Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
smileysharad

Brexit!

By smileysharad, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Jimothy

Jimothy

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

This post has been removed

Saturday, 1st January 2000, 8:31 pm
 

This post has been removed because Dominic Cummings told us to.

Fixed it. :thumbup:

Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

No. :nono:

 

The 2-year WTO thing is a statement of fact about the rules that was known pre-referendum......but the Leave side weren't advocating that outcome. They were playing it down, claiming we'd get a great deal after the EU capitulated due to our strong negotiating position, the needs of German car exporters, French wine exporters etc. @Bobby Hundreds is right that they were claiming that it would be "an absolute breeze" to sort out - and there was lots of talk about Norway & Swiss models etc. Only Gove argued openly for a more remote relationship.

 

In reality, Boris' Deal is basically the one that the EU offered to May a year or two back, but which she backed out of due to DUP objections to the border in the Irish Sea. A year ago, Johnson said "no British Conservative Government could or should accept" such a border.....now he's gone and negotiated one! lol

 

Johnson has gone back, begged the EU for May's Reject Deal, shafted the DUP so as to bring his ERG extremists back on board - and proclaimed it a great success.....and Leave voters love it...."greased piglet", as someone else said.

Oh! And he's signed up to pay the divorce settlement in full.....after saying, a couple of years ago, that the EU "could whistle" for any such payment.... lol

You've literally just agreed with me in the first line of your first paragraph? It is a statement of fact that WAS known pre-referendum, so regardless of what the leave side were advocating, it was a known fact that after 2 years if a deal wasn't agreed we'd leave WTO?

Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RoboFox said:

£100m down the shitter. ****ing useless.

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/brexit/government-100m-no-deal-get-ready-for-brexit-advertising-campaign-819592

I fail to see how you can blame this one on the Government. If they'd been no advertising campaign or information out there about exiting, people would claim they wouldn't know what was going on regarding going abroad, the movement between countries etc.

 

Additionally, Boris has obtained a deal, but it's been voted down? It's just easier to blame him for everything at the moment for some people.

Saxondale

Saxondale

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I fail to see how you can blame this one on the Government. If they'd been no advertising campaign or information out there about exiting, people would claim they wouldn't know what was going on regarding going abroad, the movement between countries etc.

The government don't know what's going on.

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

The government don't know what's going on.

You can't blame the government for asking people to get informed about what happens when we leave the EU. Don't forget the EU can pull the plug at any point.

 

If they hadn't done it they'd be crucified for not letting people know.

HappyHamza

HappyHamza

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I fail to see how you can blame this one on the Government. If they'd been no advertising campaign or information out there about exiting, people would claim they wouldn't know what was going on regarding going abroad, the movement between countries etc.

 

Additionally, Boris has obtained a deal, but it's been voted down? It's just easier to blame him for everything at the moment for some people.

The deal hasn't been voted down.  Quite the opposite.  It was voted to the next stage with a majority of 30.

 

His timetable for pushing the bill, relating to 453 pages of documentation,through in 3 days was rejected which led to the current position: Boris refusing to attend parliamentary select committees to be quizzed on his deal, Javid refusing to publish an economic impact assessment, and the government refusing to push the bill forward, instead demanding a general election. If they don't get a general election they're going to go on strike. Whether you believe in brexit or not, the government position is woeful and is really something that everybody should be railing against. They are trying to avoid the bill being scrutinised. 

Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

The deal hasn't been voted down.  Quite the opposite.  It was voted to the next stage with a majority of 30.

 

His timetable for pushing the bill, relating to 453 pages of documentation,through in 3 days was rejected which led to the current position: Boris refusing to attend parliamentary select committees to be quizzed on his deal, Javid refusing to publish an economic impact assessment, and the government refusing to push the bill forward, instead demanding a general election. If they don't get a general election they're going to go on strike. Whether you believe in brexit or not, the government position is woeful and is really something that everybody should be railing against. They are trying to avoid the bill being scrutinised. 

I should have said the timetable has been voted down, my mistake. Hence the 31st October deadline won't now be achieved.

 

Regardless of the timeframe, Corbyn and the majority of Labour aren't going to agree to the deal, even if it was the best thing since sliced bread. This Government has been pretty shit for about 3 years and Corbyn is still over 10 points behind in the polls.

 

 

Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, MattP said:

You can't blame the government for asking people to get informed about what happens when we leave the EU. Don't forget the EU can pull the plug at any point.

