Brexit!

[Benguin]

3 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...that's rather childish!!!

 

I did that too so probably something in it.

[Dr The Singh]

I think the Leicester city footy result on Saturday will have a massive effect on the result

[Strokes]

46 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

It will be very close.

 

Why no deal though? Am I missing something, or won't the PM be forced to comply with the Benn bill?

Because Juncker said there was no need for an extension and some people have decided that means an extension might be rejected. However it’s not for the commission to decide, its for the council, so it’s a bit of a shot in the dark to reject and then go for an extension imo.

 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Because Juncker said there was no need for an extension and some people have decided that means an extension might be rejected. However it’s not for the commission to decide, its for the council, so it’s a bit of a shot in the dark to reject and then go for an extension imo.

 

Also the comment was in the context of there being a deal so an extension is not required but does not address what the position will be if the agreement is not ratified 

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Also the comment was in the context of there being a deal so an extension is not required but does not address what the position will be if the agreement is not ratified 

Yeah that’s fair but it’s a stark warning that an extension is not guaranteed, although I think it’s unlikely they wouldn’t grant one. It’s still risky, considering they were all so set on avoiding no deal, it’s a risk they shouldn’t take in my opinion.

[Legend_in_blue]

Hancock has come in for a fair bit of hammering on Question Time from our Leicester lot tonight!  

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Hancock has come in for a fair bit of hammering on Question Time from our Leicester lot tonight!  

They should have sent Will Smith, playing Hancock

[Legend_in_blue]

7 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

They should have sent Will Smith, playing Hancock

Not that I'm Leicester biased at all, but that was a very decent hour of tv.

[RobHawk]

33 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Not that I'm Leicester biased at all, but that was a very decent hour of tv.

I thought it was appalling. The Brexit party MEP was atrocious and how Hancock is in the cabinet of an actual government I'll never know. 

 

That said, a guy I went to school with was in the audience and came across as an absolute bell end which ruined it for me too. Especially because I know other friends who are well informed, applied but didn't get on. He always was an attention seeking idiot though. 

[Guest MattP]

Labour to give three line whip to vote against deal, but also still won't vote for a 2nd ref.

 

So Labour now.....

 

Has voted against original deal two times.

Has blocked no deal.

Has voted against a second referendum and the deal again to get a general election.

Then voted against the general

election.

Then voted again against no deal.

Then again voted against an election.

Said they want themselves to negotiate a new deal after a general election.

Then again refused to vote for a general election.

Now voting against the deal again and also not voting for a general election, second referendum or no deal. 

 

How the **** are 25-30% still prepared to vote for this mob to run the country? And that's even without the constant jew baiting from the leadership? 

[Charl91]

Oh Labour, you make it so difficult to like you. If they want something I can get behind, then they need to go for a second ref - Boris' deal vs. Remain. But I don't really know what their aim is at this point. They need to get rid of Corbyn and have a fresh start for the party, because it's clear to everyone that Labour are never going to be successful under his leadership at this point. He had his chance - he's been up against some of the weakest, most fractured Governments in history - and he's blown it.

 

I would still grudgingly vote Labour, simply because I'd vote for anyone who had the best chance of not-being-Andrew-Bridgen, and I could never vote Tory again in it's current state, but it pains me to do it.

 

Swinson has the right idea - agree to support the current deal, but with a 2nd ref attached. That way you're not 'blocking Brexit', but also giving an out for the country if people really have decided that it's not what they want. Make it a binding referendum, that way we don't have the whole "what do you want, best of three?" crowd back in force. It also then puts the responsibility back on Boris if the deal fails; if Labout whips for the deal with a 2nd ref obviously it's guaranteed to pass, and if Boris refuses that and then the deal doesn't go through, then he has to take a lot of the flack, rather than the opposition.

 

 

Edited 18 October 2019 by Charl91

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

; if Labout whips for the deal with a 2nd ref obviously it's guaranteed to pass.

How are you working that out?

 

There are at minimum 25 Labour MP's who refuse a 2nd ref, 277 Tories and the DUP certainly wouldn't vote for it.

 

20 odd Tory independents now as well back the deal so they aren't voting for a 2nd ref.

 

You can't make the result binding either, even if you did win the Tories still go into a next election with a manifesto to get us out.

[Mike Oxlong]

Worst outcome for Boris is a second referendum but looks like Labour are too thick to support one

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

How the **** are 25-30% still prepared to vote for this mob to run the country? And that's even without the constant jew baiting from the leadership? 

