sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

The EU are playing just as dumb as the morons in parliament about the whole thing as well, parliament won’t leave without a deal, so what do you think Bercow & CO will will do, talk about protecting your own interests, do you really think anyone is going to care about the history of it

The EU is waiting for the UK to make up its mind! What is it supposed to do: dictate the outcome? That's only happening in Brexit fantasy land...
It would conveniently match the concept of the UK being told by Brussels what to do, whereas reality now shows itself for what it truly is: the UK is sovereign to do what it wants when it wants to, but can't make up it's mind.. the hole shitshow of the past 3 years is entirely of its own making, just as the toxic cocktail of domestic issues leading to it like incredibly low wage growth, unlimited labour immigration from the 10 Eastern EU countries, housing crisis, massively painful austerity etc are...
None of those are of EU making, none of those exist in any other EU countries, none of those will disappear after Brexit, unless policy chances are made, policies which ironically would lead to the UK being much more in line with those on the continent and exist at present.
It's going to be a sobering experience for politicians in charge to have no more scapegoat for any of their own shortcomings as well as for those voting to take back control when they find out that their politicians are going to take the country even further away from the European way of life and enforce an American way of life onto the people to take full benefit of Brexit.
Because let's make no mistake about it: THAT is what Brexit is all about for the fatcats who suppered it: it's about being able to strip the people of whatever protections they still enjoy, today, in those fields where the EU is now calling the shots and there's no British opt-out.

you keep granting extension after extension parliament will never make up its mind too many parties via for a different outcome to suit their own agenda, if the EU truly wants this deal as BJ has been pushing for once the EU grants the extension kiss good buy to it

You have a strange concept of democracy

A101 wrote:

you keep granting extension after extension parliament will never make up its mind too many parties via for a different outcome to suit their own agenda.....

....which is a benefit to the EU, as long as they do not revoke article 50, the status quo remains and the EU can go along its merry without any interference from the UK.
What exactly is the downside to that from the EU perspective?

par13del wrote:

A101 wrote:

you keep granting extension after extension parliament will never make up its mind too many parties via for a different outcome to suit their own agenda.....

....which is a benefit to the EU, as long as they do not revoke article 50, the status quo remains and the EU can go along its merry without any interference from the UK.
What exactly is the downside to that from the EU perspective?

On paper leaving the UK on the merry go round looks enticing but the longer the uncertainty goes on its just not the UK economy that will take a hit, with economic conditions stalling across the globe with France and Germany and others across the EU looking at recession clearing one headache will go some way to creating better economic conditions. Leave the uncertainty in place and the less buying power the population has will reduce combined with Brexit and the US China trade war, as I said grant the extension and say goodbye to the deal anything over 3 mths and the UK has to authorise it as well

par13del wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

If you really think BoJo backs his own deal, you're the moron.
Bercow just applies the rules of the house. Don't break them, and he won't have to step in.

How do you explain his allowing a vote on the TM deal multiple times?

I don't need to, the speaker adequately and eloquently explained the basis of the rulings.
But in short, the speaker stepped in when the house was presented (by the TM gov) the same unchanged bill, as is his duty (to much applause from JRM&Co too). The 2nd and 3rd bills were sufficiently ammended to present to the house, the fourth attempt wasn't and was stopped.
Boris tried to present the same bill which was presented AND PASSED by the house with the Letwin ammendment. So he was correct to stop an unchanged bill and that had already debated, settled and passed by the house being debated again ina accordance with Parliamentary process. The government could have dissented on Saturday to force another vote, THEY FAILED TO DO SO. Their fault, their error.

ChrisKen wrote:

par13del wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

If you really think BoJo backs his own deal, you're the moron.
Bercow just applies the rules of the house. Don't break them, and he won't have to step in.

How do you explain his allowing a vote on the TM deal multiple times?

I don't need to, the speaker adequately and eloquently explained the basis of the rulings.
But in short, the speaker stepped in when the house was presented (by the TM gov) the same unchanged bill, as is his duty (to much applause from JRM&Co too). The 2nd and 3rd bills were sufficiently ammended to present to the house, the fourth attempt wasn't and was stopped.
Boris tried to present the same bill which was presented AND PASSED by the house with the Letwin ammendment. So he was correct to stop an unchanged bill and that had already debated, settled and passed by the house being debated again ina accordance with Parliamentary process. The government could have dissented on Saturday to force another vote, THEY FAILED TO DO SO. Their fault, their error.

