Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Feeling incredibly sorry for the average uk citizen. Not a single politician has their interests at heart. In fact any that do will be out of a job. It's all about the MPs themselves and their own agendas. I don't buy that it takes 6 months to hold a referendum. Not good enough in this day and age. Honestly, it looks like the EU dragged them along and contributed to their success. Left to their own devices.. don't hold out much hope for the uk.

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Feeling incredibly sorry for the average uk citizen. Not a single politician has their interests at heart. In fact any that do will be out of a job. It's all about the MPs themselves and their own agendas. I don't buy that it takes 6 months to hold a referendum. Not good enough in this day and age. Honestly, it looks like the EU dragged them along and contributed to their success. Left to their own devices.. don't hold out much hope for the uk.

You seem very hung up on this. It's been explained to you a number of times. It takes at least as long here. Referendums are not a bit like elections. They don't happen often and they require special legislation. Just look how long it takes a bill to go through both houses and committee stages. Six months is quite quick tbh.

VinLieger wrote:

Bit too far left for my liking tbh

Is that not the biggest issue. Corbyn would if he was in Ireland be leading PBP or another communist group.


However in the UK he leads the main opposition party. That people would vote for a hard no deal brexit ie Johnson before Corbyn is a massive indictment against him and the Labour Party in general. Nevermind that while the Tories have torn themselves apart he has sat on the bench even when dealing with a lame duck PM as May was for a long time. The issue for remainers is that their vote will be split between a few parties, while leave there is only really 2 Tories or BP. Which is better under first past the post.

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1168524451861979137

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I think that it was a message to the many Labour MPs representing Leave constituencies to let them know that if they support the Bill they might be explaining their actions to sceptical constituents. Boris would also like the first vote to see which Tories vote against him so that they can be deselected before the election.

The risk of deselection is that the incumbent could stand as an independent. Of course they are not guaranteed to be successful, but they could still possibly garner considerable personal support. Depending of course on who they are. The likes of Rory Stewart, David Gauke, Philip Hammond etc. spring to mind.

kuro68k wrote: »

So frustrating that Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and all the other remain leaning parties can't get their act together. If there is a GE then they need to beat Boris who will be standing on a platform of delivering brexit no matter what, nullifying the BP vote.

They need unity to win.

What about the recent by-election in Brecon and Radnoshire? The Lib Dems overturned a 8000 vote majority and they worked together with other parties to achieve this. I believe that the Better For Britain campaign has been working hard to ensure the parties that support no-deal and remain actually work together and don't crumble and take away from their own votes likes they did in the EU elections.

Heidi Allen has also been active to ensure no-deal will not become a reality and while she was a Tory, she speaks a lot of sense. I think there will be a campaign to at least ensure Johnson doesn't get a majority for no-deal.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Benn's bill above requests an extension to January 31st. I think the EU will offer only a longer extension, time for something to actually happen in Westminster, like 12 more months.

I saw a lot of chatter that this was the most they could possibly ask for and get support from those Labour MPs in leave areas and Tory rebels.


As for the election, Corbyn still has time to turn this around for Labour. It really doesn't matter how bad we think he has been, the determining factor for Labour will be what is in the manifesto and what is says on Brexit. We know he is a very capable campaigner so if the party is able to scratch together a decent Brexit plan, I am sure their plans on the other important issue will easily beat whatever plans Johnson will come up with.

I don't know how many of you guys seen this but I think it's the closest someone has come to dismantling the lies, propaganda and fairy tails propogated by Jacob Rees Mogg in this campaign. Dr. David Nicholl, the clinician involved in writing the government's own Brexit mitigation plan has rung in to LBC to ask Jacob “What level of mortality rate are you willing to accept in the light of a no-deal Brexit?”

Visibly angry, Mogg replies with something a child would spout:

“I think it’s deeply irresponsible Dr Nicholl of you to call in and try to spread fear across the country. It’s typical of Remainer campaigners to try and you should be quite ashamed, I’m afraid.”

Interestingly the doctor also accused Gove of lying about the Yellowhammer papers saying that they weren't worst case scenarios at all.

18 minutes in.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Would that be the arch brexiteer who now wants a second referendum?

I don't believe that Corbyn wants the UK to crash out, but I'm not convinced that he really wants a second referendum either. He's hummed and hawed on the idea so long that support of it now smacks of him and his team having crunched the numbers on what course of action would mitigate the electoral cost to Labour rather than what his principles re:Europe are. It's a big problem for him and Labour considering his traditional voter base in the North of England is staunchly pro-Leave.

McGiver wrote: »

Tech note - neither CH nor NO are in the CU. That's why EFTA have somewhat independent trade policy and their own FTAs.
NI Backstop would be needed even if they went the Norway route.

Staying in CU and SM is a nonsense, it would make zero sense for UK (no independent trade policy, limited regulatory power, no representation in EU legislative, SM access payments, adherence to 4 freedoms).

Ah yeah, I should have given Turkey as an example for being in the CU. But technically speaking, leaving the EU is anything from just leaving the institutions to all the way to full crash out. I wasn't suggesting it would make sense, just how simplistic the referendum question was or how broad a mandate it gave the government.

Sounds accurate:-

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1168603978063581186?s=19

"The Prime Minister seems to be doing everything he can to bring about an election, while claiming it's the last thing he wants"

They would be classed as Ind on the ballot paper, wouldn't have time to register as a political party.

The letter that John Redwood wrote to Geoffrey Cox last year, detailing his issues with the negotiated withdrawal agreement. Was this a cogent breakdown of a draconian deal or fussing over points that underpinned an orderly transition period?