 

If they hadn't done it they'd be crucified for not letting people know.

Exactly. This Government can't win, people will just say it's their fault regardless of their position. The same people saying what a waste of money would be the first to say 'why haven't details been published about Brexit' when people get stuck abroad or businesses have forgotten to take extra measures when importing/exporting due to not being properly informed.

Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

The deal hasn't been voted down.  Quite the opposite.  It was voted to the next stage with a majority of 30.

 

His timetable for pushing the bill, relating to 453 pages of documentation,through in 3 days was rejected which led to the current position: Boris refusing to attend parliamentary select committees to be quizzed on his deal, Javid refusing to publish an economic impact assessment, and the government refusing to push the bill forward, instead demanding a general election. If they don't get a general election they're going to go on strike. Whether you believe in brexit or not, the government position is woeful and is really something that everybody should be railing against. They are trying to avoid the bill being scrutinised. 

Boris has put himself on the line to deliver the deal.

 

Labour meanwhile have said:

No to May deal (3 times)

No to Boris deal

No to No deal

No to an election (3 times)

Yes to repeating 2 referendums we have already had while we have a minority government which cannot get anything through parliament.

Yes to an election if no deal is off table, but that can only happen by agreeing a deal  (see above) or revoking article 50.

 

And Boris is the problem?  Really?

HappyHamza

HappyHamza

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Boris has put himself on the line to deliver the deal.

 

Labour meanwhile have said:

No to May deal (3 times)

No to Boris deal

No to No deal

No to an election (3 times)

Yes to repeating 2 referendums we have already had while we have a minority government which cannot get anything through parliament.

Yes to an election if no deal is off table, but that can only happen by agreeing a deal  (see above) or revoking article 50.

 

And Boris is the problem?  Really?

And after all the refusals, the rejections and the supposed skullduggary of both the opposition and tory right, Boris finally won a vote on a withdrawel agreement. Then the first thing thing he does is act like a spoilt child just because scrutiny is wanted. You cannot honestly argue that it is right for parliament not to scrutinise the deal properly.

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

The Labour party is holding our parliament in complete purgatory and people blame Boris for it after bringing back a deal and trying to call an election three times?

 

Alright lads lol

 

For what it's worth I think he should proceed with trying to get his deal through right now but the facts he's held hostage by Labour because they know they are going to lose an election is beyond contempt. They'll do it for months as well if they have to.

HappyHamza

HappyHamza

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Labour party is holding our parliament in complete purgatory and people blame Boris for it after bringing back a deal and trying to call an election three times?

 

Alright lads lol

 

For what it's worth I think he should proceed with trying to get his deal through right now but the facts he's held hostage by Labour because they know they are going to lose an election is beyond contempt. They'll do it for months as well if they have to.

He hasn't even tried to get his deal through yet. 

All he had to do wad give another week of scrutiny then he could still seek an election if it failed. He's playing games.  Labour are very clear they won't allow an election with no deal on the table.

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

He hasn't even tried to get his deal through yet. 

All he had to do wad give another week of scrutiny then he could still seek an election if it failed. He's playing games.  Labour are very clear they won't allow an election with no deal on the table.

So they'll allow an election if an extension if it's extended to the 31st Jan then?

 

Course they won't, we'll then be told we can't have one as postal votes will get mixed up with letters to Santa or something.

Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

He hasn't even tried to get his deal through yet. 

All he had to do wad give another week of scrutiny then he could still seek an election if it failed. He's playing games.  Labour are very clear they won't allow an election with no deal on the table.

Scrutiny you say.  From an opposition who could't fill the afternoon with questions on the first day?

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
On 24/10/2019 at 12:09, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Like it or not, we were told it was a once in a generation vote, with our votes being listened to no matter the outcome. A deal would try to be agreed, if it wasn't we'd leave on WTO terms after two years. Remainers should be blaming parliament for triggering Article 50 if they weren't ready to fulfil those commitments that were stated to us.

 

On 24/10/2019 at 14:38, Bobby Hundreds said:

We were told that post-referendum not before. Leave's message pre-referendum was a Norwegian and Swiss style deal, which would be an absolute breeze to sort out. 

 

41 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

You've literally just agreed with me in the first line of your first paragraph? It is a statement of fact that WAS known pre-referendum, so regardless of what the leave side were advocating, it was a known fact that after 2 years if a deal wasn't agreed we'd leave WTO?