If his bill had PASSED why would he reintroduce it again, there would be no need to

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

The EU are playing just as dumb as the morons in parliament about the whole thing as well, parliament won’t leave without a deal, so what do you think Bercow & CO will will do, talk about protecting your own interests, do you really think anyone is going to care about the history of it

The EU is waiting for the UK to make up its mind! What is it supposed to do: dictate the outcome? That's only happening in Brexit fantasy land...
It would conveniently match the concept of the UK being told by Brussels what to do, whereas reality now shows itself for what it truly is: the UK is sovereign to do what it wants when it wants to, but can't make up it's mind.. the hole shitshow of the past 3 years is entirely of its own making, just as the toxic cocktail of domestic issues leading to it is: incredibly low wage growth, unlimited labour immigration from the 10 Eastern EU countries, housing crisis, massively painful austerity etc... all direct consequences of Labour/Tory party policies over the past decades, not EU policies.
None of those are of EU making since none of those exist in any other EU countries, so none of those will disappear after Brexit either, unless policy chances are made at home, policies which ironically would lead to the UK being much more in line with those on the continent and exist there at present already.
It's going to be a sobering experience for politicians in charge at Westminster to have no more scapegoat for any of their own shortcomings as well as for those millions of people voting to take back control when they find out that their politicians are going to take the country even further away from the European way of life and enforce an American way of life onto the people as their method to take full benefit of Brexit.
Because let's make no mistake about it: THAT is what Brexit is all about for the fatcats who suppered it and who's vision about where brexit should lead to is the only one that counts to BoJo: it's about being able to strip the people of whatever labour, social, environmental and consumer protections they still enjoy today, in all those fields where the EU is now calling the shots and there's no British opt-out.

I think this summary is accurate. And would like to point out that in the US there are similar deadlocks. A majority would like to make the sorts of changes to become a democracy on the order of the Nordic countries - health care, stronger Social Security, better safety nets. But there is also a majority who oppose the tax increases and taking back control from very large corporations. Large corporations do a lot of good things well, but they also exact a price which may destroy democracy.

ChrisKen wrote:

.
Boris tried to present the same bill which was presented AND PASSED by the house with the Letwin ammendment.

As far as I know the vote on the bill was pulled since the Letwin amendment was put in front of it and passed, so no vote was held on the Bojo deal. I guess technicalities are at work here, where the speaker is saying the bill was presented so it must be changed before it can be presented again, except, since it was never allowed to go to a vote.....chicken and egg...but I think I am correct is saying that no vote was held on the Bojo deal and it cannot become law by default via the Letwin amendment.

ChrisKen wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not keep voting until you like the result.

I know you're just trolling but that's exactly what Boris tried in the house today. Trying to re-run a debate and vote which had already given him what he wants, brexit approval (subject to legislation being in place).
Pretty much sums brexit up, a bunch of dimwited, arrogant plonkers fighting to gain something they already possess.

That is a general statement.They had one vote and the result was to leave. Now there are 3 options.

1. do a real hard Brexit
2. do a soft Brexit
3. revoke

Parliament has voted against option 1 a number of times and has also rejected option 2 a number of times and also rejected option 3.

The UK also had the referendum and an election during this period.

It is really time the Uk decides for something and note votes against everything.

Meanwhile, in the EP in Strasbourg, Mr. Barnier has been giving evidence about the future steps to take beyond Brexit.

According to him, the transition period now foreseen to run till the end of 2020 is not going to provide enough time to orderly complete a new relationship between the EU and the UK and further extension beyond that will be required... he was talking of 3 years or more in an exchance with N. Farage.

Problem is BoJo has already ruled out asking for another effectively 4th extension, although he had previously also ruled out asking for a third one...

And in the UK Parliament BJ has threatened to pull the plug on the whole deal if he losses today and fight for a GE


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN1X10JZ

What happens if the bill fails, parliament votes AGAINST early elections, AND BJ with his cabinet resigns? No UK government until 2022?

Dieuwer wrote:

What happens if the bill fails, parliament votes AGAINST early elections, AND BJ with his cabinet resigns? No UK government until 2022?

If the Bill fails BJ has said he will refuse to continue then either parliament votes a no confidence motion or his own party will do it still a risky strategy but it will force the parliament to do something

The bill passed, but the timeline associated to it got rejected by a majority of 14, meaning BoJo can not get the meaninful vote done by the end of the month: since the EU hasn't offered an official written response to his unsigned letter to extend article 50 once more, it means he now needs to beg for it in person in Brussels!

Meanwhile, he seems to be eating his words of earlier today when he said he would simply pull the bill in that case: he's now merely talking of 'pausing' it: seems like BoJo accepts there will be another extension beyond the end of this month, now seemingly called a 'pause' by Brexiteers.

Anyway, interesting to see that for once in a long time, there was actually a majority for something in the House, even more so because it means that at least some MPs have now voted for a deal which must be -at least in their eyes- worse than the previous one from TM which they have rejected? Several opinions as to why this is are possible: oposition MPs from leave-leaning constituencies being tired of this process and just giving in or tactical votes by Tories who lost the whip and want to get back in (while betting the bill would be slowed down and thus have to be pulled/paused anyway)…. Further analysis of the voting records will have to be done to confirm which theory is right.

