others) to vote to get Johnston off the hook after the way he's been acting.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:39 pm

KateR wrote:I don't see the poor tactics of attacking people outside there policies as a proper way for people to behave and therefore I will adhere to my principals of innocent until proven guilty. When I say this I mean from any party and personally anyone coming up with this now from the alleged incident of 1999 I believe (might be 2009 but shows how little attention I paid to this non-event)

He may, I don't know, be targeting those males but seems very short sighted if he is, therefore since I don't think any of the main parties miss things like this that he or the party are. Am skeptical that gender or sexuality enters into any of the parties main themes, there will of course be minor derivatives of who the wish to appeal to and adopt policies to target where they think they are light, but not at a detrimental to that where they feel strong.

Its a good job Johnston hasn't got massive previous for telling lies isn't it?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:43 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a good job Johnston hasn't got massive previous for telling lies isn't it?

Really poor argument, I mean really poor, and I usually value your imput.

Perhaps you can reinforce this line for me and tell me which party/leader you will be voting for that you can put your hand on your heart and say, we as the people or the opposition parties will be told no more lies while in power??

Any one will do please.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:49 pm

Why is it poor?

I don't trust Johnson because he lies.

He's been sacked from two jobs for lying.

He's been caught on camera lying.

He's a serial liar.

Now up to you if you don't take that into account, but I think it's quite important for the UK PM.

Oh, and he lied to the queen.

The Queen ffs!

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:51 pm

Can the Holly Trinity of Remainers please help me understand something as I really feel I am missing something!

I can see where we will not leave on 31 Oct and let's just assume we end up with a 3 month extension:
1. What does it achieve, will we have a deal to leave in the next 3 months?
2. Will a GE after 31 Oct allow the LibDem's or Labour come in to power?
3. Will the EU change there minds on something's, anything that would make a deal pass a parliamentary vote?
4. Is there a chance that during the 3 months there will be a revocation of Article 50
5. Do you really believe this 3 month extension changes anything from today other than the results of the GE?
6. Is there some other factor I am missing in 1 - 5 above that will see the Brexit issue end?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:53 pm

Will answer after the football!

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:54 pm

KateR wrote:I don't see the poor tactics of attacking people outside there policies as a proper way for people to behave and therefore I will adhere to my principals of innocent until proven guilty. When I say this I mean from any party and personally anyone coming up with this now from the alleged incident of 1999 I believe (might be 2009 but shows how little attention I paid to this non-event)

He may, I don't know, be targeting those males but seems very short sighted if he is, therefore since I don't think any of the main parties miss things like this that he or the party are. Am skeptical that gender or sexuality enters into any of the parties main themes, there will of course be minor derivatives of who the wish to appeal to and adopt policies to target where they think they are light, but not at a detrimental to that where they feel strong.

But we are in a place called post truth politics where it actually doesn't matter what a politician has done.

Take Trump for example. It wouldn't matter if he was a mass murderer to large numbers of the Republican party. They simply don't care. Likewise with Johnson in the Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn with members of Momentum.

We are in a dangerous place where leaders really could commit murder, but get away with it simply because they said they didn't do it. That's what it has come to.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:55 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Why is it poor?

I don't trust Johnson because he lies.

He's been sacked from two jobs for lying.

He's been caught on camera lying.

He's a serial liar.

Now up to you if you don't take that into account, but I think it's quite important for the UK PM.

Oh, and he lied to the queen.

The Queen ffs!

I see your bigotry for what it is, a personal attack on a single person. You failed to answer the question I asked which would provide a good reason for this.

He was never proven to have lied to the Queen, I can understand your interpretation but I don't agree with it, same as I don't agree with the court ruling but I do accept it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:55 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I don’t care, it’s just wrong on every level.

Unlimited welfare without a cap drove the wrong behaviours.

You can have 20 kids for me, just don’t expect me through taxation to pay for it.

I ask, as i did last time you mentioned this, do you know how much the benefit cap saves each year?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:57 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Dont underestimate how many females love to be felt up by random blokes

And then sit on it for 20 years until they get their own column in the Times.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:59 pm

Spijed wrote:But we are in a place called post truth politics where it actually doesn't matter what a politician has done.

Take Trump for example. It wouldn't matter if he was a mass murderer to large numbers of the Republican party. They simply don't care. Likewise with Johnson in the Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn with members of Momentum.

We are in a dangerous place where leaders really could commit murder, but get away with it simply because they said they didn't do it. That's what it has come to.