 

I said from the outset that the rules were clear: give notice under Article 50; 2 years to negotiate a deal; otherwise leave with no deal (WTO terms), unless extension agreed.

That was stated in the legislation, Article 50, Clause 3. Here it is (p.2):  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf

 

But your comments (e.g. in bold at top) implied the Leave campaign raised No Deal / WTO as a feasible outcome during the referendum. As Bobby points out, the Hard Brexit crew adopted this stance AFTER the referendum, not before.

It was only very late in the campaign that anyone other than Gove even openly admitted they planned to leave the Single Market & Customs Union. Leaving with No Deal was barely mentioned & beyond the pale before the referendum. Most Hard Brexiteers have only openly adopted their much more extreme No Deal position SINCE 2016.

 

Don't believe me? Here is the Vote Leave web site, unchanged since 2016: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org

 

Here are snippets from the Vote Leave site.

- "We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European Court before the 2020 election".

- "We will negotiate a new UK-EU deal based on free trade and friendly cooperation. We will carry on trading with Europe but we will also be able to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. This will help our economy grow and create more jobs".

- "Some claim we will not get a trade deal but there is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it"

- "The UK is the EU’s single largest export market in goods, taking a larger share of EU exports than even the United States. It is in everyone’s interests, particularly Germany’s, to negotiate a friendly UK-EU free trade deal"

 

See if you can find any raising the prospect of No Deal / WTO exit.... I can see plenty about Turkey joining the EU, £350m for the NHS, immigration out of control, trade deals all round the world ready to go as soon as we leave etc.

I don't see anything about No Deal or WTO exit....

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Boris has put himself on the line to deliver the deal.

 

Labour meanwhile have said:

No to May deal (3 times)

No to Boris deal

No to No deal

No to an election (3 times)

Yes to repeating 2 referendums we have already had while we have a minority government which cannot get anything through parliament.

Yes to an election if no deal is off table, but that can only happen by agreeing a deal  (see above) or revoking article 50.

 

And Boris is the problem?  Really?

 

Johnson has put himself in a position to deliver the deal. He got a 30-vote win for his deal, in principle......but has then withdrawn his deal because parliament wanted more than 2-3 days to scrutinise a long, complex item of legislation that is arguably the most important for decades.

 

You can complain about Corbyn & co, but Boris doesn't even need 95%+ of Labour MPs to get his deal through parliament. A handful of them (or other opposition/rebels) would be enough. He had more than enough on the 2nd reading.

Yes, some of them will want to table amendments, which may or may not succeed, and might oppose the deal on final reading. If they do, that's democracy - by our "sovereign national parliament", elected SINCE the referendum....but they might not succeed, or they might be amendments that even BJ and his Hard Right ERG crew can live with. And Johnson might well get his deal, maybe slightly amended, through - and within a couple of weeks.

 

Instead, he's not prepared to even give our elected representatives a try. He acts the Incredible Sulk, tries manipulative stunts, is happy for national polarisation to get worse & economic uncertainty to continue.....and tries to get an election in the hope that most polls are right and will give him total power like the narcissistic megalomaniac he is (May's hope in 2017, too)......potentially risking Brexit entirely, if his gamble backfires, or leaving us back with a stalemated hung parliament.

 

On Labour, you didn't mention that they also repeatedly pushed - and voted for - various forms of Soft Brexit (perfectly compatible with the referendum result). Indeed, they've lost a lot of support to the more Remainy Lib Dems through doing so.

Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Johnson has put himself in a position to deliver the deal. He got a 30-vote win for his deal, in principle......but has then withdrawn his deal because parliament wanted more than 2-3 days to scrutinise a long, complex item of legislation that is arguably the most important for decades.

 

You can complain about Corbyn & co, but Boris doesn't even need 95%+ of Labour MPs to get his deal through parliament. A handful of them (or other opposition/rebels) would be enough. He had more than enough on the 2nd reading.

Yes, some of them will want to table amendments, which may or may not succeed, and might oppose the deal on final reading. If they do, that's democracy - by our "sovereign national parliament", elected SINCE the referendum....but they might not succeed, or they might be amendments that even BJ and his Hard Right ERG crew can live with. And Johnson might well get his deal, maybe slightly amended, through - and within a couple of weeks.