Not sure the majority will still stand now this bill gets far more time and many amendments to it are most certainly tabled, as MPs will have more choices to pick from, ranging from the obligation to automatically extend the transition period beyond 2020 (or even 2022) in case of no FTA, to a CU and even a second referendum... I think BoJo came very close, but his reputation of being untrustworthy made that many MPs are fearful there's something hidden in the texts and it costs him a victory tonight!

No new time line is known yet, but we could be gone for another couple of months of Westminster drame, depending on how much extra time the EU gives the UK....

And so it's an official extension once more:
"European Council President Tusk confirmed the EU will grant the UK another extension and will consult the EU27 over the appropriate duration of the extension'.

sabenapilot wrote:

And so it's an official extension once more:
"European Council President Tusk confirmed the EU will grant the UK another extension and will consult the EU27 over the appropriate duration of the extension'.

Thus also not automatically till thie end of January 2020. Will be interesting with which timeline they come up with..They said they wanted till June 2020 but that means the UK Parliament has to agree.

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

And so it's an official extension once more:
"European Council President Tusk confirmed the EU will grant the UK another extension and will consult the EU27 over the appropriate duration of the extension'.

Thus also not automatically till thie end of January 2020. Will be interesting with which timeline they come up with..They said they wanted till June 2020 but that means the UK Parliament has to agree.

Indeed, it seems the EU is going to be talking to the UK first before taking a decision on the duration of the extension and possibly set some conditions to it... likely with a different delay than it had asked for through the Benn act as well.

30th of Jun is the ultimate cut off date now, so anything between 31st of Jan (as the Benn act asked for) and then seems to be plausible…

Anyway, cancel the Halloween Brexit parties, brexit isn't going te happen in 2019.

A101 wrote:

And in the UK Parliament BJ has threatened to pull the plug on the whole deal if he losses today and fight for a GE


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN1X10JZ

Johnson has no leverage to make such a threat, so MEP listen and then ignore it.

So four years after the vote there might be a Brexit and after that, there will be 3 more years of this.............

Can we please cancel and have it done, after that the UK can start to heal itself after the self-inflicted wounds......

Just when you thought they were nearly "home and dry" ... another delay, possibly until the middle of next year. I'm beginning to think those memes about Stardate 2500 and the Brits still negotiating an exit from the EU are going to become closer to reality.

The DUP have certainly exacted their revenge and on top of this, there are rumblings from extremist groups in NI that they will take matters into their own hands. What shape this takes remains to be seen, but notwithstanding the advantages to NI of access to the EU markets via the Republic, things may get heated. What probably needs to be clarified is how exactly the customs checks between NI and the UK will be managed and policed. As NI already costs the UK billions, the UK government is presumably unlikely to impose restrictions which are overly demanding or bureaucratic. Of course, unionists will object to the very principle of this, BUT I suspect that NI businesses will not find the restrictions - whatever they are - too onerous, and will certainly be relieved not to be cut off from UK markets.

Presumably, extremist action will probably focus on those NI firms which export via the Republic?

A101 wrote:

If his bill had PASSED why would he reintroduce it again, there would be no need to

Because he didn't like the result, (the amendment) and wanted a re-run in case MPs had changed their mind in the intervening 24hrs. Simple enough for even for you to understand?

Same as tonight, didn't like the result so he's taken his ball and gone home.
All bluster no substance, and failed to keep yet another promise.
'No one beleived we could reopen negotiations' Correct Boris, no one believed such a 'staunch' brexiteer would head to the EU and ask for a worse deal than we already had. Well done you muppet. He should be in Bercow's Parliamentary creche rather than being the leading MP in the house.

Dieuwer wrote:

What happens if the bill fails, parliament votes AGAINST early elections, AND BJ with his cabinet resigns? No UK government until 2022?

Quite sure the opposition will be able to fudge a coalition government, no need for a general election. Tory balls are firmly in the vice, why would the house not slowly crush them?

Imho Both Labour & the Tories will be hit hard in any forthcoming GE. On the brightside, it'll be the end of Corbyn. The downside, the house will still be unable to find a consensus.

Prediction time: Boris's crap deal will be voted down at the next reading. A no confidence vote will be called (either by the opposition or even the government themselves) and an opposition coalition government will be formed pending a referendum (Remain or Exit with Deal). If the referendum gives a CLEAR peice of advice and thus a clear & legitimate mandate, it'll be actioned and then a GE called. If it doesn't, ie it's split as the last one, then a GE will be called and the squabbling to apportion blame will continue.

sabenapilot wrote:

I think BoJo came very close, but his reputation of being untrustworthy made that many MPs are fearful there's something hidden in the texts and it costs him a victory tonight!

