Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[martin_p]

Greece Italy & Portugal, common denominator.

That they were three of the many countries around the world negatively impacted by the GLOBAL financial crisis.

[Colburn_Claret]

As that is exactly what they are planning for, I'm going to have to ask you how you know that for sure.

There is a clear difference between what they are planning for, and what they say they are planning for. Even the EU members, and the head of the port of Calais have said that it wont lead to any tail backs.
You need to ask yourself, why would they say that if it isn't true.

I already know the answer by the way, I've been trying to explain it to you for a long time now.

[Lancasterclaret]

To be fair to Colburn and others, even MPs don't really understand the intricacies of all this.

Leave MP Adam Afriyie

https://twitter.com/AdamAfriyie/status/ ... 4874376192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is no such thing as a transitional period under WTO terms.

He think the transitional period under Mays deal with the EU would apply, and it doesn't.

[martin_p]

There is a clear difference between what they are planning for, and what they say they are planning for. Even the EU members, and the head of the port of Calais have said that it wont lead to any tail backs.
You need to ask yourself, why would they say that if it isn't true.

I already know the answer by the way, I've been trying to explain it to you for a long time now.

Because they've been planning for no deal for the last two years. Despite the mantra that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' we only started planning when we realised that sitting there waiting for the EU to give us everything we wanted wasn't going to work.

[Lancasterclaret]

There is a clear difference between what they are planning for, and what they say they are planning for. Even the EU members, and the head of the port of Calais have said that it wont lead to any tail backs.
You need to ask yourself, why would they say that if it isn't true.

I already know the answer by the way, I've been trying to explain it to you for a long time now.

No, you haven't

You've spent a lot of time telling me stuff that isn't true.

You said

"there isn't going to be tailbacks on the M20"

I said that is exactly what they are planning for

You said

"There is a clear difference between what they are planning for, and what they say they are planning for"

How do you know that?

You don't. You make things up. That is what you do.

If you had a smidgen of self awareness, you'd google Operation Stack. Its not only in planning, its used all the time in bad weather. ITS ACTUALLY USED NOW. I think its Operation Brock and something else that is the plan for this, but the fundamentals are the same.

[Guich]

As may has been in cohoots wirh the EU since day 1 there is another tactic to be had.

EU say no good reason for a further extension after yesterday's farce so its leave on 12 April if no deal. Labour finally stop playing games and realise that they have to vote for May's deal. Would have to be done in conjunction with a 3 line Tory whip.

The problem with that is some figures in the EU have been making encouraging noises around the prospects of a long extension. The EU wants a deal but would much prefer the UK to stay in.

My gut feel is that May's deal will squeak through by a small handful of votes.

I agree with Claretonthecoast - it's been crushingly tedious at times. Chinese investors and others have said the are less concerned by the impact of Brexit than the fact the UK has become obsessed by it and lost sight of the ball. Whichever way we go will enable us to get back to business, but we need to do it quickly.

I find it staggering that the politicians haven't grasped that. But then I suppose I shouldn't be.

[Lancasterclaret]

Mays Deal needs to go through.

But it won't.

So something else needs to go through.

Parliament is absolutely opposed to "No Deal" and the harder forms of Brexit.

Mays Deal + customs union would walk it, Mays Deal with confirmatory referendum would as well.

Up to those MPs who are of the same mind set on Brexit as Dsr, Crosspool and Colburn to compromise now.

[martin_p]

Unfortunately we only started the process that we should have started straight after the last election yesterday. Theresa May's arrogance, stubbornness and determination to try and keep her party together has effectively cost us two years. If she sought to gain a cross party consensus before going into negotiations with the EU we'd be leaving in just over 37 hours.

[Lancasterclaret]

Has to be said that Julie Cooper MP voted, didn't vote, or voted against pretty much the way you'd expect someone who doesn't want to create waves would vote.

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/pol ... xXXLiOI958" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure that is helpful at this stage it has to be said

[Rick_Muller]

Mystic McCartney says-


Next Tory Leader.

Penny Mordaunt.

ahhh she's game for a laugh - a Reality TV star, perfect for the tacky veneer of British politics as it currently is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvLcYUXBBuc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aggi]

No Lancaster, I'm asking Labour MPs to respect the clear voting intentions of their constituents in the referendum. We are not talking about a 52/48 split in these constituencies but majorities to leave in the mid to high 60s.
Is this such a difficult principle to understand?

I assume you'd also be fine with the Conservative MPs who are in Remain constituencies voting against Leave.

