Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:13 PM

I'll bet he can spell Steptoe properly though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:53 PM

One minute she's trying to smear Corbyn over the dead antisemitism bollix, next minute she's saying how disappointed she is that she couldn't persuade him to toady along with her. Why is this bloody harridan still our prime minister?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 07:06 PM

Gracie Field's 1932 classic deserves updating. "He's dead but he won't lie down"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:05 AM

It's just a shame that she let two-and-a-half years slip by, and arrived at the last few weeks before 29/3/19, before asking the other parties to take part in the process, and then tries to make political capital because Corbyn is less than enthusiastic. She's a joke, and not even a good one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:38 AM

And, of course, she could get Corbyn involved very easily, by declaring that there will be no 'No-Deal Brexit' and doing whatever is necessary to extend A50. But, whereas Corbyn has acted in the interests of the countryi n order to try to prevent the likelihood of the undeniable disaster of Hard-Brexit, May is trying to use his decision to make Party-political capital.

A perfect example of the perfidy and deceit of May in particular, and her dreadful party in general.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 04:07 AM

Not my work but I wish it was :-)

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, said he wouldn't, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen. She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't. People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to separate arrangements for Northern Ireland when she had promised the DUP she wouldn't. Then the Cabinet agreed a deal but they hadn't, and David Davis who was Brexit Secretary but wasn't said it wasn't what people had voted for and he couldn't support what he had just supported and left. Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary. People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not. Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote. Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either as Olly Robbins is. Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been. At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more. The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal which nobody wants is still possible (even though we know we can just say we are not leaving), and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic. And of course as expected she loses. Some people are talking about a managed no-deal which is not a deal but is not no-deal either.
Thank goodness for strong and stable government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 04:42 AM

Wish it was mine too, Dave! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 05:03 AM

I can't disagree with the critiscism levelled at the Prime Minister but the fact of her being bad does not make Jeremy Corbyn good. Immeadiately after the meaningful vote he said that Labour's position was clear. If the Labour Party have a clear policy on Brexit then I better look under the sofa and see if I can find it.

Both May's and Corbyn's styles are similar:- say as little of substance as you can get away with in the hope that you won't get the blame in the future and, once you have found a phrase that seems to work, repeat it as a mantra. I'm sure that Theresa May has tried her best and that Jeremy Corbyn is a man of principle but neither of them are strong leaders.

DC

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

I don't think there is much to disagree with there Doug but there is one thing that you have not factored in. May has been given the opportunity and has failed miserably. Corbyn has not yet had the opportunity. He could prove to be as bad but I doubt it and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unlike brexit we could always change our minds after 5 years anyway :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 09:48 AM

Jeremy Corbyn has made it absolutely clear that no-deal must not be an option. Theresa May is desperate to keep it ON the table, because she thinks that will give her blackmailing leverage to get people on board with her already-failed deal. She is playing dice with the public interest by so doing and we should applaud Corbyn for seeing through her ugly ploy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 01:03 PM

According to the Independent, the UK government is calling up reservists to help in the case of crashing out of the EU. They are to help with issues including wealth, health and security. The Daily Mail says they will be on standby in the streets in case of civil unrest. It seems that such unrest is seen as a possible outcome of shortages.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 01:34 PM

Yes, we know there might be some hardship in the short term....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:32 PM

Doug, Jeremy's position is quite clear. It is to remain in the Customs Union and be closely aligned with the Single Market, although not in it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:57 PM

I'm voting for it too...#hardremain :-) :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 03:07 PM

Posted by a friend just now on his FB Page...

"Take back control" they said, "Return decision making to Parliament" they said. Oh the irony! Sophocles himself couldn't have written it.

Sums it up perfectly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 07:19 PM

Terrible Question Time. A greasy little Toryboy and Isabel Effin' Oakeshott. A dreadful antediluvian audience, and Fiona trying way too hard. We've got nowhere.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 07:49 PM

Why, oh why, do they keep wheeling the harridan Oakeshott out, with her rabid far-right views, when they could give us the far more intelligent, balanced, and absolutely delicious, Isabel Hardman?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 08:12 PM

I agree, John. She's lovely but she appears to be shagging the execrable John Woodcock, he of Iain's "now there goes an honest MP" ilk...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 08:25 PM

Oh bugger, I thought Isabel (or Issi, as she likes me to call her) was saving herself for me! :-) ;-)

And to abandon me for the slime-ball Woodcock! Oh the betrayal!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 09:18 PM

"I've said it before and I'll say it again...'Democracy simply doesn't work." "

The Simpsons

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 09:33 PM

Never mind, John. As for me, I'm sure that the exceptionally lovely Lucy Worsley has me in her sights...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:07 AM

Every time I see Oakenshot it is a good clue how things were going to go. I thought her reponse to the "must we go vegan" queatuon right at the end was interesting. How she thinks we must move to quality meat where we keep eating it, and how the animal welfare is so close to her heart...


Fits so well with free trade with Trump, does it not?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:18 AM

I should perhaps also say I find Rory Stewart to be one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic Tories. There are plenty a lot worse than him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:10 AM

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-january-2019/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:39 AM

Most unlike you to post a poll saying Labour is ahead of the Conservatives.