That text was found quite quickly and would have been subject one of no doubt many ammendments the house would have been able to propose if he hadn't grabbed his ball and run home after his double glazing pressure selling spiel didn't work.

The bill didn't sink Boris tonight, niether did the house exercing their right to properly scrutinise any business in a timely manner and with all the proper but yet to be released information available. No what scuppered Boris tonight was Boris being his petulant self and sending the bill to limbo.

Arion640 wrote:

Supreme Leader Juncker has said there will be no further delay on Brexit. We’re leaving on the 31st October whatever happens now. The no deal express is leaving the station and accelerating down the track.

I hope you didn't buy a ticket for the no-deal express.

You're going to have to cancel your Brexit party. Again. How many times is that now?

sabenapilot wrote:

Anyway, interesting to see that for once in a long time, there was actually a majority for something in the House, even more so because it means that at least some MPs have now voted for a deal which must be -at least in their eyes- worse than the previous one from TM which they have rejected?
.

I see the question mark, but I have to assume that in their eyes, they rejected the TM deal 3 times because they thought is was not in their best interest, they had multiple times to review and change their mind but....still NYET...
In their eyes, the Bojo deal may just be the best that they can make of a situation that they have royally screwed up. All and sundry know what the issues are, how the EU operates despite them playing dumb. As you state, even though this passed, I expect they are lining up to ambush it ever getting implemented, I am sure the Tories did not have the legal acumen to ensure that the bill related to the deal was iron clad.

kaitak wrote:

Just when you thought they were nearly "home and dry" ... another delay, possibly until the middle of next year. I'm beginning to think those memes about Stardate 2500 and the Brits still negotiating an exit from the EU are going to become closer to reality.

The DUP have certainly exacted their revenge and on top of this, there are rumblings from extremist groups in NI that they will take matters into their own hands. What shape this takes remains to be seen, but notwithstanding the advantages to NI of access to the EU markets via the Republic, things may get heated. What probably needs to be clarified is how exactly the customs checks between NI and the UK will be managed and policed. As NI already costs the UK billions, the UK government is presumably unlikely to impose restrictions which are overly demanding or bureaucratic. Of course, unionists will object to the very principle of this, BUT I suspect that NI businesses will not find the restrictions - whatever they are - too onerous, and will certainly be relieved not to be cut off from UK markets.

Presumably, extremist action will probably focus on those NI firms which export via the Republic?

How would that even work, just tactically?

If there were any unionist extremist actions against the sea border, the ferry and flight connection with Britain would likely be interrupted for security reasons which would be the exact opposite of what they could ever want – contrary to republican extremists they are colonial remnants of a foreign country whose government doesn't really want to support them any more, and with republicans effectively winning their cause as a consequence of the Brexit only the unionists had really wanted, who or what could they even fight against?

That is not something you can bomb yourself back from and into renewed support from the old homeland – that just doesn't happen. Westminster would just wash their hands off them even faster then.

Extremists on either side seem to have been lying low as ordinary criminal gangs since the peace accord; That part may actually be harder to fight than the previous political activism.

Dutchy wrote:

So four years after the vote there might be a Brexit and after that, there will be 3 more years of this.............

Provided that the UK indeed manages to leave after the THIRD extension somewhere in spring 2020, we'll be indeed 4 years after the referendum…

The presumption that the FTA and all the political discussions that will accompany it will be done in 3 years however, is fairly optimistic.
According to Mr Barnier, a 3 year EXTENSION of the transition phase is likely, so you're looking at a total of 5 years, at least…
That is if the UK acts normally: respect the divorce deal and all of the obligations during the transition period, not trying to undercut it or undo it through the backdoor like some ERGers and even ministers have already suggested, disciplined and skilled British trade negotiators, clear political objectives from a majority government in line with the Politial Declaration of the exit deal, no changes to those objectives during the future negotiations, ask for extensions whenever they are needed in light of the too short time span set out for them in the exit agreement, a cooperative Parliament throughout even after a GE and possibly a new government and/or PM.. and an EC and EP willing to go along….
You can see already that going by past performances, the chances of further icebergs ahead are not exactly small on this Titanic journey.

It has been said many times and it is true: leaving the EU and going in a transition period where everything remains the same is the easy part: getting out of it and actually changing anything other than simply removing European Union from the blue passport will be much harder.

ChrisKen wrote:

Boris is all bluster no substance, and failed to keep yet another promise.
'No one beleived we could reopen negotiations' Correct Boris, no one believed such a 'staunch' brexiteer would head to the EU and ask for a worse deal than we already had. Well done you muppet. He should be in Bercow's Parliamentary creche rather than being the leading MP in the house.

Indeed, I find it remarkable how a PM can apparently now get away with breaking promisses made only in the morning!
British politics has been heavily Trump'ed, that's the least you can say.