[Mala591]

Likely outcome in decending order (imo)

May's deal
May's deal plus customs union (plan B)
Delayed Brexit
No deal Brexit
No Brexit

[Imploding Turtle]

Brextremists have their own version of political correctness.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47724095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jakubclaret]

That they were three of the many countries around the world negatively impacted by the GLOBAL financial crisis.

That's true in the main & there's no denying or arguing with that, the point i was trying to make is & still are is, if you are setup with a sound fiscal policy to begin with, which is not always possible internally not to a maximum value if other elements externally dictate a negative influences upon that fundamental fiscal policy. Basically without guarantees they'd be less likelihood as a final simple summary.
Further information including monetary policy as well to read up & hopefully understand more.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/w ... al-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrosspoolClarets]

The key to yesterday is 75 Tory MPs voted against Meaningful Vote 2 but >75 voted against EVERYTHING yesterday, so that suggests her deal is closest but needs further amendment to the backstop to get it over the line.

This is all the EUs fault - proposing something no sovereign Parliament could accept. Put a time limit on it, say 4 years, all this falls away. It’s idiocy for them to imply it isn’t a backstop with a time limit - they should simply insist to Ireland that solutions can be developed to the border in that timeframe, which is kind of what Merkel was pushing. Anyone wanting to stay in that protectionist gravy train racket must need their head reading.

Anyway, one more reflection on yesterday - Labour whipping for some options, and the Tories giving a free vote. Shows how little notice we should take of the outcomes, it doesn’t really reflect what MPs think, only what party tacticians are manoeuvring for. A farce. Anyone would think Parliament haven’t dealt with an international treaty for decades....oh...wait....they haven’t.

[Lancasterclaret]

Anyone wanting to stay in that protectionist gravy train racket must need their head reading.

I'd be able to take your posts with a lot more seriousness if you stopped the hyperbole.

But anyway, if the technical solutions are not an issue and they are bound to be found asap, then the backstop isn't an issue.

You know this. I know this.

The problem is the technical solutions are not available without some sort of infrastructure, which because of the GFA (and the situation on the ground) are not an option.

So its a customs union (type of) which would get passed, and would solve the issue.

And that would get through parliament and would mean we leave the EU.

Its actually not that hard if you don't have red lines.

[martin_p]

The key to yesterday is 75 Tory MPs voted against Meaningful Vote 2 but >75 voted against EVERYTHING yesterday, so that suggests her deal is closest but needs further amendment to the backstop to get it over the line.

Wow, that’s some seriously selective maths you’ve used there! What nonsense!

[summitclaret]

Likely outcome in decending order (imo)

May's deal
May's deal plus customs union (plan B)
Delayed Brexit
No deal Brexit
No Brexit

Delay and GE are the only options. CU/SM no if the tories ever want to govern again.

[Blackrod]

Need to get a deal through now. Won’t help anyone if we don’t.

[martin_p]

This is all the EUs fault - proposing something no sovereign Parliament could accept. Put a time limit on it, say 4 years, all this falls away. It’s idiocy for them to imply it isn’t a backstop with a time limit - they should simply insist to Ireland that solutions can be developed to the border in that timeframe, which is kind of what Merkel was pushing. Anyone wanting to stay in that protectionist gravy train racket must need their head reading.

If you think that solutions can be developed in a particular timeframe then the backstop will end in that timeframe. The unlimited backstop protects the island of Ireland against these solutions not being as quick as some people are predicting.

[Lancasterclaret]

Likely outcome in decending order (imo)

May's deal
May's deal plus customs union (plan B)
Delayed Brexit
No deal Brexit
No Brexit

Dunno

I reckon

Mays Deal plus customs union
No Brexit
Delayed Brexit
Mays Deal
No deal Brexit

Genuinely think the last one is 100% no longer on the cards. There isn't a parliamentary support for it, under any circumstances.

[elwaclaret]

Source?

I'm sorry elwa, but this is way past anything I've seen. Not even a hint from the media, the papers, the constitutional experts. Its is 100% bullshit.

Or it could be the result of a long conversation with an up and coming political journalist, with a PhD in politics, and a lecturer teaching BA in three subjects... think I’ll put the bullshit down to many posts on here, but not against someone who has for the most held his fire on the subject. I am no Brexit banner waver and always expected a compromise to be reached... but not a change of the game when the team that lost took the ball home.

[Lancasterclaret]

But there would be evidence online Elwa.

If someone had that belief and the facts to back it up, there would be a blog post, a dissertation, some sort of academic paper. Something.

And it would be more widespread than it clearly is.