Do you mean exactly what Blair did for the country way back, it is proven your argument is correct and for one I really regret the state of the main political parties. I for one was 100% positive that Bush was lying to gain his own ends and by default so was Blair, I did state it but of course it is like here, many of us on both sides of the Brexit argument will be proven to have predicted it but influenced nothing.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:59 pm

These are my quick thoughtd

- It will certainly lead to an election.
- If Labour got into power they would look to negotiate a CU/SM kind of deal which the EU would definitely want to explore
- Labour govt will put their deal to people to leave or remain and with a majority in Parliament they will be able to deliver on the result
-If Johnson got a majority on his current position that would give a true mandate for No Deal should the EU not agree the deal he wants
- If its a hung Parliament and noone can put together a coalition that is aligned on Brexit then god help us

Finally whatever happens we are decades away from resolving this mess Cameron has caused with promising and delivering such an ill thought out referendum

Edit: This is answering KateR's question about what happens after 31st Oct if we dont leave

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:00 pm

AndyClaret wrote:And then sit on it for 20 yers until they get their own column in the Times.

Dont be so 'touchy', just cos you'd love it for Nigel or Boris to grab your thigh

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:01 pm

KateR wrote:I see your bigotry for what it is, a personal attack on a single person. You failed to answer the question I asked which would provide a good reason for this.

He was never proven to have lied to the Queen, I can understand your interpretation but I don't agree with it, same as I don't agree with the court ruling but I do accept it.

And the court ruling means he definitely lied to the people.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:09 pm

Martin,
please note nothing was proven by the court other than they "believed" he extended the length of time to a point where it benefited him and the Tory people. As a result parliament was brought back, typically there is a "break", party conferences etc etc, which last 2 - 3 weeks and even the QC for the plaintiff was in agreement with this, so in fact the bottom line was it is "believed" he extended the normal break by 2 or 3 weeks for his own end.

There was no verdict that said he had lied as they did not know what was in his mind, there was no verdict that said he lied to the Queen so quite clearly the ruling did not mean he definitely lied and that is a fact whether you agree, like it or not. Spin it anyway you like but I do not see any ruling by anyone or any party for bringing him up on charges regarding lying, I see you and people of your ilk throwing mud, but as I stated before I still believe in innocent until proven guilty in which he was NOT proven guilty of lying.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:12 pm

KateR wrote:Martin,
please note nothing was proven by the court other than they "believed" he extended the length of time to a point where it benefited him and the Tory people. As a result parliament was brought back, typically there is a "break", party conferences etc etc, which last 2 - 3 weeks and even the QC for the plaintiff was in agreement with this, so in fact the bottom line was it is "believed" he extended the normal break by 2 or 3 weeks for his own end.

There was no verdict that said he had lied as they did not know what was in his mind, there was no verdict that said he lied to the Queen so quite clearly the ruling did not mean he definitely lied and that is a fact whether you agree, like it or not. Spin it anyway you like but I do not see any ruling by anyone or any party for bringing him up on charges regarding lying, I see you and people of your ilk throwing mud, but as I stated before I still believe in innocent until proven guilty in which he was NOT proven guilty of lying.

He told us all that the length on the prorogation was nothing to do with stifling parliamentary debate the court said it was. He lied to us.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:16 pm

OK Marin, you live in your world and I will live in mine

Let me know when Boris actually says he lied, then I will believe you.

You obviously believe that everyman before a court and found guilty was and that the courts are correct in there final decision.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:24 pm

AndrewJB wrote:So when it comes to extremely wealthy people we should tread very lightly, and not ask too much of them lest they get offended and leave the country; but when it comes to people who have fallen on hard times we must treat them with suspicion as though they're gaming the system, have a harshness to the regime, and if they've dared to have more than two children, well that's their own problem?

Edited for this: We know that a few thousand people have or attempted to commit suicide after being found "fit for work" by a third party company suckling on the teat of the state. We know that under austerity £20 Billion has been cut from benefits budget, and some of that has gone toward tax cuts for the rich, but how much was wasted on trying to get universal credit to work?

You are mixing your drinks in this argument.

I agree with your argument about people being found fit to work who are not.

I agreed we should support people who have fallen on hard times.

Career welfare system claimers who earn more than hard working people I have an issue with.

Try reading my posts properly.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:32 pm

KateR wrote:Can the Holly Trinity of Remainers please help me understand something as I really feel I am missing something!

I can see where we will not leave on 31 Oct and let's just assume we end up with a 3 month extension:
1. What does it achieve, will we have a deal to leave in the next 3 months?
2. Will a GE after 31 Oct allow the LibDem's or Labour come in to power?
3. Will the EU change there minds on something's, anything that would make a deal pass a parliamentary vote?
4. Is there a chance that during the 3 months there will be a revocation of Article 50
5. Do you really believe this 3 month extension changes anything from today other than the results of the GE?
6. Is there some other factor I am missing in 1 - 5 above that will see the Brexit issue end?

It’s all a plan to overturn the referendum.