As to his claims he "re-opened' negotiations!? ROTFL...
He simply reverted back to the EU's opening position!
It's lilke when you're interested to buy a second hand car, yet you say you don't like the buying price your sister has negotiated for you, so you will do it yourself.. only to come back with that car having paid the original asking price , claiming it is a far better deal because the dealer took it to the carwash for you first!

Meanwhile, the consequences beyond just the political embarrassment of having to ask for a FOURTH extension (this time of the transition period itself) somewhere in summer next year already are beginning to be understood.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ree-trade/

In a nutshell:
the asking price for yet another extension would then go up to full membership contributions (so no more rebates applied like today for the 3 previous delays)!
The bill to extend the transition to the end of 2022 (the absolute shortest possible) would thus carry a price tag of more than 25BN pounds…
Make it to the beginning of 2025 which is a far more likely outcome and you're looking at a price tag of at least 50BN pounds extra, all without any say at the table!

To add insult to injury, the EU will deal with the THIRD request for an extension from the UK in a written procedure, meaning:

1- there will not even be a European summit in Brussels any more to decide on it: after all: it's just routine now, isn't it?

2- BoJo will have to sign off on the document to make it official!

sabenapilot wrote:

Indeed, I find it remarkable how a PM can apparently now get away with breaking promisses made only in the morning!

In simple terms, what did the PM do to break his promise of leaving the EU by 31-Oct-2019?
In my opinion, if he had said end of 2019 or 2020 this parliament would never have allowed or would allow such, it is staring us right in the face but we refuse to accept that we have a parliament who do not want to leave the EU. At present, they voted down deals negotiated by the government 3 times, passed another government deal then crippled it immediately after, and voted down their own deals about 4 or 5 times (their indicative votes).
I think we need to rethink the thought that any government can negotiate a deal with the EU then present that to this parliament and hope or pray it would pass.
The only way a deal passes this parliament is if the government first sits with them and get's their deal then takes that to the EU, we all know that the EU will never accept because anything the UK parliaments comes up with will violate EU rules, we already know this because we saw all their indicative vote proposals.

As for an election or second referendum, if the second referendum is also leave, the parliament once again will not accept, an election will most likely produce the same stalemate, so only a revocation of article 50 with a majority winning vote of 1 will be acceptable to all sides, my opinion.

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Supreme Leader Juncker has said there will be no further delay on Brexit. We’re leaving on the 31st October whatever happens now. The no deal express is leaving the station and accelerating down the track.

I hope you didn't buy a ticket for the no-deal express.

You're going to have to cancel your Brexit party. Again. How many times is that now?

I'm afraid the 50p special coin I was looking forward to purchase is canceled too... ?

Grizzly410 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Supreme Leader Juncker has said there will be no further delay on Brexit. We’re leaving on the 31st October whatever happens now. The no deal express is leaving the station and accelerating down the track.

I hope you didn't buy a ticket for the no-deal express.

You're going to have to cancel your Brexit party. Again. How many times is that now?

I'm afraid the 50p special coin I was looking forward to purchase is canceled too... ?

By the time Brexit will be done and dusted a 50p coin -special or not- won't purchase you anything anyway.

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

And so it's an official extension once more:
"European Council President Tusk confirmed the EU will grant the UK another extension and will consult the EU27 over the appropriate duration of the extension'.

Thus also not automatically till thie end of January 2020. Will be interesting with which timeline they come up with..They said they wanted till June 2020 but that means the UK Parliament has to agree.

From what I heard on the news, several countries seem to be talking about a short extension (a month or so) to give the UK time to pass the needed legislation since it seems like they actually can accept the WA.

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Indeed, I find it remarkable how a PM can apparently now get away with breaking promisses made only in the morning!

In simple terms, what did the PM do to break his promise of leaving the EU by 31-Oct-2019?

I wasn't talking about that promise, because it's not a promise at all: it's a wish, since it just isn't in his hands anyway.

I was talking about his threat do simply pull the witdrawal bill completely and ask for a GE if MPs would vote against it being rushed trough parliament!
They did with a majority of 14, yet now suddenly BoJo is merely 'pausing'...
When you can't deliver on your promise of only that morning as a PM, then move aside and let somebody else do the job, for God's sake!
It's clear there is a desire amongst MPs to somehow end all this, to the point some of them are now even voting for a deal which surely they must perceive as being worse than the deals TM came back with and they had voted against, so let a less controversial figure lead a government charged with implementing a non-controversial form of Brexit: you'll be amazed how quickly an overwhelming cross party majority is found around a compromise… but of course, it's not going to please the party leaders since it won't be their form of Brexit.
It's all about party politics, nothing to do with delivering Brexit, let alone the best possible deal: BoJo's deal is a shit deal really for the UK, even worse than that of TM: it empoverishes the people by some 8% (only a no deal will leave people more out of pocket still) and there's going to be a border down the Irish sea under it on top, meaning everything NI sends to GB has to go through customs for instance… there's a HUGE price to be paid by the whole country and not even a symbolic victory for the Union whatsoever: the only thing in it is a perceived Tory Party success which they hope to cash in on in the next GE... TM once tried to do exactly that to and failed miserably at it, and now Michael Heseltine for instance thinks that the Tories will not succeed at it either in the upcoming elections, so you got to wonder....

