Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd January 2019, 10:18 AM

I hope Brett-Butler doesn't mind me opening a new thread for this for 2019?

**********************************************************************

The *real* reason the EU is so desperate to keep us in?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6532565/Europeans-pay-billions-EU-budget-no-deal-Brexit.html

Europeans will have to fork out billions more to fund the EU Budget if there is a No Deal Brexit and Britain does not pay £39billion divorce bill, the bloc's finance chief warns

Gunther Oettinger said remaining member states will face extra big EU bills
The EU's Budget Commissioner said in Germany this could be 500,000 euros
Brexiteers have urged PM not to pay the £39bn divorce bill until trade deal done

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd January 2019, 11:33 AM

I’m not sure how Germany, one of the worlds largest economies, will be able to find €0,5m. That’s such a substantial sum of money. Merkel must be locked in a war bunker somewhere with the finance ministry working out where to find such a substantial quantity of money

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd January 2019, 12:59 PM

Errr they'll get in back in huge taxes on stuff we export if there's no deal.

If we refuse to honour our debts, there will be no more cheap credit for the country as a bad risk. Given we borrow shotloads each year that would be a case of own-goal.

If the EU does have to cover the 39b proportionately it would work out about the same as the amounts spent on hair care products in a couple of years, so yes, that'll break the EU and make them do exactly what we want them to do, as promised by Brexiteers for the last 3 years.

Brexiteers havent urged anything re payments on the deal agreed, it's in the agreement what and when will happen - and if there's no agreement then it's a pointless statement. duhhhhhh! Must be Grayling, Davies, Johnson or Rees-Mogg, I'd hazard a guess, those intellectual giants of our age, men with the ability to see data and instantly read into it whatever they want to see. A bit like looking into the fire in Games Of Thrones using the blood of a Royal enemy, to see into the future, and demolish your enemies using dark forces. Except that Game Of Thrones is a bit less fantastical.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd January 2019, 03:15 PM

!. No they won't, because we will respond with tariffs ourselves.

2. Before they can claim debts, they have to prove that we owe them - and that has been a problem in a lot of cases, hence the disputed figure...

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 2nd January 2019, 03:25 PM

Uk: 60 million
EU: 500 million

Ummm which has the power, which has the power, which heahfjdh powhajah...

That utterly useless Etonian Tory toff who didn't know he country is an island has seemingly now forgotten we have no empirw/ are a small island of 60 million/ with a heavily declining economy. He wants to build a network of military bases around the world, using Brexit as an excuse

A few things:

1. With what money? I assume they want this rather than an NHS?
2. With what equipment? How much will these extra ships and planes cost?
3. WHY? Just ... WHY? There is no empire.
4. Manned how exactly? Tories decimated military spending and cut the numbers to the lowest levels EVER. We have a force of 70k - basically a single Russian vanguard. How will these bases be manned? Conscription of the poor?

Braindead Eton toff living in the 1930s. How quaint.

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd January 2019, 04:52 PM

If, as so many Quitters seem to want, we revert to WTO rules (rules that are so fantastic that not a single country thinks it is a good idea to rely on them), that means hefty tariffs. They are the rules. Rules, of course, imposed by a group of foreigners with not a single elected representative.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd January 2019, 08:32 PM

1. see Suedey reply

2. Not disputed. Agreed. Brexiteers did the agreeing, before doing a runner one by one from the deals they agreed.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 2nd January 2019, 08:55 PM

It looks like the deal may get through after all..

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd January 2019, 06:49 AM

On a separate note, despite what many of you may think, I would prefer a deal, to no deal - just not the deal currently on the table, which IMO makes too many compromises on issues that led me to vote for Brexit in the first place.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd January 2019, 10:17 AM

What did you expect? On the one side we have a bloc representing over 400 million people, including three of the biggest economies in the world. On the other side, we have a single country of 60+ million people. Did you really believe the lies that we would hold all the cards?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd January 2019, 03:11 PM

No.

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 3rd January 2019, 04:32 PM

Mad May wants to delay the vote AGAIN. Probably by another month. She knows she goes he day after it, so she wants a no Brexit instead just to keep her grubby little fingers in power. Disgusting. This is NOT democracy! She has a deal. No matter how bad it is, it is there in parliament. Time for parliament to vote on it!

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2019, 06:34 AM

How do you figure *that*, given she has already won a no-confidence vote in her, and therefore can't face another challenge to her position for a year?

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 4th January 2019, 07:03 AM

*can't face one from the Tories. Opposition still has TWO. Instant VONC in her the day after, she goes, or instant VONC in the govt, it collapses. Tories are terrified as their media wide Nazi campaign against Corbyn is not working. They are rushing to Downing Street events to 'savour it' while it lasts xD My god they are obsessed with power.

But on no. If she is sooo secure ... why not call the vote?

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2019, 07:12 AM

Merely *calling* a no-confidence vote will not have those effects - and there is the little matter of the opposition having to actually *win* it - and they simply don't have the numbers to do so.

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 4th January 2019, 02:28 PM

Oh reaaaaally Mr Tory?

33% of the Tories voted against her. See her slink away when Labour called it? See her REFUSE TO TABLE IT LIKE A DICTATORSHIP? Labour has an opposition day the day after the vote is meant to take place where it can table what it wants. Those same Tory mps HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST MAD MAY OR RAISE EXTREEEMELY UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT PUTTING PARTY OVER COUNTRY. If Dickensian Smogg etc think she is good enough for the country but not the party, they actively show disdain for the people.

When the deal fails, so does the government. It collapses.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2019, 03:00 PM

Wrong! The gov't is not *all* about Brexit.

You accuse me of wanting Brexit at all costs, and to hell with the consequences - can't you see this is exactly what you are advocating iro removing the Tory government?

Posted by: Jester 4th January 2019, 03:30 PM

I’m curious (although despairing) to have a sensible view here from any Leavers. What can you possibly think is acceptable about the impact on your daily life of a no deal brexit? Cards on the table, no higher impacts to the economy, just on your day to day life?

