nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i agree. the truth is of little importance at this stage.
this is trench warfare

Yes, but it is very one sided. Cummings and the hard brexiter tories are playing right from the bannon playbook in which there are no consequences for deceit (which is why it is hard just to let johnson go free from the letter scandal). While the likes of amber rudd just flock back to the fold and help prop them up. A lot of moderate tories will have much to answer for when this is done i believe.

Itssoeasy

On RTÉ radio 1, it's been reported that the Northern Ireland AG is at stormont and there are reports that he will try to introduce a protection of life bill. In fairness the RTE Northern reporter is being clear he's not sure how exactly that could happen.

Letwin_Larry

Hurrache wrote: »

Re the assembly and the DUP rushing to try prevent laws that would have kept them in keeping with their beloved union, is there a quorum required before it's recognised as "sitting"? The SDLP aren't going to turn up, nor are SF I presume, so I reckon the laws will go ahead regardless of their pathetic attempt. I know they need a speaker elected, agreed by both sides, so I assume that's the safety.

does anybody care what that lot does or doesn't do? so long as they are not murdering each other leave them to it.

CrabRevolution

Hurrache wrote: »

Re the assembly and the DUP rushing to try prevent laws that would have kept them in keeping with their beloved union, is there a quorum required before it's recognised as "sitting"? The SDLP aren't going to turn up, nor are SF I presume, so I reckon the laws will go ahead regardless of their pathetic attempt. I know they need a speaker elected, agreed by both sides, so I assume that's the safety.

Stormont can only operate on a cross community basis, so there's no chance of the crowd showing up today in Stormont having any legal standing. Otherwise there was nothing to stop the DUP taking the wheel and going on a solo run for the last 2 years since Sinn Féin pulled out.

They know this well though and are only pulling the stunt for the optics.

Hurrache

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

does anybody care what that lot does or doesn't do? so long as they are not murdering each other leave them to it.

Yes, I do.

Hurrache

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Stormont can only operate on a cross community basis, so there's no chance of the crowd showing up today in Stormont having any legal standing. Otherwise there was nothing to stop the DUP taking the wheel and going on a solo run for the last 2 years since Sinn Féin pulled out.

They know this well though and are only pulling the stunt for the optics.

I agree on the last statement, their support will lap it up.

But as Itssoeasy posts, the AG up there is believed to make some moves to introduce a law to prevent the abortion law. However how he can bypass the law makers in order to do so I don't know.

Zubeneschamali

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

but the letter WAS sent and the EU HAS accepted his letter as being sufficient. this is just another needless distraction.

The Benn act also states that the PM must accept an extension to the 31/01/2020 if offered, and if a different date is offered, he must accept that if Parliament vote for it.

So he has not met all his obligations yet.

Letwin_Larry

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Benn act also states that the PM must accept an extension to the 31/01/2020 if offered, and if a different date is offered, he must accept that if Parliament vote for it.

So he has not met all his obligations yet.

thank you. i did not fully appreciate that he had to accept the extension if given.
looks like the Germans are in favour of an extension. cant see why any member would object now after all this.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

thank you. i did not fully appreciate that he had to accept the extension if given.
looks like the Germans are in favour of an extension. cant see why any member would object now after all this.

Elmer Brok was on rte yesterday saying very clearly they want to see a major development - he specifically mentioned referendum at least 3 or 4 times - so seems they are waiting a few days to see what emerges before deciding if short or long extension is required. Brok is supposedly close to merkel which is why what he says might be significant.

hometruths

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

thank you. i did not fully appreciate that he had to accept the extension if given.
looks like the Germans are in favour of an extension. cant see why any member would object now after all this.

I think Johnson is hoping his leverage comes from the fact the Benn Act does not oblige him to negotiate the detail of an extension. Yes he has to ask for it, (done) and yes he has to accept it if offered.

But if the reply from the EU is "You have wasted two extensions already, we need you to explain what you need another one for, is it a GE or a second referendum or what? Give us some detail etc etc."

Nothing in the Benn Act stops Johnson from replying "No idea, more of the same I guess, more time for Parliament to mess about, if you grant an extension they'll probably just ask you for another one in January."

trellheim

Commons business for the day is up

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201920/cmagenda/OP191021.pdf

Defence questions, then a speakers statement on whether MV can go ahead I presume listen in from 3:30 onwards

Joe_ Public

trellheim wrote: »

Commons business for the day is up

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201920/cmagenda/OP191021.pdf

Defence questions, then a speakers statement on whether MV can go ahead I presume listen in from 3:30 onwards

90 minutes to debate the bill. I'm sure mps will be impressed by that! But i figure they will let it through today to get onto second stage where the real fun starts!