sabenapilot wrote:

BoJo's deal is a shit deal really for the UK, even worse than that of TM: it empoverishes the people by some 8% (only a no deal will leave people more out of pocket still) and there's going to be a border down the Irish sea under it on top, meaning everything NI sends to GB has to go through customs for instance…

If I correctly understand earlier post, this deal is essentially the same that the EU initially proposed, are the changes Bojo requested what has made this deal such a tragedy for the UK?

par13del wrote:

.still NYET...

Off-topic, but I'm curious why you keep posting "no" in a language not spoken anywhere in the EU (inlcuding the UK)...

Are you suggesting Putin is pulling all the strings (still)?

sabenapilot wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I hope you didn't buy a ticket for the no-deal express.
You're going to have to cancel your Brexit party. Again. How many times is that now?

I'm afraid the 50p special coin I was looking forward to purchase is canceled too... ?

By the time Brexit will be done and dusted a 50p coin -special or not- won't purchase you anything anyway.

Actually a leaked and uncirculated 50p Brexit edition dated 29-03-2019 or 31-10-2019 would worth a lot.
It is reported “thousands” of the former have been minted, not impossible that someday some will appear on the market.

sabenapilot wrote:

To add insult to injury, the EU will deal with the THIRD request for an extension from the UK in a written procedure, meaning:

1- there will not even be a European summit in Brussels any more to decide on it: after all: it's just routine now, isn't it?

2- BoJo will have to sign off on the document to make it official!

Gotta love the 2-
After weeks repeating he will not request extension, frenetically searching loopholes in the Benn act, claiming it again after the Letwin and pulling out the MV all he had was to ridiculously send the request without signing !!! For nothing, as the letter have been treated as genuine, but now his signature will be needed to confirm the extension, that’s trolling level evil.

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

BoJo's deal is a shit deal really for the UK, even worse than that of TM: it empoverishes the people by some 8% (only a no deal will leave people more out of pocket still) and there's going to be a border down the Irish sea under it on top, meaning everything NI sends to GB has to go through customs for instance…

If I correctly understand earlier post, this deal is essentially the same that the EU initially proposed, are the changes Bojo requested what has made this deal such a tragedy for the UK?

The major difference is within the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead having a backstop kicking in a the end of the transition period in nothing agreed (putting NI in the Custom Union), the end state is already agreed and it is NI remaining in UK custom but using EU protocols (more or less). EU also agreed to drop Level Playing Field conditions from the WA and push it in the non-binding PD.

May’s WA was a tragedy for Brexiters by fear to be trapped in the backstop forever, and Bojo’s WA is one for non-hardcore Brexiters who understands what this Brexit means, after the Transition period they will be out with AT BEST an FTA (Canada--- if they can’t accept LPF, and the service industry severely hitted) !

Grizzly410 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

To add insult to injury, the EU will deal with the THIRD request for an extension from the UK in a written procedure, meaning:

1- there will not even be a European summit in Brussels any more to decide on it: after all: it's just routine now, isn't it?

2- BoJo will have to sign off on the document to make it official!

Gotta love the 2-
After weeks repeating he will not request extension, frenetically searching loopholes in the Benn act, claiming it again after the Letwin and pulling out the MV all he had was to ridiculously send the request without signing !!! For nothing, as the letter have been treated as genuine, but now his signature will be needed to confirm the extension, that’s trolling level evil.

That's what happens when you try to play silly games with people who know the little details of all the EU protocols better than the best uberbrexiteer- adviser: the EU will simply apply its rules and Boris ends up with the some egg on his face.
I'm sure the signed document will conveniently be leaked at some point too, just to pull the line that 'I didn't request it, since I didn't sign the lettre' from BoJo's speechbook.

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

BoJo's deal is a shit deal really for the UK, even worse than that of TM: it empoverishes the people by some 8% (only a no deal will leave people more out of pocket still) and there's going to be a border down the Irish sea under it on top, meaning everything NI sends to GB has to go through customs for instance…

If I correctly understand earlier post, this deal is essentially the same that the EU initially proposed, are the changes Bojo requested what has made this deal such a tragedy for the UK?

