Brexit #2

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: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:57 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 04:42 AM

Wish it was mine too, Dave! :-)

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:13 PM

I'll bet he can spell Steptoe properly though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:10 PM

Is that the backward man? What a jolly good idea! Meanwhile steptowe senior has made a fine spectacle of himself.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 03:44 PM

Just ignore him chaps. You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:42 PM

Not a fan of Tom Watson, but he made a good speech which stuck to the topic of the debate, and laid bare the abject failures of May and her government. It's a pity the same can't be said of the Slithy Gove who seemed to be very confused and under the misapprehension that the subject of the debate was the leader of the opposition.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

Esteemed Teribus?

You mean the man who's postings proved so abhorrent he was banned from posting as a member.

You really pick some choice people don't you.

Right back to Brexit. The government unsurprisingly has survived the no confidence vote. Those turkeys decided not to vote for Christmas.

The next few days and weeks will no doubt see even more turmoil within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:04 PM

Gove speaking now - deflection, deflection, deflection. The wreath-laying incident now. Have I missed something? I thought the debate and vote was about confidence in the Tory government? They're desperate, and deflection is all they've got.

On a point of order, Teribus is not 'esteemed' by anyone here except, apparently, Iains. And, of course, displays of self--worship demonstrate a lack of class.. Stooping lower than we would have expected of you, Teribiains.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:56 PM

An honest MP? I suggest you look into how he dishonestly breached parliament rules, and misused nearly £2000 of public money that furthered a campaign which was beneficial to his re-election chances. He was elected as a Labour MP then decided to sit as an independent, thus cheating the people who thought they were voting for a Labour government. There's a bit more murk around him too, yet to be resolved. I wouldn't buy a used car off him, that's for sure. I doubt whether Teribus would either.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:43 PM

He is mistaken. As I say, the question before the House he is being asked to vote on is whether he has confidence in the government. A decision whether Labour and Corbyn is elected if it comes to it belongs to the whole public. It is not his to decide.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:37 PM

Ex Labour MP John Woodcock:
"With a heavy heart I have to tell the House that I cannot support the no confidence motion tonight. Some of my friends mutter disgrace, I hear some of them tutting, I have to say that many of them have privately said “Thank God that you have got the freedom to actually not support this”. Because they are wrestling with their consciences of wanting definitely a Labour Government, knowing that the leader of their party is as unfit to lead the country as he was when they voted against him in the no confidence motion of the party those years ago."

There speaks an honest MP!
(A cousin of the esteemed Teribus, Mayhap?)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:21 PM

"reduce the time available to discuss Brexit"

For crying out Nigel your mob have had over two and a half years to discuss Brexit and to date have achieved next to bugger all.

This situation is down to the Conservative and Unionist party and them alone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:20 PM

Farage is now saying

the EU would come back with a better Brexit deal within 48 hours if the threat of leaving under WTO rules was delivered to them by a new pro-Leave Prime Minister.

Reported by the Express as a brilliant idea.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:59 PM

"I (and if I read him rightly Steve) think Corbyn did not want to call the confidence vote at this time, because he then has the difficult problem of what he does next. I have heard some comments saying that just because Labour does not get a general election this time, it does not mean they won't on another occasion, so they will stick with the 'try for a general election' strategy. I think that would play very badly with party memebers."

I agree, in fact I don't believe JC actually wants a GE at all - who, in their right mind, would want to take on the absolute crock of shite we've been dropped in by Idiot Boy Camoron, Farage, Bozo, Gove, May, and their terminally fractured Tory Party?

Those cocks made their bed, let the buggers lie in it. With any luck, they'll bugger it up so Royally, they'll render themselves unelectable for generations - they're well on the way to it already.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:46 PM

This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.
I think it's more about whether the conservative MPs want to keep their well-paid jobs. I doubt that many (if any) will vote to say that their own party is incompetent. With the active support of the DUP the vote seems a foregone conclusion.
Any Conservative MP who voted against their own party would likely be de-selected by their constituents for the next election (whenever)

There is a fair amount of truth in that, Nigel, but of course it applies to every confidence vote (on the government), for any party, at any time. There is nothing special about this one, in that respect: self interest is always a significant aspect. Occasionally, an MP 'sniffs the wind' and thinks the movements under way mean that there could be a change of leader/direction coming, and their long prospects at better supporting the new rather than the old, but that is pretty rare.

I (and if I read him rightly Steve) think Corbyn did not want to call the confidence vote at this time, because he then has the difficult problem of what he does next. I have heard some comments saying that just because Labour does not get a general election this time, it does not mean they won't on another occasion, so they will stick with the 'try for a general election' strategy. I think that would play very badly with party memebers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 11:39 AM

This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.
I think it's more about whether the conservative MPs want to keep their well-paid jobs. I doubt that many (if any) will vote to say that their own party is incompetent. With the active support of the DUP the vote seems a foregone conclusion.
Any Conservative MP who voted against their own party would likely be de-selected by their constituents for the next election (whenever)
So the only effect is to give Jeremy Corbyn the chance to say that he tried to do something, and to reduce the available time to discuss Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 11:06 AM

Deflection, DMcG. It's the only form of 'defence' those Tory cockwombles have got.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:39 AM

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic. I just thought I would make that point crystal clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:17 AM

Lots of attacks on Corbyn, with antisemitism raised yet again a minute or two ago.