I've lots and lots of ideas about history though chatting to very similar, but they are not backed up (sufficiently) by the available evidence. Lots of missing links that we fill in without the evidence to back it up.

The problem you have is that its a "advisory referendum" - everything you argue falls down after that.

There is no time limit to this, only the one dictated by the leave date. And that is clearly finite, but "No Deal" is unacceptable to parliament and there isn't a mandate for it nationwide.

Its a absolute constitutional nightmare, absolutely agree with you on that, but its not what you describe

And I apologize for using the word "bullshit", I use it far too regulary on here and I shouldn't.

[elwaclaret]

Dunno

I reckon

Mays Deal plus customs union
No Brexit
Delayed Brexit
Mays Deal
No deal Brexit

Genuinely think the last one is 100% no longer on the cards. There isn't a parliamentary support for it, under any circumstances.

Funnily enough I think completely the opposite... no deal has never looked more likely. Poloticians have already displayed right up to May that they do not know the legal presidents set out in the Reformation, designed to protect our democracy from abuse. I think we are very very close to a no deal outcome.

[elwaclaret]

But there would be evidence online Elwa.

If someone had that belief and the facts to back it up, there would be a blog post, a dissertation, some sort of academic paper. Something.

And it would be more widespread than it clearly is.

I've lots and lots of ideas about history though chatting to very similar, but they are not backed up (sufficiently) by the available evidence. Lots of missing links that we fill in without the evidence to back it up.

The problem you have is that its a "advisory referendum" - everything you argue falls down after that.

It stopped being advisory the moment Parliament agreed Article 50.

[Mala591]

Likely outcome in decending order (imo)

May's deal
May's deal plus customs union (plan B)
Delayed Brexit
No deal Brexit
No Brexit

An idea

Why don't we make this list of five options the indicative votes list and allow MPs just one choice?

[martin_p]

It stopped being advisory the moment Parliament agreed Article 50.

No it didn’t. The government acted on the advice and triggered article 50, but that doesn’t give the referendum itself any more legal weight.

[Lancasterclaret]

And we have the right to revoke that at any time. Its still an advisory referendum.

At the moment we are leaving the EU without a deal on April 12th.

There is no argument about that.

But that isn't acceptable to parliament, or the population of the Uk (Colburn will disagree but he's not representative of 17.4 million)

So anything is possible.

MPs have taken control for the indicative votes.

They can take control to make it legislation (if they reach a consensus)

That also give May an out as well. She might well take it now she's gone.

"No Deal" will always be the worst possible deal from an economic point of view.

I fully understand that isn't the de facto reason for everyone, but it is for me.

[Lancasterclaret]

Conservative MP Steve Brine to his ERG colleagues

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1111220450309234688" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[elwaclaret]

Like I say more interested in how this plays in history, on a personal level than current political slants. After all you have no idea what kind of Europe you are voting for. All evidence suggests a largely NAtionalist made up of Left and right... by definition should current trends be proved right on the mainland it will not the federal institution you all seem to see as the whole grail. Napoleon invented federalism because it gave him a way to dominate Europe without the stigma of a royalist type dictatorship.

[elwaclaret]

Conservative MP Steve Brine to his ERG colleagues

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1111220450309234688" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May was caught out by the constitution just last week, yet you provide a minister?

You may be right, or you may be wishful thinking... we’ll find out soon enough. Should be interesting

[Lancasterclaret]

Like I say more interested in how this plays in history, on a personal level than current political slants. After all you have no idea what kind of Europe you are voting for. All evidence suggests a largely NAtionalist made up of Left and right... by definition should current trends be proved right on the mainland it will not the federal institution you all seem to see as the whole grail. Napoleon invented federalism because it gave him a way to dominate Europe without the stigma of a royalist type dictatorship.

First, no one is voting for what kind of Europe we want. People are voting to leave or not leave the EU.

Second, there isn't going to be a federal Europe in our lifetimes, if at all

Third, I'm very sure no one voting on here is a federalist (Paul Waine poss? But he's the weirdest federalist I've ever seen)

Fourth, Napoleonic reforms outlasted him and he made his generals Kings. Weird sort of federalism that to be honest.

History won't be kind to anyone with this, but that is what history is!

[SmudgetheClaret]

So the anti democratic socialist MPs were given an open goal to "take control of Brexit" and guess what ....they blew it

[Lancasterclaret]

Bit off topic but Brexit backers have put up about half the Union Jacks outside Parliament upside down.