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1186254427532988417

I don't condone that behaviour but what do they expect?

They are trying to overturn the result of the referendum through obstruction and process schenadigans. That's only the beginning if they succeed.

They act surprised that people are going to be angry.

Letwin_Larry

schmittel wrote: »

I think Johnson is hoping his leverage comes from the fact the Benn Act does not oblige him to negotiate the detail of an extension. Yes he has to ask for it, (done) and yes he has to accept it if offered.

But if the reply from the EU is "You have wasted two extensions already, we need you to explain what you need another one for, is it a GE or a second referendum or what? Give us some detail etc etc."

Nothing in the Benn Act stops Johnson from replying "No idea, more of the same I guess, more time for Parliament to mess about, if you grant an extension they'll probably just ask you for another one in January."

that makes sense. i was wondering if the EU had to accept BoJo's acceptance, but was afraid to ask. the whole thing would become daft. (many will argue it already has!).
the German foreign minister is inclined to grant one.

Guardian is reporting that the Govt. might pull his meaningful vote if opposition amendments are granted, as that would render it "meaningless".

VinLieger

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1186254427532988417

I don't condone that behaviour but what do they expect?

They are trying to overturn the result of the referendum through obstruction and process schenadigans. That's only the beginning if they succeed.

They act surprised that people are going to be angry.

Conversely the other side are trying to force through the result of a referendum achieved with lies and illegal actions that has no legally binding requirement to be enacted, not to mention nobody can agree on which version of the result is what everyone voted for.

Do you expect people to lie down and let their rights and jobs be stripped from them without standing up for themselves?

Also you want to talk about obstruction and process shenanigans? Have you forgotten the government illegally proroguing parliament?

They were elected to represent their constituents which is what they are doing and is literally the definition of parliamentary sovereignty that brexiteers claim so much to be concerned with.

You claim to not condone their behaviour yet your argument of "what do they expect?" apologising for the brexiteers behaviour is the classic definition of blaming the victim.

A Dub in Glasgo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1186254427532988417

I don't condone that behaviour but what do they expect?

They are trying to overturn the result of the referendum through obstruction and process schenadigans. That's only the beginning if they succeed.

They act surprised that people are going to be angry.

What is wrong with a simple condemnation of the folk shouting abuse? Cherry is an MP and also a QC and the Government is being held to account by her actions. It is not her fault most of the Tories are shysters

BarryD2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1186254427532988417

I don't condone that behaviour but what do they expect?

They are trying to overturn the result of the referendum through obstruction and process schenadigans. That's only the beginning if they succeed.

They act surprised that people are going to be angry.

Try contrasting the small mobs of angry right wing headbangers with the massive marches of people calling for a different approach. This minority Tory government is not only flying in the face of it's own citizens but also it's own parliament. It's the ultimate tail wagging the dog.

Tea Shock

I don't know why they're talking on Sky News about sitting again on Saturday, maybe even Sunday, maybe thru the night if they have to.

It's normal working hours now, more than half the day is gone and they've done fooc all yet!

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

I agree on the last statement, their support will lap it up.

Well as we all knew...
https://twitter.com/naomi_long/status/1186269267471323141

Duane Dibbley

BarryD2 wrote: »

Try contrasting the small mobs of angry right wing headbangers with the massive marches of people calling for a different approach. This minority Tory government is not only flying in the face of it's own citizens but also it's own parliament. It's the ultimate tail wagging the dog.

Can you expand on this?

Nody

Found this by random but it really fits with UK's reliance on traditions after all and they all do have a beginning...

https://twitter.com/julianpopov/status/1185664196178042880

Kermit.de.frog

BarryD2 wrote: »

Try contrasting the small mobs of angry right wing headbangers with the massive marches of people calling for a different approach.

The reason leavers are not marching like that is because they won. And they rightly expect the result will be carried out.

Remainers are desperate, they don't accept the result and hence they are more motivated.

jimmycrackcorm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Elmer Brok was on rte yesterday saying very clearly they want to see a major development - he specifically mentioned referendum at least 3 or 4 times - so seems they are waiting a few days to see what emerges before deciding if short or long extension is required. Brok is supposedly close to merkel which is why what he says might be significant.