Do any of you leavers really think it is all ‘project fear’?

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 4th January 2019, 03:54 PM

That is sidestepping the question. The fact is the government is doomed.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2019, 04:38 PM

That may be true - but I don't believe their demise will be forced prematurely.

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 4th January 2019, 04:48 PM

Yes it will be. VONC in Mad May the day after the vote. Tories stress out, in fighting, turn on Arlene, BAM, VONC in the landed gentry government.

Posted by: *Tim 4th January 2019, 04:50 PM

What exsctly were you expecting to get more? Im very curious

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 4th January 2019, 05:01 PM

I thought Vidcapper wanted a No Deal :S

It's in or out, abide by the club rules or leave.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2019, 06:27 AM

1. Only the Tories can hold a no-confidence vote in their leader - obvious when you think about it, otherwise any gov't with a HOC majority could oust the opposition leader...

2. Whatever the Tories internal difficulties, they will *not* vote for their own demise! Labour have nothing to offer the DUP so they would at beat abstain.



For a start, not having to abide by most of the EU rules while having no input to them.

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th January 2019, 10:04 AM

How did you expect the EU to sign up to a free-trade agreement if we don’t comply with their standards? The Remain campaign said this would happen.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2019, 10:23 AM

That doesn't have to mean we dot every 'i' and cross every 't' though.

I take it you don't disagree with rest of my post, about confidence votes?

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th January 2019, 12:37 PM

Why would the EU allow us to sell them goods which couldn't be sold legally by a member state? Why would EU member states vote to allow the UK a trading advantage over themselves?

Posted by: Rooney 5th January 2019, 02:10 PM

Just read the BBC article about the upcoming Brexit documentary. Got to admit, this is a fascinating watch by the Leave campaign director.

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 5th January 2019, 03:03 PM

Wrroong. This whole post is wrong. Google a parliamentary VONC in the prime minister. Oh, yea. It exists. Sorry.

If they voted against Mad May for the party, rhen HAVE to do it as a parliament too. The questions raised otherwise would have to be covered even by rhe BBTory.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2019, 03:05 PM

Which is precisely why a no deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as the pessimists claim - we could sell what we liked to anyone, and the EU could go f*ck themselves!

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2019, 03:10 PM

You're still ignoring the fact that the opposition don't have enough votes to win a no-confidence motion against the gov't.

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 5th January 2019, 03:12 PM

You challenged the VONC in the PRIME MINISTER.

Against the government, they will have the numbers as soon as the Brexit vote fails, Mad May goes down and the Tories and DUP start infighting. That'll do it.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2019, 03:18 PM

The DUP have no incentive to bring down the gov't - under a Labour gov't they'd have no role.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:British_House_of_Commons_composition

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 5th January 2019, 03:22 PM

Sigh. No incentive?! They already HAVE their $1billion. Now they want the Brexit of their choice. This deal is not it. The deal passes, they rebel, government collapses. The deal fails, in fighting, more Tory rebels, DUP rebel too, and the government fails.

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th January 2019, 03:33 PM

We already can sell what we like to whoever we like with the exception of North Korea.

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 5th January 2019, 03:55 PM

Interesting the Brexiters - did anyone see Farage vs veg, where he flounders and has no idea and keeps saying WE WE WE? Who is we - don't care about food miles. The environment can get ta fook as long as they have their racist Brexit eh and try to revive empire with their conscription military bases?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th January 2019, 08:36 PM

Oops need to correct this, schoolmaster wise for accuracy...

Which is precisely why a no deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as the pessimists claim - we could sell what we liked to anyone as we can at the moment but on much worse terms and with higher taxes on our products and we can import all the products we currently import, but many of them on much higher costs than currently (and some a little cheaper), and the EU could go UK will f*ck(*) themselves!

(*) Language Timothy.

Must Do Better. See Me.

Posted by: Suedehead2 11th January 2019, 11:51 AM

In an attempt to provide lexicographers with a new definition of chutzpah, May has been contacting union leaders to seek their support for her deal. I think a suitable response would be along these lines.

"Prime Miniister, in the two-and-a-half years since you took office, you have had many meetings with Rupert Murdoch. You have also met Tory donors on numerous occasions. You have made no attempt to have any dialogue with Trade Union leaders. Now that you are in a very big hole, largely of your own making, you want our help. You're not getting it. Good day."

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 11th January 2019, 12:51 PM

Surely as a Tory you’d have to be monumentally dense to even think a trade union would ever even fractionally agree with you

Posted by: Suedehead2 11th January 2019, 02:42 PM

If May had established some form of dialogue with union leaders when she became PM, they might have been willing to listen to her on this subject. However, she completely ignored them. All her waffle about listening to all sides of the EU debate has been just that - waffle.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 12th January 2019, 02:16 PM

A very good piece in the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2019/jan/12/brexit-remainer-leave-voters-labour-northern-people?CMP=share_btn_tw

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2019, 04:20 PM

The stupidity of voting for a deal that will make poor people even poorer and allow rich Tories to exploit them even more is a self-defeating throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it wasnt the EU that created the problem in the first place - it was the British governments of the last 30 years and their lax legislation and blinkered chasing-moneypots at all expense as long as cash was rolling in to make it appear affluent.

That is what needs explaining, not blaming the EU for all our ills, when it was responsible for the larger part of our wealth-creation over the last half-century. I'd also highlight that the rich tosspots stand to be highly exposed if we stay in the EU and they have to make public all their tax-dodging stuffed offshore stashes thanks to EU incoming legislation later this year - that's what they are most frightened of and non-rich people need to understand that clearly.

Communal mutual moaning about the way things are is pointless unless you have something set up to change things for the better - which is going to be impossible if the economy collapses. So you have to keep on trying to get the message across because it's the right thing to do in the long run.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th January 2019, 05:47 PM

David Lammy made the same point very ell in a Commons speech this week. He was very clear that people had legitimate grievances but that the blame should lie with Westminster, not Brussels. I still worry that there are going to be a lot of very angry people when they realise that leaving the EU will have done precisely nothing to address their grievances. Indeed, they are the very people likely to suffer most from leaving.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th January 2019, 07:07 AM

Leaving aside all the political & economic issues, why do many people demanding another referendum call it a 'Peoples Vote'? Who on earth do they *think* voted in the 2016 referendum?

