Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:07 AM

From today's Guardian:
I once read an account of the late Eric Heffer MP having a row in a meeting held in an oak-panelled room. Eric decided to storm out. He got up, walked round the room, pushing hard on a succession of identical oak panels, none of which proved to be the exit. His indignation abating as his frustration mounted, Eric turned round, walked back to his chair, and rejoined the meeting with the immortal words: “Bugger it, I might as well stay.” We now look to parliament to emulate Eric’s good sense.
Emeritus Professor Glyn Turton
Baildon, West Yorkshire

I think that about nails where we've got to...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:44 AM

But my post is on topic. Yours most definitely is not!

troll: a person who sows discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, off-topic messages

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:41 AM

It sounds like you agree QT should not have claimed Dianne Abbott was inaccurate when she saiad the polls showed the parties as more or less level.

I suspect the train tickets are arranged and paid for by the BBC for all panellists, but I don't know for certain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:39 AM

Ignore, chaps. That's a troll post.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:11 AM

When various polls show both parties running neck and neck, then to make any meaningful interpretation merely displays a woeful lack of knowledge as to the accuracy of polling.

More serious a question is: why was the Abbacus riding first class to question time?
Is the champagne socialist afraid to associate with the proles?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:59 AM

Back to the topic of the thread....

I found this rather amusingly-written piece this morning, can't give attribution as there was none on the original which I copied, but it made me think about the innately invincible humour of the Brit - that at a time of the biggest crisis in our democracy since WW2, we can still 'see the funny side' of the completely unnecessary bollocks-up that BrexShit, in the hands of a bunch of Tory incompetents and crooks, has been since Day One...

Apologies if it's been put on here before, but I'm not going to trawl through >2!000 posts to check...

"BREXIT; THE STORY SO FAR.

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, didn’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 stayed in power by paying the DUP to agree with her. The DUP wanted to leave the EU but the people of NI wanted to remain. 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 things 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 lost.

Some people are talking about a managed no-deal which is not a deal but is not managed either. When asked, our MP’s voted that they had confidence in her when they haven’t and said that we can’t have a Corbyn government because it would be chaotic and be bad for the country. Corbyn complained that May hadn’t asked for his views but when she did he said he wouldn’t talk because she is intransigent. There are 10 weeks left before it will all be sorted at the last minute. Or not......"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:07 AM

A bit of a pointless spat about polls, given that I think we all know they can be unreliable. But only a day or two ago Iains linked to a recent poll in the Express showing Labour a few points ahead of Conservatives. The link is available to every poster on this thread, and is to a recent poll and that stated lead has been mentioned on at least two subsequent posts.

More serious than a poll is the question of whether Diane Abbott was being treated unfairly. That is important, both individually and politically.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

Perhaps it's not just Steve being a twat (although that is possible).
In The Guardian report on abuse of Diane Abbott on Question Time Here The Guardian states: Question Time and other BBC current affairs programmes have become a lightning rod for claims of media bias against Labour, with the corporation repeatedly forced to defend aspects of its presentation of political topics.
The Momentum campaign group launched a petition demanding the BBC apologise after Bruce backed claims that Labour was behind in the opinion polls.
The Momentum petition referred to an exchange where panellist Isabel Oakeshott said that Labour were "way behind in the polls" and Abbott replied that "we are kind of level-pegging" before Bruce said that Labour were "definitely" behind. But recent polling has found the two parties roughly neck and neck.
But the included link is to poll results in November 2018 Here

It seems that The Guardian can make statements about the current situation, but is unable to link to suitably supporting data. Just like Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:28 PM

Do not try to twat around with me, Niglet. The information you "require" is available on the Guardian website, the Beeb website and mo'. Go for it, boy. It's all out there. And don't be so bloody lazy.

No, you didn't mention The Guardian, just "most recent polls".
I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on. If you can't provide the details then I'll guess that you are plucking figures out of thin air.

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

Yup.

I gave her a bye on her first week, but, bejaysus, not only was she trying too hard last night and butting ignorantly in as often as possible, she was also showing her right-wing bias big time. Not to speak of her ill-informedness (have I just made up a word?). Read the news nicely and stick to antiques, Fiona.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:13 PM

Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

I'd ask the several presenters at Fux "News"[sic], Steve.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:11 PM

Do not try to twat around with me, Niglet. The information you "require" is available on the Guardian website, the Beeb website and mo'. Go for it, boy. It's all out there. And don't be so bloody lazy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:53 PM

Further to my post of 7.19pm yesterday, in which I blustered about how awful Question Time was this week, I note that Momentum (which I've persistently refused to become a member of, by the way) has complained to the BBC about the treatment of Diane Abbott, both before the programme in the warm-up and in the exchanges involving Diane, Isabel Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce concerning opinion polls. Oakeshott and Bruce, wildly incorrectly, asserted that Labour were trailing badly in the polls, which they are not. As Diane said, Labour is, according to most recent polls, level-pegging with the Tories. But she was ridiculed and shouted down after lies were told by Oakeshott and Bruce. Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

Can you just confirm what polls you are relying on for this statement?
Also the expression "most recent polls". Is this 'the majority of recent polls' or 'the most-recent' of available polls. The expression the most recent polls has two clear, and different meanings.
A quick google gives the Conservatives a good lead: YouGov
I'm not stating that you are wrong, just asking what is the basis for your claims.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:36 PM

Further to my post of 7.19pm yesterday, in which I blustered about how awful Question Time was this week, I note that Momentum (which I've persistently refused to become a member of, by the way) has complained to the BBC about the treatment of Diane Abbott, both before the programme in the warm-up and in the exchanges involving Diane, Isabel Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce concerning opinion polls. Oakeshott and Bruce, wildly incorrectly, asserted that Labour were trailing badly in the polls, which they are not. As Diane said, Labour is, according to most recent polls, level-pegging with the Tories. But she was ridiculed and shouted down after lies were told by Oakeshott and Bruce. Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 06:02 PM

I've heard so much bollix-talk about the backstop this week. The bottom line is that we can't decide unilaterally to end it. We can't decide to put a time limit on it. This is not the EU "dictating" to us or cutting up rough. The backstop is a mutual agreement between an EU country and a non-EU country. It can't be one-sided either in its implementation, its duration or its termination. If we don't mutually agree to it, there's no backstop and there's a hard border. We can't put a legal condition on ending it. And it can't be ended until we strike a final trade deal with the EU. Sensible people would sit down to ensure that that happens, negating the need for a backstop, but hands up anyone here who thinks that sensible people are dealing with this. The way some of these Tory brexiteers use the backstop as the big dealbreaker is totally dishonest. They constantly try to blame the EU for our woes. Thing is, chaps, we started it...

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.

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: peteglasgow
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 04:05 PM

pardonnez-moi - les dieus - obviousleyment

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 - 03:55 PM

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

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: 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: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:37 PM

Question time yesterday
I recommend the comments section.

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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:30 PM

Ignore, Jim. Absolument not worth it.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:46 AM

..to change the March 29th date..

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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.