Just as we've known for so long that a working deal required a sea border, we all know that ultimately the correct way to resolve this is to now put the clear cut options to the people to vote in order of preference.

A GE is not a democratic way to resolve this, as witnessed in the last by-election where the combined leave vote was higher than remain yet it was a lib-dem remainer that won because of a split tory / BP vote.

The FPTP voting system is clearly unfit to represent people's wishes whether its to remain or leave.

Christy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The reason leavers are not marching like that is because they won. And they rightly expect the result will be carried out.

Remainers are desperate, they don't accept the result and hence they are more motivated.

I mean the leave MPs voted against May's deal which would have pulled them out of the EU. And many leavers were against it in spite of it honouring the result. Others seem to be pro leave but against no deal. Some seem in favour of this current deal. Quite frankly it seems to be a mess. Maybe they should ask people what they meant by leave since the leavers are putting in as much effort blocking the UK from leaving the EU as the remainers are!

I feel like the issue is they all seem to expect their wishes to be carried out except they all have different wishes!

jimmycrackcorm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The reason leavers are not marching like that is because they won. And they rightly expect the result will be carried out.

Remainers are desperate, they don't accept the result and hence they are more motivated.

If they won then why didn't the ERG accept May's deal and the UK would have left by now.

Should the ERG / TM /DUP not be blamed for blocking Brexit?

Nody

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The reason leavers are not marching like that is because they won. And they rightly expect the result will be carried out.

Remainers are desperate, they don't accept the result and hence they are more motivated.

You mean the vote that was proven to have had illegal funding, illegal influencing and would not have stand the test of courts except for it not being legally binding? With lies repeated through out the whole campaign? That's the vote you're talking about right? Yea, I can't see how anyone would not accept that vote as iron clad and once off only; esp. as the Tories made such huge strides backing leaving as the only option in the following GE. Clearly there is nothing here to discuss at all.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The reason leavers are not marching like that is because they won. And they rightly expect the result will be carried out.

Remainers are desperate, they don't accept the result and hence they are more motivated.

At what point does Brexit become a bad idea? Or can this never happen?

Joe_ Public

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Just as we've known Di so long that a working deal required a sea border, e all know that ultimately the correct way to resolve this is to now put the clear cut options to the people to vote in order of preference.

A GE is not a democratic way to resolve this, as witnessed in the last by-election where the combined leave vote was higher than remain yet it was a lib-dem remainer that won because of a split tory / BP vote.

The FPTP voting system is clearly unfit to represent people's wishes whether its to remain or leave.

Lot of people agree with that position, some dont. On a practical level, question is can a referendum amendment pass the parliament? Very debatable as things stand and not likely the pm will help facilitate it.

Dytalus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The reason leavers are not marching like that is because they won. And they rightly expect the result will be carried out.

Remainers are desperate, they don't accept the result and hence they are more motivated.

I wouldn't necessarily say they "don't accept it" (although for a variety of sketchy actions by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns, I'd say it's fair if they didn't). Had Ireland voted against SSM in our referendum, I'd have 'accepted' it in so far as "yup, vote happened, I lost."

I'm not suddenly going to think it's ok that SSM is illegal and would have continued to campaign to have it changed - calling for another referendum. If enough of the public change their mind, there absolutely should be a round two.

I used to be of the view of: the vote happened, absolutely they should Leave under anything that qualifies as leaving the EU - whether that's the EEA, No Deal, Canada+, or whatever. Their fault for not making it specific, but any of those qualify as "leaving the EU". But the two major campaigning forces for the Leave vote were, at best, unethical in their actions - and seems likely they actually broke the law. It's been 3 years. New information has come to light, they've had an elections, there's a new EU Parliament.

I'd say the circumstances have changed enough from 2016 to justify "redoing it" in the same way we "redid" our referendum on divorce when things changed. If it were still 2017, and none of the illegal activities of the Leave campaign had come to light, I'd have agreed "they voted leave, they'll have to accept whatever leave they're able to get". Things have changed since then.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The reason leavers are not marching like that is because they won. And they rightly expect the result will be carried out.

We don't know they are right to expect that, and I am not sure how many actually do expect that. I have seen lots of Leavers say that they expect the Elite/EU will prevent Brexit from ever happening.

I'd say many would be relieved to be able to go back to harmlessly complaining instead of gazing into the actual abyss of Brexit, as long as they don't have to admit they were reckless.