Posted by: Iz~ 13th January 2019, 07:31 AM

Russian money buying ads that broke campaigning rules voted in the referendum.

There are numerous reasons why it might be called a people’s vote. Government has done such a bad job of negotiated that it feels out of control of the people, it would serve to confirm that the people truly do wish to leave under the terms that have now been presented, the amalgamation of Leave wishes making that unclear in 2016. It would make it a chance to run the vote under a cleaner, less toxic campaign ideally less open to vote manipulation. And it gels well as a promotional tactic to get past the infuriating ‘will of the people’ slogan that government has relied on by bringing together the will of all the people, which will only truly be correct on voting day with all their opinions taken into account.

Essentially, a catchy name that takes power away from representatives who have failed us.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th January 2019, 07:59 AM

I doubt many people actually care about that, and even if they'd known about it at the time, it's unlikely to have affected their vote.

Besides, look how much money the gov't spent on their pro-EU leaflet, the cost of which was only excluded from the campaign total on a technicality.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2019, 09:16 AM

A technicality being a euphemism for “the law”.

I avoid using the term “People’s Vote”, but Iz gave a very good summary of why it is being used. It is certainly a better phrase than “second referendum”.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2019, 10:00 AM

An excellent (and fairly short) speech by my MP in the debate in the deal.

http://bit.ly/2THRQwt

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2019, 08:06 PM

The first one was a referendum on the general idea of leaving the EU, with nothing specific and nothing having to be prescribed either by the voter or the government afterwards.

The second one would be a specific yes/no on a specific deal that almost everyone seems to hate. It's very simple and very very clear. The people are voting exactly for or against the deal, not some airy fairy Norway option, Cherry-picking impossibility, Canada Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus or any other nonsense that was promised and not delivered. It's all in black and white for everyone to read and the people would be giving the clear instruction to Parliament to accept or reject it.

So, a People's Vote. Not a referendum that Tories can choose to deliver any old bollocks that they can cough up in desperation. She says it's the best deal we can get. So let the People decide whether or not it was what was promised and when they can go for it or not.

For what it's worth, it may prove more popular amongst the electorate than parliament......but there's only one way to find out for sure....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2019, 08:09 PM

David Lammy is a gem, and much-hated by the Momentum followers I speak to, who try and trash his decency and common sense by calling him a publicity-seeker - you know, like publicising the Government kicking British citizens out of the country and sending them off to the caribbean just so he can get some publicity for himself. Corbyn, OTOH, did nothing. Said nothing. It's only his job. I'll just say I firmly put the record straight cos I can't stand hypocrisy.....

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2019, 06:14 AM

I'm sure I'm not alone among Leavers in drawing no distinction in campaign spending before and after a totally arbitrary date.



But what this follow-up vote wouldl not determine, is whether voters have actually changed their minds over leaving

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2019, 09:15 AM

In 1997 the new Labour government held advisory referendums on a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly. There was a large majority for a Scottish Parliament, but only a very narrow majority in favour of the Welsh assembly. After the referendums, Theresa May ignored the Welsh result and voted against setting up the assembly. Furthermore, in 2005 she stood on a manifesto promising another referendum in Wales to determine whether they wished to scrap the assembly. What was that about respecting democracy? It is also worth noting that both sides up in the 1997 Welsh referendum obeyed the law.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2019, 09:17 AM

But the law does draw a distinction. Do you want to make all government advertising count as part of the governing party’s spending in the subsequent election?

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2019, 09:53 AM

What I don't want is for the gov't to play the system in order to circumvent the spirit of the law - the Remain camp would have been screaming blue murder if Leave had spent £9.5m of taxpayers money on a leaflet, just before the official date for expenses!

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2019, 10:03 AM

The value of all those tabloid front pages comes to a lot more than £9.5m. They also continued throughout the campaign without having to be declared as an expense.

Posted by: Klaus 14th January 2019, 01:05 PM

Also the Welsh Assembly also obviously has a lot less devolved powers than Scotland, becuase they actually considered all those who didn’t want an Assembly because of the close result.

But obviously 48% is too insignificant a percentage

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2019, 02:14 PM

I assume you are being somewhat ironic here.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th January 2019, 02:25 PM

And there's more. May also voted against setting up the Scottish parlaiment, despite a 74% vote in favour in the referendum.

Posted by: Harve 14th January 2019, 05:20 PM

My guess for tomorrow's vote. Discounting abstainers and the possibility of amendments no longer making it a straight vote on the government's deal.
Against WA
Conservative rebels: 98
DUP: 10
Labour: 246
Others: 57

For WA
Conservatives: 219
Labour rebels: 8
(Ex-)LD rebel: 1
Ind: 3

411 against vs 231 for

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 14th January 2019, 09:45 PM

May is acting as if Scotland voted no to having a parliament at all in 2014

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 14th January 2019, 10:12 PM

That was the prediction I legit told Lotti on Facebook yesterday, stop snooping my messages!!

Well close, my prediction is:
230 for
409 against
11 Sinn Fein / Speaker / Deputies

Posted by: vidcapper 15th January 2019, 06:37 AM

I don't think the margin will be ask wide as that - maybe 130.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th January 2019, 01:31 PM

Yes it would. If Leave win again then the original voters, plus those who have switched to Leave, or voted for the first time to cover those who changed their mind or died, shows that more or less people are happy with the deal they got vs the deal promised.

If Remain is the end, then that is democracy in action. Brexiters are still free to come up with a realistic plan to produce the end they can all agree on BEFORE splitting up parties and the country on vagueness and lies that they can't follow-through on. A decade down the line there's no reason why either side can't test opinion again if it's still as close it has been over the last 3 years. That's democracy, and that's why we had a vote in the first and second place.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th January 2019, 02:58 PM

I wonder if it's occurred to Corbyn that Labour becoming the gov't now would be the ultimate poisoned chalice?