I suppose it is understandable when the left wing alternative is this lot

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/iain-dale-is-forced-to-correct-lib-dem-brexit/

[Charl91]

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

How are you working that out?

 

There are at minimum 25 Labour MP's who refuse a 2nd ref, 277 Tories and the DUP certainly wouldn't vote for it.

 

I'm not talking about Tories going against Government policy here. But if Boris decided it was Gov policy to allow the deal with a second referendum, it would certainly get through. It would have Labour/ Lib Dem / SNP support, and a good number of Tories would vote for Boris's-deal-with-second-referendum, especially if the alternative was no deal. Boris's deal is close-ish to the numbers already, and attaching a second ref would gain more votes than it would lose.

 

Of course that's all very hypothetical, as Boris would never want or allow that. But then at least at that point the ball is back in his court when his own deal fails to get through, and Labour will be seen as much more reasonable for voting the deal down."We're voting the deal down because you won't let the people vote on it" comes as much more reasonable than "we're voting the deal down because reasons"

 

Labour's are in a bit of a corner at the moment, and their strongest move right now would be to come out and support the deal with a second ref attached.

 

[RobHawk]

Corbyns a fecking egit

[Alf Bentley]

20 hours ago, MattP said:

What makes it a harder Brexit? 

 

As I understand it (from commentators, I've not read the document!), what makes it potentially a harder Brexit is that the stuff on workers/environmental rights in May's Deal has been watered down and/or moved from the (binding) Withdrawal Agreement to the (non-binding) Political Declaration on the future relationship. Both May & Johnson's Deals are "Hard" in taking us out of the SM and CU after the transition period.

 

It's only potentially harder as the future relationship could take years to negotiate - and, in theory, we could get another Govt that wanted a closer relationship with the EU. If this deal goes through, I wouldn't bank on that, as the Tories will be odds-on to win a majority in an election soon. Maybe more significantly, the EU isn't going to be keen to offer the generous FTA that the UK wants if the UK clearly plans to diverge massively on employment & environmental rights etc. So, would a Boris Britain prefer no/limited FTA and an alignment with the US model of capitalism, undercutting EU on conditions & standards - or not to diverge too far from EU rights/standards so as to get a FTA, particularly if the economy isn't great place in a couple of years?

 

To be fair, he has probably got as good an agreement as possible on N. Ireland. Obviously, I think that both Remain and Soft Brexit (staying in the SM & CU) would have been better, but given the clear Tory intent to leave the SM & CU, this seems a better solution than May's in establishing a workable economic system that is changeable but not unstable - and massively better than No Deal in avoiding hard border, economic chaos & potential sectarian conflict. It might mean that constitutional issues over Irish reunification arise sooner than expected - but that was going to happen sooner or later, anyway, due to the demographic shift away from a unionist majority in the North. Interesting to see that, while the DUP are opposed to the deal, Sinn Fein have given it a cautious welcome.....perhaps Boris could persuade the 7 Sinn Fein MPs to turn up to Westminster to secure a Tory majority tomorrow? 

 

13 hours ago, MattP said:

FT has him two MP's behind but that's with only 7 Labour MP's backing him.

 

 

This really looks too tight to call, doesn't it?

 

Those FT figures assume both sides are successful in their whipping. Corbyn/Starmer will be delighted if they can limit Labour rebellions to 7....but likewise the Tory whips if every single ERG Tory supports the deal, as the FT assumes?

Apparently, the DUP have said they're going to be actively seeking to persuade ERG Tories to oppose the deal.....will they really have zero success in that? Abstentions could come into it, too.

 

Labour MPs from Leave seats, like the 18 (?) who signed the letter calling for a deal including May's concessions on employment/environment rights will be critical.

We know that there are a few Labour MPs who support Brexit regardless, possibly a few more who might vote for it to keep their seats, but Johnson might need the votes of some of those who wanted concessions. Will he get them?

 

The Labour whips will have a strong argument against: vote for this and Boris could win a majority as the all-conquering hero who "got Brexit done", giving him 5 years to do as he likes, including negotiating an ultra-Hard future relationship with the EU, if he's not too bothered about the FTA & negotiating generous trade deals with the USA etc. Labour MPs who facilitate anything like that could be pariahs for life within their party. Vote against and it could yet prevent a Boris 5-year majority & lead to Soft Brexit or a Referendum. Then again, some might quietly think it's worth the opprobrium to be rid of Corbyn (as they would be if Boris won a majority)....