 

Instead, he's not prepared to even give our elected representatives a try. He acts the Incredible Sulk, tries manipulative stunts, is happy for national polarisation to get worse & economic uncertainty to continue.....and tries to get an election in the hope that most polls are right and will give him total power like the narcissistic megalomaniac he is (May's hope in 2017, too)......potentially risking Brexit entirely, if his gamble backfires, or leaving us back with a stalemated hung parliament.

 

On Labour, you didn't mention that they also repeatedly pushed - and voted for - various forms of Soft Brexit (perfectly compatible with the referendum result). Indeed, they've lost a lot of support to the more Remainy Lib Dems through doing so.

We would buy it mate if they hadn't taken every single opportunity to block Brexit, and we know damn well that every amendment will be designed to do just that.  They want to force it past the 31st if only to piss off Boris and make him look bad, despite the fact that his hard line on the 31st is the reason they have a deal on the table - a deal they said was impossible.  

If you think they really care about the detail of the deal and are not just trying to split the leave vote to give themselves a chance of avoiding a wipeout in the coming GE you are mistaken I fear.

 

Meanwhile, what you call Soft Brexit, is not in fact actual Brexit; staying in the customs union is not Brexit at all - it means no global trade deals.  See Turkey.

Voll Blau

Voll Blau

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

We would buy it mate if they hadn't taken every single opportunity to block Brexit, and we know damn well that every amendment will be designed to do just that.  They want to force it past the 31st if only to piss off Boris and make him look bad, despite the fact that his hard line on the 31st is the reason they have a deal on the table - a deal they said was impossible.  

If you think they really care about the detail of the deal and are not just trying to split the leave vote to give themselves a chance of avoiding a wipeout in the coming GE you are mistaken I fear.

 

Meanwhile, what you call Soft Brexit, is not in fact actual Brexit; staying in the customs union is not Brexit at all - it means no global trade deals.  See Turkey.

We would no longer be members of the European Union. It's Brexit.

Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

We would no longer be members of the European Union. It's Brexit.

Tied completely to them  Not very Brexity, and the worst of both worlds.  Like a divorce where you can't move out or sell the house and share Tesco deliveries.

Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

I said from the outset that the rules were clear: give notice under Article 50; 2 years to negotiate a deal; otherwise leave with no deal (WTO terms), unless extension agreed.

That was stated in the legislation, Article 50, Clause 3. Here it is (p.2):  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf

 

But your comments (e.g. in bold at top) implied the Leave campaign raised No Deal / WTO as a feasible outcome during the referendum. As Bobby points out, the Hard Brexit crew adopted this stance AFTER the referendum, not before.

It was only very late in the campaign that anyone other than Gove even openly admitted they planned to leave the Single Market & Customs Union. Leaving with No Deal was barely mentioned & beyond the pale before the referendum. Most Hard Brexiteers have only openly adopted their much more extreme No Deal position SINCE 2016.

 

Don't believe me? Here is the Vote Leave web site, unchanged since 2016: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org

 

Here are snippets from the Vote Leave site.

- "We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European Court before the 2020 election".

- "We will negotiate a new UK-EU deal based on free trade and friendly cooperation. We will carry on trading with Europe but we will also be able to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. This will help our economy grow and create more jobs".

- "Some claim we will not get a trade deal but there is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it"

- "The UK is the EU’s single largest export market in goods, taking a larger share of EU exports than even the United States. It is in everyone’s interests, particularly Germany’s, to negotiate a friendly UK-EU free trade deal"

 

See if you can find any raising the prospect of No Deal / WTO exit.... I can see plenty about Turkey joining the EU, £350m for the NHS, immigration out of control, trade deals all round the world ready to go as soon as we leave etc.

I don't see anything about No Deal or WTO exit....

I've never once said anything about what the leave campaign said, I'm merely pointing out that WTO is the default and has always been? Bobby stated this was only known after the refendum, which I'm disagreeing with, as Cameron and others have said previously?

 

Again, to make it even clearer, I'm not talking about the leave campaign or anything they've said, I'm pointing out WTO terms if a deal wasn't agreed has ALWAYS been the default option (as likely/unlikely as it was), which you seem to be agreeing with me on, hence my confusion.

 

 

 

Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

We would no longer be members of the European Union. It's Brexit.

I think remainers need to decide what sort of Remain they want, a hard remain or soft remain. Maybe we should put it to another refendum to decide.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...