He'll be stuck with dealing with Brexit - if he supports it, he'll have to deal with any -ve consequences - if he doesn't, he'll be deemed as showing contempt for democracy...

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2019, 05:44 PM

The chance of Labour forming a government is very, very low. To get a GE with the Fixed Term Parliament Act is incredibly difficult - and tabling a motion of no confidence in the government (possible that this will happen tonight with increasing amounts of pressure) will be defeated anyway as the Conservatives/DUP aren't likely to vote to cause their own government to fall.

Still think with abstentions etc. that the margin of defeat tonight won't be as great as the media seem to be anticipating. Still a pretty baked in defeat though all the same.

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 07:40 PM

Corbyn can just get out, why he is still beating the drum about a GE - absolute muffins. We need to sort the mess out we are currently in.

Posted by: danuary 15th January 2019, 07:42 PM

She lost the vote.

202 to 432

Posted by: Chez Wombat 15th January 2019, 07:43 PM

Truly a shocker.

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2019, 07:43 PM

The biggest government defeat in history.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2019, 07:45 PM

Corbyn tables motion of no confidence in the government...

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 07:46 PM

She's just called Labour's bluff about a General Election. Guess we will see what happens now.

May has completely lost the plot, I know that.

Posted by: danuary 15th January 2019, 07:47 PM

What a non-surprise!

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2019, 07:48 PM

The government payroll vote (ministers plus ministerial aides) is around 120. That means only about 80 backbench MPs (not all of them Tories) voted for the deal.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2019, 07:49 PM

It is a bit surprising actually - the government should win it easily and so it puts pressure on the Labour leadership to move on to supporting 'other options' including a second referendum.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 15th January 2019, 07:51 PM

Wish the DUP would pull the plug on the Tories. Can't Corbyn promise them something in exchange for their support?

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 07:51 PM

I can't see him doing that when so many Labour constituencies voted to Leave.

Posted by: Liаm 15th January 2019, 08:03 PM

Wow at her being absolutely destroyed like that!

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 15th January 2019, 08:06 PM

As you can see from my above prediction, I knew she would lose badly but by 230 votes is catastrophic.

How on earth any government is able to pick themselves up from such a monumental defeat, I don't know.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 15th January 2019, 08:07 PM

This aged very badly

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 15th January 2019, 08:14 PM

May the farce be with you.

Posted by: blacksquare 15th January 2019, 08:22 PM

So what do we expect to happen now?

Posted by: Crazy Chris 15th January 2019, 08:28 PM

Well she should resign with immediate effect but won't. We should have a caretaker PM to try and get a better deal.

Posted by: *Tim 15th January 2019, 08:34 PM

Which you're not going to get in all fairness

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2019, 08:35 PM

We're never going to get a better deal than the one we already have as a member. Contrary to what the Leave campaign said in the referendum, the EU hold nearly all the cards.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th January 2019, 08:39 PM

EU have been clear as day that we can have this or we can have EEA or we can stay or we can have f*** all. This won’t change things for them. At the end of the day they’ve got to look out for their members.

This is an insane defeat. Far far far above what I expected. I’m annoyed that we’re wasting another day playing fantasy PM for Corbyn. A defeat tomorrow for May is unlikely I’d say. It’ll be close but I can’t see enough Tories voting for their own deselection by siding with Corbyn (as that’s what they’ve allegedly been threatened with). He’d better suck it up and back a new referendum when his waste of time motion fails. We need to get this farce called off so we can start to fix the actual problems of this country.

Posted by: Mart!n 15th January 2019, 08:43 PM

I saw this coming she would lose it, the thing is she created a mess that needs to be ironed out first, not sure if a GE is appropriate at the moment, but I could see that happen at some point.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 15th January 2019, 08:51 PM

No we don't need another referendum at all. We can and hopefully now will leave with No Deal. We must leave in March as that's what I and a majority of the electorate voted for.

Posted by: Mack. 15th January 2019, 08:53 PM

Absolute mess.

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 08:53 PM

So, you don't think they would be affected much economically by a 'no deal' despite what the Brexiteers say?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th January 2019, 08:55 PM

A no deal would be catastrophic for this country.

You don’t know what people voted for and given that every single time leave stood up they said we’d not leave the single market I can sure as shit say that a no deal ain’t it.

If you’ve nothing sensible to add pls exit the electoral role stage left.

Posted by: LexC 15th January 2019, 08:56 PM

If these were normal times we were living through she'd already be out the door!

I can see the no-confidence vote going straight down party lines and May trying to quickly fudge something only for it to end up as the "I Can't Believe It's Not The First Brexit Deal" which will probably end up in only a modestly less crushing defeat. What happens then is anybody's bloody guess but hopefully that second defeat would either finally push Corbyn into supporting a 2nd referendum (which would still be utterly awful let's be realistic here) or May would finally resign.

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 08:57 PM

Indeed.

I do think a second referendum will eventually have to take place, even if that's going to upset a lot of people in the country, as there doesn't seem to be any deal that will go through Parliament.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th January 2019, 08:57 PM

They will be impacted but they have to protect the sanctity of the EU project. If the UK can have its cake and eat it then that’s the end of the EU full stop. Nobody in the EU wants the project to fall apart and nobody wants the UK to leave. The reality is tho, the EU single makprket without us is 7-8 times larger than we are. They have trade deals with tonnes of countries. They’ll take a short term hit, were f***ed for decades

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 08:58 PM

-

Posted by: Crazy Chris 15th January 2019, 09:00 PM

It would upset a lot of Brexiteers. It's like if you have an election and you don't like the result you re-run it. Like Hillary Clinton demanding and getting another election as she won the popular vote.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2019, 09:01 PM

The thing is, a General Election is unlikely to happen because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act - which makes a GE very unlikely. Thanks Clegg. Furthermore, polling isn't moving anyway from where it was in 2017, so it would be likely that if it happened, that it would return a similar result to the one we currently have, and so wouldn't fundamentally change anything.