[Rick_Muller]

Bit off topic but Brexit backers have put up about half the Union Jacks outside Parliament upside down.

so theres about half up the right way? is it a 52/48 split...?

[aggi]

Businesses will always pass walls & find ways to get around it, whether it’s over or under or on the flank or even bolster the brickwork to create gaps, you seem to create problems when problems don’t exist in my view & fret far too much.

Did anyone else read that as if it was John Barnes rapping?

[Rick_Muller]

Did anyone else read that as if it was John Barnes rapping?

I have now!!!

[elwaclaret]

Like I said we’ll see but the same lecturer told me months ago that they would find nothing to nail Trump and writing for American academic newspapers, he HAD to know the score for his burgeoning career... And he’s a Burnley lad not a yank before you clutch for the American straw.

[Lancasterclaret]

No, I'm sure he knows his stuff.

Expert on US Constitutional law and UK/EU law?

Thats a pretty broad field. Impressive.

[martin_p]

I see Jacob Rees-Mogg has fully turned now. His worries over the union seemingly having dissipated overnight he’s now saying he’s in favour of the deal and hopes the DUP will change their minds. Boris must’ve offered him a top job in his cabinet.

[Lancasterclaret]

Not only has he changed his mind, says that "No Deal" is off the table as well.

Might have to change my prediction table a bit.

[elwaclaret]

so theres about half up the right way? is it a 52/48 split...?

The 52/48 split is irrelevant... there is not prize for second place in first past the post. The figures were only decided upon to support the remain cause anyway. If you apply first past the post regional vote it was far less favourable to remain had we used our established voting system. That is why they decided to use them, Leave agreed because even with the massaged reporting it was a clear enough mandate.

[martin_p]

Not only has he changed his mind, says that "No Deal" is off the table as well.

Might have to change my prediction table a bit.

There’s still enough sticking to their guns to make May’s deal a non-starter.

[martin_p]

The figures were only decided upon to support the remain cause anyway. If you apply first past the post regional vote it was far less favourable to remain had we used our established voting system. That is why they decided to use them, Leave agreed because even with the massaged reporting it was a clear enough mandate.

Again, nonsense!

[Lancasterclaret]

Like I say more interested in how this plays in history, on a personal level than current political slants

followed by

The 52/48 split is irrelevant... there is not prize for second place in first past the post. The figures were only decided upon to support the remain cause anyway. If you apply first past the post regional vote it was far less favourable to remain had we used our established voting system. That is why they decided to use them, Leave agreed because even with the massaged reporting it was a clear enough mandate.

Its okay to be a Brexit backer, its not okay to try to pretend that you are not.

[AndyClaret]

Dunno

I reckon

Mays Deal plus customs union
No Brexit
Delayed Brexit
Mays Deal
No deal Brexit

Genuinely think the last one is 100% no longer on the cards. There isn't a parliamentary support for it, under any circumstances.

No deal is still the default option, even your mate james obrien accepts this.

John manning just been on 5 live, 27 labour mp's plus more absentions voted against the 3 line whip on referendum, just as there won't be a majority for no deal, neither is there 1 for a losers vote.

[elwaclaret]

Really. Are we not a first past the post democracy?

It was the largest voter turn out in history. A mandate was given and the findings accepted. Unless I’ve missed some law being passed you are calling the constitution nonsense again.

Think I’ll leave this thread. People are too intrentched to even consider anything they don’t want to hear.

Like I say we’ll see.

[Lancasterclaret]

No deal is still the default option, even your mate james obrien accepts this.

John manning just been on 5 live, 27 labour mp's plus more absentions voted against the 3 line whip on referendum, just as there won't be a majority for no deal, neither is there 1 for a losers vote.

Yes, I know. I think I've mentioned it about 100 times on this thread!

That doesn't change the fact that I think it not going to happen now does it?

All it takes is one legislative vote and its gone.

And we've seen three times that there is a massive majority against it.

[martin_p]

Really. Are we not a first past the post democracy?

It was the largest voter turn out in history. A mandate was given and the findings accepted. Unless I’ve missed some law being passed you are calling the constitution nonsense again.

Think I’ll leave this thread. People are too intrentched to even consider anything they don’t want to hear.

Like I say we’ll see.

You claimed that the 52/48 figure was some sort of remain stitch up because if you do it at a constituency level leave have a lot more constituencies. It’s the ‘this has been done to make remain look better’ i’m pointing out as the nonsense.

[summitclaret]

I don't think she will take mv3 anytime soon. It looks like her only chance is an 11 april choice between May's deal and no deal and if Labour don't back her deal then they will be responsible for no deal.