 

On the maths, my hunch is that the Govt is slightly short. But on instinct, I suspect they'll find a way to get the numbers.....it would probably be enough to persuade the DUP or the 18 Labourites who wrote that letter to abstain....

 

Will they announce the result at half-time of the Burnley match? 

Imagine if it's a tie & comes down to Bercow's casting vote? Tradition is then for the Speaker to support the status quo, isn't it? So, by tradition he'd be obliged to defeat the bill, wouldn't he?  

[Guest MattP]

44 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

I'm not talking about Tories going against Government policy here. But if Boris decided it was Gov policy to allow the deal with a second referendum, it would certainly get through. It would have Labour/ Lib Dem / SNP support, and a good number of Tories would vote for Boris's-deal-with-second-referendum, especially if the alternative was no deal. Boris's deal is close-ish to the numbers already, and attaching a second ref would gain more votes than it would lose.

 

Of course that's all very hypothetical, as Boris would never want or allow that. But then at least at that point the ball is back in his court when his own deal fails to get through, and Labour will be seen as much more reasonable for voting the deal down."We're voting the deal down because you won't let the people vote on it" comes as much more reasonable than "we're voting the deal down because reasons"

 

Labour's are in a bit of a corner at the moment, and their strongest move right now would be to come out and support the deal with a second ref attached.

If Boris decided to attach that and make it government policy he would (quite rightly) be removed from the job. The first rule for any Conservative MP let alone is you implement votes you delegated to the public. 

 

The SNP have also said they won't vote for a confirmatory referendum. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

If Boris decided to attach that and make it government policy he would (quite rightly) be removed from the job. The first rule for any Conservative MP let alone is you implement votes you delegated to the public. 

 

The SNP have also said they won't vote for a confirmatory referendum. 

The SNPs position is hilarious, they won’t accept or respect this referendum but demand one for themselves. Which if that vote goes the right way, they will expect it to be upholded but if it doesn’t they can try again and again.

 

They absolutely under no circumstances do not want to leave the EU but then supported a referendum that would have seen them do that in 2015 and want to repeat that referendum.

[Bobby Hundreds]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The SNPs position is hilarious, they won’t accept or respect this referendum but demand one for themselves. Which if that vote goes the right way, they will expect it to be upholded but if it doesn’t they can try again and again.

 

They absolutely under no circumstances do not want to leave the EU but then supported a referendum that would have seen them do that in 2015 and want to repeat that referendum.

But the Scots were also told at the time of the 2015 ref that by staying in the Union was the only was they could remain in the EU without reapplying/back of the queue etc.

 

[Strokes]

20 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

But the Scots were also told at the time of the 2015 ref that by staying in the Union was the only was they could remain in the EU without reapplying/back of the queue etc.

 

Yes but the SNP campaigned to leave the uk regardless of the fact they would have had to have left the EU.

So they in effect have campaigned to leave the EU in 2015. Then they’ve shown twice they do not respect referendums and now want another that if they lose will no doubt not respect.

Edited 18 October 2019 by Strokes

[The Guvnor]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I suppose it is understandable when the left wing alternative is this lot

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/iain-dale-is-forced-to-correct-lib-dem-brexit/

How embarrassing.

Edited 18 October 2019 by The Guvnor

[Mike Oxlong]

Northern Ireland will be the only part of Europe with tariff free access to EU market, the UK market and gaining the benefits of any future UK world trade deals 

 

Should be positive for inward investment in the six counties 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Northern Ireland will be the only part of Europe with tariff free access to EU market, the UK market and gaining the benefits of any future UK world trade deals 

 

Should be positive for inward investment in the six counties 

Absolutely, I don’t see their problem. They’ve literally got the best of both worlds. 
Let’s not forget there has been in affect a border down the Irish Sea for agricultural goods since the bse crisis. The northern Irish has had irish cows and separate terms to the rest of the uk since then.

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, RobHawk said:

That said, a guy I went to school with was in the audience and came across as an absolute bell end which ruined it for me too. Especially because I know other friends who are well informed, applied but didn't get on. He always was an attention seeking idiot though. 

Which one was it?

 

Two stood out for me, the one who managed to invent a united Ireland in his own head in 30 seconds and the pillock at the end who tried to virtue signal asking how many BAME reps the Brexit party had without knowing it was more than anyone else.