The only options going forward are IMO:

*Leave with no deal on 29 March - which seems unlikely given it will be absolutely catastrophic. Though it is the current default option - e.g. if nothing changes in next 73 days.
*Extension of Article 50 - seems inevitable now given the scale of the defeat and the substantive changes she will need to make to the deal to get the deal to pass.
*Renegotiation with the EU - absolute non-starter, as the EU have already confirmed. This is favoured by the Brexiteers in the Cabinet.
*Second referendum (or 'PEople's Vote') - also unlikely as there is no majority for this in Parliament. Majority still want to 'respect the vote'. Huge splits could occur in Labour if this was tabled, so looks unlikely.
*Build cross-party support for a softer Brexit with Labour MPs that guarantees initial move to a 'softer Brexit' with EFTA model adopted. Most likely option at the moment.

It's a total mess.

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 09:03 PM

Let's be honest, all lines point to a 2nd Referendum. May will win the No Confidence vote and the Labour Centrists will use the defeat as a way to try and get Corbyn to resign. 85% of MPs realise a No Deal for this country is absolutely stupid and won't allow it to happen. We are not getting a better deal, it's a surprise May negotiated a deal as we got.

I expect it will get put down to a vote between The Deal and Stay in the EU, no way I can see No Deal on that ballot paper.

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2019, 09:07 PM

What do you think that means? What do you think will be the consequences of dropping out of over 700 international agreements to which we are a party as a member of the EU? What do you think it will do to our international standing if we just walk away from our obligations? Why would any other country trust the UK to stick to future agreements? Are you happy to see hefty price rises after imports have tariffs slapped on them (as much as 40% in some cases)? What would you like to say to people who lose their jobs when export markets collapse as a result of the same tariffs?

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2019, 09:10 PM

If May wants an election, she'll get one - as she demonstrated in 2017. The FTPA makes no real difference to a confidence vote. If the government loses (even by one), it falls. The only difference is that there will be two weeks for an alternative PM to demonstrate that they can form a government.

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 09:10 PM

Who cares though, ew have our borders back and we can wave a Union Jack flag. Sometimes I wish I was uneducated and could just do just that, I'm sure everything would be a bit easier.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 15th January 2019, 09:10 PM

The DUP have said that they couldn't support Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, due to his historical links to members of the IRA. They have been willing in the past to work with Labour under other leaders (they would have been willing to strike a deal with Labour in 2010 when a hung parliament became inevitable), so would likely only do it again if Labour had a different leader. Whether Labour would want to do a deal with them is another story.

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 09:13 PM

Labour Centrists and Second Referendum-ists might not be happy with Corbyn's current stance on Brexit, but I don't think they would call for Corbyn to resign. Especially as the Conservatives are so divided, they would probably recognize why Labour has to stay united, or as united as possible anyway.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 15th January 2019, 09:14 PM

As for this, it's an absolute poo-storm. No support in parliament for Theresa's deal, for No Deal, or for Remaining in the EU. Another General Election will just kick the can down the road, and won't stop the fact that the UK is still to leave in March, and will probably still end up with neither of the main parties with enough support to command a majority, and neither of the options will have support either. I've no idea how things will sort themselves out, but a new Referendum seems likely. Although as I've said before, I'd be worried at what happens if Brexit doesn't end up happening, either through parliament or through a potential follow-up Referendum.

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 09:18 PM

Yep Labour would almost certainly insist that making abortion (and perhaps gay marriage too) legal in Northern Ireland would be a condition before they would do a deal with the DUP.

It would still be tough for the DUP to support Labour and vice versa anyway because of their differences in the political spectrum.

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 09:18 PM

Anyone hoping for Labour to back a second referendum if they lose tomorrow's confidence vote shouldn't hold their breath. Corbyn spokesman just made clear that repeated confidence motions and an attempt to get Labour's own Brexit plan through Commons far more likely.

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1085277714985164812


Can only see this ending with either both parties having a change of leadership shortly or a new Centrist party emerging.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2019, 09:19 PM

How does a new referendum happen with May as PM though BB? She will refuse to resign and won't ever support one!

How would she campaign in such a referendum ? I just don't really see it happening...

We're left with a government not in power, that cannot govern and cannot be removed. With complete disaster looming in just 73 days. 'Yay'.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 15th January 2019, 09:22 PM

As much as I'd love to see that happening, I can't see it becoming a thing.

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 09:22 PM

Well it does look like the deadline will have to be extended.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 15th January 2019, 09:26 PM

To be honest, I have no clue. Although at this point, I wouldn't rule out the unexpected.

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 09:33 PM

A number of ways really I suspect:

1) More MPs get behind the People's Vote and the movement grows
2) The EU agree to extend the withdrawl date on the basis on a 2nd Referendum
3) May can't get the deal through and the only way it can get through is through a vote

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 09:41 PM

A question, as I am not sure about this:

Would the EU not extend the withdrawal date without conditions? I thought extending the withdrawal date would suit the EU?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2019, 09:44 PM

I think they'd be reluctant to do so because there are 5-yearly EU elections in May, and so it throws up all kinds of difficulties as to whether the UK could field/keep MEPs. Therefore, they'd probably only do it if we were holding either a second referendum or a General Election. Both seem unlikely, but as Christopher says - don't rule out the unexpected.

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 09:44 PM

They can do whatever the hell they want, but it's in their interest for us to stay in the EU. But anyway, whatever happens the Government need to pull their fingers out cos we can't hold a referendum before March 29th. It was absolute gobbins of May to do what she did without any sort of a plan. A no-deal for us is going to be absolutely horrific. We'll basically be coordinated chaos for a month.

Posted by: The Snake 15th January 2019, 09:45 PM

Oh I forgot about the MEPs before I asked that question, oops!