Meanwhile, your question has been answered already:

Grizzly410 wrote:

The major difference is within the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead of having a backstop kicking in a the end of the transition period if nothing is agreed (putting NI in the Custom Union), the end state is already agreed now and it is NI remaining in UK custom but using EU protocols (more or less) forever. EU also agreed to drop Level Playing Field conditions from the WA and push it in the non-binding PD.

Indeed, during the transition period the differences are purely theoretical only, but the main difference is that now the Tories have clearly decided to basically give NI up in all but name already upfront and for good, thus giving away that their ambitious FTA with the EU they say they will be seeking will not nearly be of the same level as what the UK now enjoys.
If it would, then under the 'old deal' it would have ment that the NI backstop would never have kicked in and so you'd have to be completely daft to be doing what they do now, unless of course they do it because they know the outcome for NI would have been the same anyway AND that in this way they can then have a completely free hand in the rest of the GB from the start.
And the things they want to put their hands on are also given away in fact, through the guarantees on LPFs which got moved from the binding treaty to the non-biding PD!

Instead of focussing what is in the text, you should read what is no longer in the text: compare the 2 versions and see for yourself where the Tories are taking the UK to if they get their way.

If you want some more in depth reading on why the ERG suddenly thinks this is a better deal whereas it is actually giving up more than before, read this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -interests
The main take-away:
A deskilled, low-wage workforce with few rights, with the UK a playground for footloose corporations to shake their tail at the EU’s regulatory regime from 21 miles across the Channel, would suit them perfectly. Therefore when you look at the kind of businesses associated with or owned by ERG notables, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s emerging markets fund or Steve Baker’s financial services holdings, it suggests their penchant for transforming the country into a no-regulation tax haven may align with their interests. Ideology and principles come second.

TMs deal painfully tried to keep the UK together, but made their objectives impossible to achieve, so they were against it: BoJo's deal basically puts a border down the Irish Sea (and risks seeing Scotland leave the Union), but allows GB (or England and Wales if Scotland ever leaves) to be transformed into a bargin basement economy, thus making them even more wealthy people than they already are, so they are in favour of it! And most of the rest of the Tories don't care and will vote for anything that their leader brings back (the others have been expelled already), for as long as they can keep their comfortable seat in Westminster, so there you have it: a 'compromise' proposal acceptable to all Tories: wonder why TM never did it in fact, because she's clearly also belonging to the large middle group of indifferent Tories, contrary to Hammond for instance.

Anyway, forget about their proclaimed love of the Union and of their desire to take back control: they just want to take people's rights away, so they can make even more money on their back!

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

par13del wrote:

.still NYET...

Off-topic, but I'm curious why you keep posting "no" in a language not spoken anywhere in the EU (inlcuding the UK)...

Are you suggesting Putin is pulling all the strings (still)?

Because after the vote in 2016 and the US election, everything related to Brexit and the lost vote was a result of the Russians.
Trying to remind myself of all the claims that were put out, the racist rhetoric seems to have worn off....

It seems like politicians can change their mind a lot in a couple of years: https://www.sajidjavid.com/news/sajid-j ... h-business

sabenapilot wrote:

It's clear there is a desire amongst MPs to somehow end all this, to the point some of them are now even voting for a deal which surely they must perceive as being worse than the deals TM came back with and they had voted against, so let a less controversial figure lead a government charged with implementing a non-controversial form of Brexit: you'll be amazed how quickly an overwhelming cross party majority is found around a compromise… but of course, it's not going to please the party leaders since it won't be their form of Brexit.

My local Labour MP was one of the 19 that voted for the Johnson deal despite voting against May's deal three times, however she also went on to vote against the timetable. She had been making noises over recent months about how Parliament risked betraying voters who voted to leave if this dragged on and my constituency was around 63ish% in favour of leaving. Whether she thinks the deal is good or not, she seems to be sticking to her word. My constituency has been solidly Labour for 100 years and is not really in danger of swinging towards the Tories anytime soon, however I wonder if the Brexit Party's performance in the area during the EP elections has sharpened minds despite it not being a given that will be replicated at GE level. In short, I would agree that she's probably thought long and hard about how to vote if given the opportunity to do so again.

That said, I'm not sure if she sees Boris as less controversial than his predecessor!

I should also add that I'm not aware of any deselection threats against her like some of her other colleagues and nor has she indicated she will stand down at the next election. She was in Corbyn's first Shadow Cabinet and has only been an MP since 2010.

Boeing74741R wrote:

That said, I'm not sure if she sees Boris as less controversial than his predecessor!

If I were to make any comment on Labour outside of Brexit it would be that when it comes to controversial leaders, that the current leader was elected twice boggles the mind.
I think if Labour had a different leader the Tory party would not be in power today, the only thing some folks seems to fear more than Brexit is a Corbyn led government, even a temporary one.

par13del wrote:

If I were to make any comment on Labour outside of Brexit it would be that when it comes to controversial leaders, that the current leader was elected twice boggles the mind.
I think if Labour had a different leader the Tory party would not be in power today, the only thing some folks seems to fear more than Brexit is a Corbyn led government, even a temporary one.