After going to the brexit party meeting in Burnley, it became obvious we are going to be in for another six months or so.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:36 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:These are my quick thoughtd

- It will certainly lead to an election.
- If Labour got into power they would look to negotiate a CU/SM kind of deal which the EU would definitely want to explore
- Labour govt will put their deal to people to leave or remain and with a majority in Parliament they will be able to deliver on the result
-If Johnson got a majority on his current position that would give a true mandate for No Deal should the EU not agree the deal he wants
- If its a hung Parliament and noone can put together a coalition that is aligned on Brexit then god help us

Finally whatever happens we are decades away from resolving this mess Cameron has caused with promising and delivering such an ill thought out referendum

Edit: This is answering KateR's question about what happens after 31st Oct if we dont leave

DA, thank you for the response:
So in a nutshell so far I have not really missed anything, am still not clear on why the opposition parties did not immediately take the offer of a GE, if anything I would have thought that would have weakened them in regard to a GE after 31 Oct. However that is just an aside and we are where we are, is it just the time to prepare for a GE or is there something magical about before or after 31 Oct I am missing?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:49 pm

KateR wrote:DA, thank you for the response:
So in a nutshell so far I have not really missed anything, am still not clear on why the opposition parties did not immediately take the offer of a GE, if anything I would have thought that would have weakened them in regard to a GE after 31 Oct. However that is just an aside and we are where we are, is it just the time to prepare for a GE or is there something magical about before or after 31 Oct I am missing?

The reason they wont take the election now is because Johnson can move the election to after the 31st Oct and with Parliament dissolved then its hands are potentially tied should Johnson try something underhand or illegal to ignore the Benn Bill and have us crashing out on a No Deal.

Basically Labour, SNP and Lib Dems have prioritised making sure the extension is 100% locked in before agreeing to an election. Johnson is still publicly saying he will not ask for an extension and we will be leaving on the 31st with or without a deal.

Hope that helps

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:54 pm

D A has summed it up better than I could.

All I would say is that whatever the government have got planned to avoid Oct 31st extension, then its going to fall down on the two supreme court judgements of 2016 and 2019 that took the view "Parliament is sovereign"

If Johnson refuses to do what the law demands (ie request an extension) then he's running the risk of being sacked by the Queen.

If we get that far though, Johnsons gamble will already have failed and we'll be in a full blown constitutional crisis.

I cannot get my head around the Conservative and Unionist Party acting like they are.

it makes no sense, and goes against everything they stand for.

They'd be better off doing this properly, which though risky, is not as risky as wrecking the UK and its constitution.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:57 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:It’s all a plan to overturn the referendum.

After going to the brexit party meeting in Burnley, it became obvious we are going to be in for another six months or so.

Do not assume that.

I have been at the Tory conference today and have met several people including the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Leader of the House, the Business Secretary and the Leader of the ERG

Oh, and David Gauke who I annoyingly liked.

My instinct is that the Tories HAVE to leave by Oct 31st, do or die. I also thought they were good, decent people, but that is a discussion for another day.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:59 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Do not assume that.

I have been at the Tory conference today and have met several people including the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Leader of the House, the Business Secretary and the Leader of the ERG

Oh, and David Gauke who I annoyingly liked.

My instinct is that the Tories HAVE to leave by Oct 31st, do or die. I also thought they were good, decent people, but that is a discussion for another day.

Gauke/Willets/Cooke/Greive presser

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... 3367097347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots and lots and lots and lots of reality in there. The Conservative Party is not listening to reality, but who is in on the Brexit side?

The only way they leave is by breaking the law.

You want to go down that route?

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:00 pm

DA; thank you, makes sense.

so in essence the opposition must win a GE to avoid no deal if a deal with the EU can not be made before New Year. However if the present Government stays in power but with a slim margin and all things remain equal then in 3 months we face the same never ending argument and a deadlock. We are doing Brexit but parliament will block a no deal and the EU will not remove the backstop or give meaningful concessions to May's article to leave.

This post subject could go on for ever, becoming increasingly difficult to see how there is a meaningful change unless the GE brings a totally different group of MP's back into Parliament?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:01 pm

KateR wrote:DA; thank you, makes sense.

so in essence the opposition must win a GE to avoid no deal if a deal with the EU can not be made before New Year. However if the present Government stays in power but with a slim margin and all things remain equal then in 3 months we face the same never ending argument and a deadlock. We are doing Brexit but parliament will block a no deal and the EU will not remove the backstop or give meaningful concessions to May's article to leave.

This post subject could go on for ever, becoming increasingly difficult to see how there is a meaningful change unless the GE brings a totally different group of MP's back into Parliament?

Essentially if its another hung parliament, then the only way out is a 2nd ref.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:04 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:These are my quick thoughtd

- If Labour got into power they would look to negotiate a CU/SM kind of deal which the EU would definitely want to explore

Finally whatever happens we are decades away from resolving this mess Cameron has caused with promising and delivering such an ill thought out referendum

Of course the EU would explore this. The U.K. tied into a CU over which we have no say, a SM that we pay to stay in, have to accept the ECJ and four freedoms etc

What exactly are we leaving? Or is this just a ruse to get a Remain vote?