Posted by: *Tim 15th January 2019, 09:47 PM

It'd need a full 27 member state backing and without a garantee for some sort of solution, I can't see it happening. Especially as the others said with the elections coming up

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 15th January 2019, 09:53 PM

Or we could simply rescind the notice and cancel Article 50 and re-serve it the next day, giving us a fresh two year period ;o

Posted by: Crazy Chris 15th January 2019, 09:55 PM

Sky News emphasising the same. Extension only for a GE or referendum.

Posted by: *Tim 15th January 2019, 09:55 PM

What an idea

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th January 2019, 10:10 PM

Didn’t the court rule that we could rescind Article 50 but not if this was our intention?

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 15th January 2019, 10:13 PM

I don't believe it was carried through to the final ruling, but was in the original advice

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th January 2019, 10:15 PM

Thanks! I thought I’d read it somewhere but things have been happening so fast lately it’s hard to keep up

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 15th January 2019, 10:16 PM

I know! I feels like a lifetime since the referendum at this stage!

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2019, 10:23 PM

No, the final ruling confirmed the initial advice. We can revoke Article 50 unilaterally at any time before we leave.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 15th January 2019, 10:35 PM

The stumbling block seems to be the backstop. Surely May and the EU can work together to sort it out.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 15th January 2019, 10:53 PM

There's a stumbling block because it's simply incompatible to have a soft border with Ireland whilst they are in the single market and we are not.

Posted by: Rooney 15th January 2019, 11:00 PM

It's more than that though, the DUP are Unionist so there's no way they are going to allow that to happen. I'm no expert on the Deal or the history of Ireland, but I'm pretty sure the alternative probably risks a likely civil war in Ireland.

Plus it's all ideology driven too. You have Brexiteers who still want something else, the Centrists who smell bloody and can see a 2nd referendum and Corbyn who is using everything to try and call a General Election.

Posted by: Andrew. 15th January 2019, 11:27 PM

After all this, the only sensible option imo is a second referendum but that only has the slightest possibility of happening if Corbyn backs it, and I get why he isn't. It would be absolutely catastrophic for the Labour Party- their core voters in the North and some of the midlands/Wales would never forgive them and they wouldn't gain enough voters from Lib Dems/Tories to cancel that out. There's no way Labour would win a general election for at least a decade if they supported a second referendum.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 15th January 2019, 11:53 PM

Here's how each MP voted.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/heres-how-your-mp-voted-on-theresa-mays-brexit-deal_uk_5c3e3055e4b0922a21d948fa?zp6&utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

Ours, Stephen Timms, Labour, East Ham, voted against.

Posted by: Iz~ 16th January 2019, 01:47 AM

What an incompetent shambles of a government to waste a precious month when the result was going to be this bad for them. It’s hilarious and sad. I can only hope that a failed VoNC is a prelude to a second referendum being the only viable option left but I’m not holding my breath.

I also really hope that those Conservative/DUP MPs who voted down the deal but still will inevitably vote to support this lame duck government get grilled publically as to why they did so.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th January 2019, 06:34 AM

I guess I overestimated how spineless the rebels might be.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th January 2019, 06:45 AM

Did you mean 'a caretaker PM' or 'a better deal'?

As for the no-confidence motion - as long as the DUP don't vote against the gov't, it has *no* chance of success.

Posted by: *Tim 16th January 2019, 07:12 AM

A better deal

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 16th January 2019, 08:20 AM

It takes more of a spin to vote against your party’s flagship policy than fall into line because Theresa commanded it...

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 08:49 AM

I wonder if the defeat would have been as bad if the vote had been in December.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 09:11 AM

I doubt it would have been any worse. In other words, May has wasted yet another month.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 16th January 2019, 09:21 AM

I actually think the defeat would have been slightly smaller. No doubt she alienated a lot of people by delaying for 1 month and then trying every scaremongering tactic in the book the past few days. I bet people were put off by Geoffrey Cox’s dreadful speech comparing them to children yesterday too. The Government continually thinks it can rule by fear and intimidation but hopefully this will be a wake up call for them (assuming it survives).

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 09:26 AM

Meanwhile John McDonnell has said that Labour will decide on its next move "in the next few weeks". Well, it's not like we're up against a tight deadline or anything. No need to rush.

Posted by: Klaus 16th January 2019, 09:32 AM

Just shows they don’t have, and have never had, a plan...

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 09:44 AM

Yes I think it would have been a bit smaller.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th January 2019, 01:10 PM

Corbyn was a car crash on marr on sunday - he refused to give assurances that he would agree to comply with what the Labour membership wants: a referendum. He kept quoting that the membership had agreed to follow his route to Downing Street. Elite much.

He kept quoting about it being on the table along with other options. In other words he'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming* to support it regardless of his mealy mouthed barbs about out of touch previous leaders of the party. That voters might abandon labour is an inevitable consequence of what is going to happen when your potential fanbase have opposing views. So you have to do what's right for the country, cos if you don't then both sides may abandon you if you stand by and do nothing for the third year in a row on the offchance you can get a Hard Brexit, chaos, and a government falling so you can inherit a mess to get a few policies through by some miracle in the middle of a failing economy and a world that looks on and laughs at the self-destructive lemmings.

Worst PM and leader of the opposition in my lifetime by quite some distance.

(*) keep an eye on 100 or so Labour MP's if Corbyn flails hopelessly about like a chimp chucked into a swimming pool before taking us all under.

May, of course, is just utterly useless in everything she does, says and tries.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th January 2019, 02:53 PM

nothing could be done legislatively before Mar 29th, either way.



Like they day, you can promise what you like, but without a GE win, it is meaningless - and I cannot see Labour winning an election with Corbyn in charge.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 03:51 PM

I keep saying this. They won't win whilst Corbyn's in charge. With another younger leader I think they'd get an overrall majority at the next election.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th January 2019, 04:21 PM

It's so much his age as his policies, that make his chance of winning microscopic.

He's not going for a huge win, but hoping to just scrape one - he knows a big win on a socialist platform is impossible - to many voters would lose too much under such a system!