As for supporting a second referendum, that is more subtle than the straightforward numbers suggest. I (and some others on here) do not support a second referendum. But I do think it better than some other alternatives. So to really find out what is the preference you with have to have a whole series of queations of the form "If your only choice was X or Y, which would you prefer?" Either that or rank the options first, second, third etc (which is logically equivalent if, but only if, people are consistent.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:47 AM

I like Emelia Fox.

Do you think she is a real forensic pathologist?

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:08 AM

From the Express poll:

"On the issue of a second referendum, most people want the 2016 Referendum to be respected (53%)..."

When I read stuff like this (and it applies to several other questions in the poll) I scratch me head wondering what the question was that might have been put. "Do you want to respect or disrespect...?" "Do you or do you not want to respect...?"

Respect in what way? The way it was organised? The campaigns? The way the bar was set low? The result? The people who voted the opposite way to you? The fact that a referendum was called at all? I mean, I like the idea that the poll put Labour slightly ahead, etc., but I think I need to know a bit more before I can respect this poll!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:21 AM

I agree with DMcG about another referendum. (A) I don't agree with referendums at all, (B) I can't think of a good, fair way of posing the right question, (C) the result will be divisive and quite likely will resolve nothing, (D) I can't see the campaign being any less dishonest than last time, (E) listening to the vox pops that the Beeb employs as cheap telly non-news, and the ignorance of Question Time audiences, etc., on show, I despair of the British public ever being able to make a fair, balanced and measured decision on this complex matter. Other than that, he may be right in that it could be the only way out of this morass...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:35 AM

That's three on'us then. And, in my case, for precisely the same reasons.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:42 AM

It has been said a lot by Brexiteers that we have to agree another deal under legislation to change that. It is not true, of course. We do have to have legislation, but that does not have to be a deal.

Here is an idea I have been mulling over 'the DMcG backstop.' We agree in legislation to ask the EU for an extension to allow us to run a referendum in 12 months time unless we agree a deal in the interim. Any deal we bring to to EU will already have been approved for that purpose by Parliament. If we fail to agree such a deal either within Parliament or with the EU the referendum happens. Otherwise it is does not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:46 AM

..to change the March 29th date..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 10:49 AM

A live report:

Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has said that other countries are to blame for the fact that the UK does not have alternative trade deals ready by 29 March to replace the existing 40 EU ones that will lapse if the UK leaves without a deal. Asked about this revelation in today’s Financial Times (see 10.57am), he said:

[The agreements are] not just dependent on the UK. Our side is ready. It is largely dependent on whether other countries believe that there will be no deal, and are willing to put the work into the preparations.



Unbelievable. At least it would be were it not for "I didn't understand Dover" Raab, "Who needs boats?" Grayling and so many others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Here is more on 'No Deal'. I don't have any solutions, but turkeys and Xmas come to mind.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Cost-of-No-Deal-Revisted.pdf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Liam Fox is obviously a very important person, and it shows clearly that the rest of the world are either too useless and incompetent to give Fox what he wants, or they are deliberately disobeying the British Master race, which if this is the case their nationals living in the UK should be severely punished.

Alternatively, Tory supporting idiots should grow up and realise that the rest of the world aren't going to subjugate themselves to British excrement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 11:58 AM

I have the answer. All we have to do is to persuade the Republic of Ireland to leave the EU at the same time as us and there would be no need for a backstop or a hard border. Problem solved!
?;-)

DC

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 12:02 PM

I have heard Brexit supporters suggest that in all seriousness, Doug. No doubt they think it might be a good idea if the Republic joined the UK as well...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 12:11 PM

Even simpler, cut Northern Ireland loose from Great Britain. Then it's up to them to decide whether they'd sooner be off on their own, link up with the rest of Ireland, or something in between.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 12:38 PM

"No doubt they think it might be a good idea if the Republic joined the UK as well..."
Been there - done that
Didn't work out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 01:17 PM

"No doubt they think it might be a good idea if the Republic joined the UK as well..."
Been there - done that"

Don't think so!   The Republic If Ireland has never been part of the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:30 PM

Ignore, Jim. Absolument not worth it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

"Ignore, Jim. Absolument not worth it."
Sorted Steve - but thanks for the thought
(What's absolument?)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:35 PM

Goddit
"D'une manière absolue.
Il veut absolument vous voir."
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:37 PM

Question time yesterday
I recommend the comments section.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:46 PM

Boris Johnson would be amazed if the EU could not be got to drop the backstop ( and falsely claims not to have mentioned Turkey in campaigning).


PS 1801 "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:49 PM

Rather good article in Mirror on Johnson's attitudes to foreigners, different cultures,

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/7-reasons-boris-johnson-probably-8416540

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:55 PM

allez to franglais, c'est absolutement la language de les deues.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: keberoxu
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 04:01 PM

les whos?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 04:05 PM

pardonnez-moi - les dieus - obviousleyment

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 05:05 PM

P.S. Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Effective 1949.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 05:51 PM

And despite assurances, May is thinking of doing away with the Human Rights Act. Yep, we're sure getting rid of all that leftie regulation.