I would characterise the Corbyn/McDonnell/McCluskey led Labour party as one that is rooted in mid-1970s politics. Unfortunately, for a significant number of Labour members (including the unions), that's exactly what they want - to return to the "glory days" of the 1970s. That Labour is so far behind the Tories in polls is a shocking indictment of its current leadership.

I have never been a Labour supporter or voter, but I could vote for a Labour party led by the likes of Keir Starmer/Tom Watson and, before he left them, Chuka Umunna.

There's lots of speculation and rumour today that if the EU does agree to the requested extension to the end of January, that Boris will try and force an election. Of course he doesn't have the majority in Parliament to do that and would need opposition parties to agree. I can honestly see Labour not agreeing because they could lose very heavily. If they did, it should be the end of Corbyn's failed leadership.

If the UK is so bad, why do so many want to go there, even at the risk of a horrible death. In this case 39 dead:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-belgi ... 46387.html

All China nationals, via Belgium, to UK with a lorry driven by a resident of NI with a truck registered in Bulgaria and owned by a woman from Ireland. The victims likely boarded the container in Belgium, but how did they get into the EU ? The smuggling of people from outside the EU into the EU and then into UK a factor in the support of Brexit.

I wonder if with the Irish/NI 'backstop' and Brexit will help in the long term and reduce the human smuggling into the UK.

That is why the UK needs to take back control.

ltbewr wrote:

If the UK is so bad, why do so many want to go there, even at the risk of a horrible death. In this case 39 dead:

Ah, the million euro... euh pound question!

Apart from the fact that the UK has massive needs for low or no skilled labour, and that it is culturally an easy country to integrate into due to the language and the ethnic diversity of the population, It's also because the UK (together with Ireland which together form the CTA) is the only country in the EU not having an identity card, meaning that once you are in, there's no quick way to check if somebody is illegal or not!

Another one of those fine opt-outs which came back to bite the UK....

sabenapilot wrote:

It's also because the UK (together with Ireland which together form the CTA) is the only country in the EU not having an identity card, meaning that once you are in, there's no quick way to check if somebody is illegal or not!
..

I was under the impression that the freedom of movement in the EU allowed the same to occur, the hundreds of migrants who used to and continue to gather at Calais did not fly into France, most of them landed via boat in the south - example Italy - and travel up to France. If they require identify cards, are those provided to them when they land in Italy which then allows them to travel to France to attempt the channel crossing?

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

It's also because the UK (together with Ireland which together form the CTA) is the only country in the EU not having an identity card, meaning that once you are in, there's no quick way to check if somebody is illegal or not!
..

I was under the impression that the freedom of movement in the EU allowed the same to occur, the hundreds of migrants who used to and continue to gather at Calais did not fly into France, most of them landed via boat in the south - example Italy - and travel up to France. If they require identify cards, are those provided to them when they land in Italy which then allows them to travel to France to attempt the channel crossing?

The question was 'why do so many want to go to the UK?', not: 'why do these migrants succeed in getting to the border with the UK?'.
The reason is as given: they want to come to the UK because once in, they can pretty much disappear under the radar without having to live a life of a stowaway for the rest of their life!

On the continent however, because of their mandatory id card system which is needed to identify yourself at very common moments throughout your daily life, if and when they'd be coming in contact with some form of the authorities (police, hospital, city hall, but also privately to rent a house for instance or to go to a bank...) they are immediately found as having no id card and thus no official status, thus being illegal and then the risk of arrest and deportation is immediately there...

FOM takes away the internal border post and thus allows migrants to make it more easily from the beaches and shores of the Schengen zone to the border with the UK right across several EU countries, but it doesn't make it easier for them to actually live and settle in the EU, which is why they just want to transit through the EU and go to the UK instead. If the Schengen zone wouldn't exist, the UK could hide behind several border fences iso just one like today, but it wouldn't lower its appeal to migrants:if the UK wants to appeal less to illegal migrants, it should start with introducing an id scheme for all residents and link it to their routine activities so it becomes very difficult to actually live a normal life if you're not correctly listed as either a citizen or a permanent (legal) resident.

The farce continues this evening.

sabenapilot wrote:

On the continent however, because of their mandatory id card system which is needed to identify yourself at very common moments throughout your daily life, if and when they'd be coming in contact with some form of the authorities (police, hospital, city hall, but also privately to rent a house for instance or to go to a bank...) they are immediately found as having no id card and thus no official status, thus being illegal and then the risk of arrest and deportation is immediately there...

Thanks for the explanation, with all the forms of documents required to do things in the UK, I thought for the most part this was already covered and the underground economy was not massive.