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 04:26 PM

Yes I agree. Some voters will never vote Labour whilst he's in charge. All the Corbyn fans shout me down on other forums but I believe he'll never be PM. Maybe largest party in a Coalition is his only hope.

Posted by: Harve 16th January 2019, 06:40 PM

This is a huge miscalculation actually.

Even in pro-Leave seats in classic Labour stronghold territory, it's perfectly plausible that the majority of your Labour voters are Remain, with the Tory/UKIP voters' overwhelming Leave vote tipping the scales in favour of Leave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield_(UK_Parliament_constituency) (66% Leave) is a good example of this. Overall, Labour's core vote is very Remain.

And since the referendum, while nationwide polls have only indicated a marginal swing to Remain, there have been some significant changes at a regional level. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain - the biggest swings are working class Labour seats in the North and Wales.

Indeed, many middle class, safe Tory seats (many of which already voted Leave in the first place, contrary to popular narrative of Remain being middle class - https://election.news.sky.com/referendum/solihull-2979 57% Leave vote is a good example) have actually seen support for Leave increase. Brexit is becoming less and less of a 'left-behind' movement with each passing day.

Even if we ignore demographics, it seems that Labour's policy, rather than managing to bridge the gap between Remain and Labour voters, is in fact succeeding in pissing off both sides equally. You kinda need to choose your camp, and their camp is overwhelmingly Remain.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1084797201828724736

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th January 2019, 06:59 PM

Except of course in certain leave constituencies- in order to win a General Election, you kinda also need to win back voters who voted Conservative and/or Leave last time...

Posted by: Mack. 16th January 2019, 07:18 PM

306 MPs voted in favour, and 325 MPs voted against in the no confidence vote.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 07:27 PM

One of my Facebook friends says "Europe need us more than we need them so we should go with NO DEAL" I agree with him.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th January 2019, 07:27 PM

while kinda not alienating your membership and the majority of voters who want to remain. Cos Leavers will vote Tory anyway if they get what they think they want - look at mansfield, unthinkable that would ever not vote Labour and it has already gone Tory cos they are very anti-immigrant and that trumps everything else. What exactly can Corbyn do to tempt them back? Promise an even harder Hard Brexit?!

Posted by: Rooney 16th January 2019, 07:30 PM

Great, so a whole entire continent needs us more than we need them. That is fantastic logic.

Thankfully the important people in the country understand we can't leave with No Deal and it looks like it's going to be taken off the table.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th January 2019, 07:31 PM

Sorry Chris your friend is wrong. The EU does not make most of it's trade with the UK, the vast majority is with others nations. The UK makes most of it's trade with the EU and there is no way to easily get new customers or buy product without any deals in operation. WTO countries have been ganging up on the UK for months saying we will get a much worse deal than the ones he have as EU members, including the USA. They can do what they want because we will be stuck and desperate and willing to sign anything, any old rubbish deals.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th January 2019, 07:32 PM

OK, over to you Jezza. Now show us your cunning plan.

My guess: whinge a lot and do nothing until somebody else forces his hand.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 16th January 2019, 07:36 PM

Without the DUP's support the government would have lost by 1.

And now we're in the abyss for the next few days. Have no clue what's going to happen next, but it's not going to be pretty.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 07:55 PM

Anyone who has taken even a little notice of what has happened over the last 2 1/2 years should have e realised by now that that statement is utter nonsense.

Oh, and you haven't answered any of my previous questions about No Deal.

Posted by: T Boy 16th January 2019, 07:55 PM

I’m sorry but that’s moronic. No deal will be disastrous for us. If the EU were that concerned about us leaving, don’t you think they’d have presented May a deal more to the liking of Brexiteers?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th January 2019, 07:56 PM

This is just such a complete farce.

People do need to keep in mind who exactly is responsible for all of this. David Cameron. When the country descends into a lawless wild west post-apocalyptic nightmare, he's first to the galley.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th January 2019, 08:04 PM

Chris, with respect, there is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that a ‘No deal’ would lead to complete chaos. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2012/art_50/oj...

That is all of our free trade deals, negotiated on our behalf by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements.

Please tell me you are just trolling (as per usual).

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 08:07 PM

No I'm not trolling. Am scared that A50 may be recinded and I want us out in March at any cost, deal or no deal, to halt immigration. People like my sister who wants us to remain and lives in leafy Cheshire don't understand what it's like here in East London as they don't have immigrants there.

Posted by: T Boy 16th January 2019, 08:14 PM

I can’t believe I just read this.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th January 2019, 08:16 PM

Right. Well for a start leaving the EU WILL NOT halt immigration. Countries like India will insist on immigration as part of any trade deal talks and it will be the same for others. EU migration may go down but non-EU migration will go up to replace it.

I'm sorry you feel that immigration is a problem but leaving the EU will not be your solution.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 08:21 PM

If we leave without a deal, the agreement under which we can choose to send refugees back to another EU country if they have passed through there will cease. The likely result is that the number of refugees will increase.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th January 2019, 08:26 PM

Can i just point out the obvious for a second?



You can't complain about immigration WHEN YOU'RE MARRIED TO A FUCKING IMMIGRANT

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 16th January 2019, 08:28 PM

It looks like Theresa has just used up her last life.

Even if the deal passes with some softer Brexit modifications, the DUP will go against her and bring the government down the next day alongside the opposition parties. And we'll either have a new Tory government or Labour government negotiating the future trade deal.

Alternatively, she has to extend Article 50 to the horror of the ERG and potentially opens herself up for enough rebels to side with the opposition to bring the government down.

Or the deal passes and to prevent the whole government collapsing and subsequent general election, she steps down and paves way for a new Tory PM.

Or we leave with no deal and Parliament, in outrage, (with the support of Remain Tory rebels) bring the government down.


I literally cannot think of a scenario where Theresa will still be Prime Minister in April.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th January 2019, 08:34 PM

TM is finished but the ERG are also a busted flush. They have no more cards - so for this I think a Hard Brexit and No Deal can be ruled out now.