Reminder: this debate is not about whether Labour would be better. That decision is, at some point, for the electorate to decide, not Parliament. This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:09 AM

Watching Parliament live, some Tory moron has suggested May goes back to the EU and ask them to change the backstop in legally binding ways. Jees.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 08:59 AM

Backwoodsman, yes, foul tactics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 07:21 AM

I can barely believe it! At a time when BrexShit is a disaster, the government has suffered its greatest defeat ever, and she's under the cosh in a Confidence Debate today, that bloody woman has just raised 'Jeremy Corbyn and Labour anti-semitism' again at PMQs!

Standard diversion tactics of the despicable, clueless Tories once again - BrexShit and the government reduced to chaos? "Look over there - Labour anti-semitism!". What a bunch of deceitful dicks this seedy bunch of Tories are.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:25 AM

Rees-Mogg demolished by James O'Brian

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:23 AM

Strange though it might seem, the chances of a no deal and of a second referendum have both increased. That's what happens when other options are eliminated or become less likely.

No deal is hanging its hopes on the fact it can only be stopped by amending legislation, which is true. And that legislation must identify something else to do. But they are wrong in claiming that needs to be a new deal proposal: things like a new referendum or a request for an extension could also do it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:18 AM

Take away the payroll vote of 140, and this means Theresa May had the backing of around 50 Tory backbenchers on the central policy of her government.
Surely the 'central policy' as per the Conservative manifesto is that we will leave the EU. The compromise Mrs May was putting forward would not have got us out, so voting against it was the correct thing to do.
The size of the majority would have been because Brexiteers would vote against it as it is 'BRINO' (Brexit in name only), while Remainers would have voted against it as they do not want Brexit in any form.

All the pundits were projecting that Mrs May would lose. It was only the size of the loss that was surprising.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:17 AM

The Brexit Bollox is front and center in US media.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

The no-confidence motion will be lost. I have a feeling that Corbyn didn't want to call it right now, but was forced into it by May's intimation that she would accept a motion from any party, not just the official opposition (which is the only source of the motion she is obliged to accept). Say the SNP had jumped in with the motion instead of Labour and May had accepted. That would have made Labour look vacillating. She is gambling on winning this and wants it out of the way as quickly as possible, not hanging over her for days. She has good advisers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:37 AM

All this arse-talk brought to mind David Lammy's remark about Jezza's reluctance to call for a people's vote: "If he vacillates and sits on the fence I’m afraid he is going to get splinters in a place he doesn’t want."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:32 AM

Just heard on Victoria Derbyshire's programme that Jacob 'Call Me Jake' Rich-Mong held a champagne reception at his London home last night, for him and his immensely-wealthy chums to celebrate their victory, and the increased likelihood of a 'hard' BrexShit - which, of course, they want in order to escape the new EU Anti-Tax-Dodging regulations due to come in this year.

Once again, the tiny wealthy minority are squaring up to give it straight up the arse to the hoi-polloi.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:02 AM

Does that mean we can now get compensation from higher rate tax payers for the impact of the referendum on stirling, and therefore our pockets?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:43 AM

"Is there a stronger word than hypocrisy? Because that doesn't seem quite adequate."

Three words, actually, one of which I'm sure you and others here might deign use. But I worked in engineering for much of my life, in close contact with the men and women who are the true wealth-creators - the shop-floor workers - and I'm no stranger to, nor squeamish about using, their language. The phrase that immediately springs to mind is 'Self-serving arse-holes'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:11 AM

Take away the payroll vote of 140, and this means Theresa May had the backing of around 50 Tory backbenchers on the central policy of her government.

But now all the Tories in the House of Commons are going to troop through the lobby proclaiming they have full confidence in that government. Is there a stronger word than hypocrisy? Because that doesn't seem quite adequate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 09:06 PM

Bugger. Now that I've mentioned it, I can't resist. I was twelve years old, in the second form of my grammar school. I was sitting in our front room with the telly on, putting off my homework, at half past six on November 22 1963. My dad was still at work, at Burtons in Pendleton, where he was the shop manager. My mum was in the kitchen washing up. The magazine programme Scene At Six Thirty had just started, presented by the much-loved Mike Scott. From his obituary:

While still appearing in a more familiar capacity, as anchorman of the regional news magazine, Scene at 6.30, Scott was the messenger in an historic Granada coup. On November 22 1963, the programme had been on the air five minutes when the telephone rang in the newsroom adjacent to the studio. It was CBS in New York with the tip that President John Kennedy had been shot. There was a rule that individual programme companies should never pre-empt ITN on big news. Denis Forman, the senior Granada executive present, called ITN and was told they were not going to break into the schedules with the story until they had it from their own reporter in America. On the impulse Forman decided to go ahead, and Scott broke the news to northern viewers half-an-hour before it reached the rest of the country.

At twenty-five to seven we knew that Kennedy had been shot. Within half an hour we knew that he was dead.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 08:48 PM

There's a rather weird feeling that, in spite of the alleged historical significance of the day, there isn't actually anything new that anyone can say, including on here. Maybe tomorrow...

I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire
I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up
in his arms and raced through the burning building out to the pavement
And I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames
And when it was all over I said to myself, is that all there is to a fire?

Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is

[Cheers, Peggy]

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 07:17 PM

Very timely with the Stan and Ollie film supplying the verdict.

"Another fine mess you've got us in."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:06 PM

Sorry guys, my error.

In my defence drink has been taken!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:02 PM

I'm just waiting for the reasons why it is nothing to do with brexit! At least they are not going blame it on Jeremy Corbyn...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:00 PM

This possible explanation on the BBC Raggytash   :
""The probability of a no deal has diminished while the chances of a delay in Article 50, a second referendum or even, at the margin, no Brexit at all, have all increased. The consequence of those scenarios has encouraged sterling to rally despite the PM suffering the worst parliamentary result in a century," said Jeremy Stretch of CIBC Capital Markets.""