Hopefully Theresa May will in an effort to actually put the national interest first (instead of saying she is), reach out and compromise, be open to removing her red line on ‘Freedom of movement’, you know the one that she stubbornly refuses to compromise on just to appease the loons on the right of the Tory party. It appears that the EU would be able to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement if this was the case. I wonder if that is how the discussions will go between the PM, Labour and the SNP (if they happen of course, it looks unlikely)?

(Yes I appreciate leaving the EU with no say on laws is worse than our current position- but it would make it easier to rejoin at a later date when it becomes BLINDINGLY obvious that this is the case to the electorate at large).

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th January 2019, 08:34 PM

In every scenario the British people lose.

Posted by: *Tim 16th January 2019, 08:56 PM

Sing it one more time for the sisters in the back!

Posted by: T Boy 16th January 2019, 09:15 PM

What I can’t understand is what is it all these immigrants are supposed to be doing that’s so bad we have to risk the future of our country to get rid of them?

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 09:21 PM

There's just too many of them from Europe. We've got half of Romania here now. I used to chat to a very nice teenage Romanian girl in the park as she liked my dog. At first her and her mum and dad came. Then her mum's parents and then her dad's parents and sisters and brothers. Am not saying they're all criminals or benefit scroungers as there are good and bad in every country but they're a strain on housing, education and the NHS. This girl admitted they'd come here so she'd have a better education and she's got great GCSE results now. We're an island and we're full already! They can't just come from Asia and Africa like that as it's difficult even to get a visitor's visa sometimes. My wife's relatives couldn't just come here to live even if they wanted. It's all these Europeans coming for a better life. Not necessarily on benefits I admit but to work and send money home then and it's a better standard of living here.

I know with free movement we could go to live there but exactly who would want to go and live in Romania or any other country in Europe?

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 09:25 PM

What's wrong with seeking a better life?

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 09:26 PM

Nothing Suedy but you must admit that we are an island with finite space. Immigration from the EU should be subject to the same strict rules as those from Asia, Africa etc.

Posted by: Mart!n 16th January 2019, 09:27 PM

Oh REALLY...

We need to sort out the mess first.

I can see Teresa May walking at the end of March or before

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th January 2019, 09:28 PM

We’re centuries away from even being half full. Awa an bile yer heid

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 09:28 PM

I'd walk now if I were her. I feel sorry for her. She's doing her best in difficult circumstances. I'd like to see another leader try as hard as she has. The EU should be more flexible. She should get tough with them or stick two fingers up to them and say we'll leave with no deal.

Anyway am out of this thread. You're all obviously remainers so the views of us Brexiteers will never be liked. Everyone I know around here voted out because of immigration.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 09:33 PM

No Deal would be bad for the EU. It would be a lot worse for the UK. The EU know that.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 09:34 PM

There are lots of rules governing immigrants from the rest of the EU. It's just that successive UK governments have chosen not to enforce them.

Posted by: Chez Wombat 16th January 2019, 09:40 PM

How dare people might want a better place in a more economically developed country for the good of their own prospects/families/wellbeing...

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th January 2019, 09:44 PM

I have no sympathy for May whatsoever. She knew what she was taking on. She's been in the Tory party almost all her life, so she knew what it was like. She chose to invoke Article 50 despite not having even a vague plan. She then decided to waste the first two months of the process by calling an unnecessary election. She chose not to involve any other parties in the process despite her initial promises. She chose to round 52% up to 100% and ignore the 48%. She chose to ignore the fact that, had the referendum been binding, there would have been a provision to annul the result if the winning side broke the law. Her current position is entirely one of her own making.

Posted by: T Boy 16th January 2019, 09:54 PM

You’re leaving the thread because people disagree with you? Your arguments are just falling flat. You say we’re an island and have no space but only a couple of posts after saying there are hardly any immigrants in Cheshire. You only want out of the EU for your own selfish desires and haven’t thought about the greater good for anyone else. I’d much rather have the immigrants here then people as compassionless as you. You haven’t even addressed the fact that leaving the EU won’t solve your problem and keep insisting that everyone you know voted for the same reasons and that’s somehow evidence of you being right. You also live in London who voted in strong numbers to remain therefore you clearly must know some remainers.

Posted by: Rooney 16th January 2019, 10:08 PM

80% of us voted for Brexit led manifestos, what an absolute mugging. Got no idea why she is so wet over Brexit.

Posted by: ScottyEm 16th January 2019, 10:38 PM

Two and half years have passed and not one Brexiter has put forward a convincing argument why leaving the EU will benefit us economically.

A polite reminder to hardline Brexiters that only 0.3% of government spending is put into EU contributions. Brexit is underpinned by right-wing, flag waving nationalistic values and article 50 needs to be revoked.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 11:11 PM

From The Telegraph..

Philip Hammond told business leaders that the “threat” of a no-deal Brexit could be taken “off the table” within days and potentially lead to Article 50 “rescinded”, a leaked recording of a conference call reveals.

The Chancellor set out how a backbench Bill could effectively be used to stop any prospect of no deal. He suggested that ministers may even back the plan when asked for an “assurance” by the head of Tesco that the Government would not oppose the motion.

More behind the firewall..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/16/philip-hammond-tells-business-chiefs-mps-will-stop-no-deal-brexit/


If A50 is recinded then I'm leaving this country as it'll be a massive kick in the teeth to us Brexiteers and the will of the British people who voted to leave. Some are predicting mass demonstrations or even riots if we don't leave in March.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 16th January 2019, 11:11 PM

It's times like this we need a like button. Fully hit the nail on the head!

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th January 2019, 11:24 PM

I’ll organise crowd funding for your one way ticket. I hear the Sudan is lovely this time of year

Posted by: Harve 16th January 2019, 11:38 PM

Me?

France's non-EU immigration laws are just as nonsensical as Britain's. But I want to stay here.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 16th January 2019, 11:55 PM

There has to be tough non EU immigration laws or anyone from poor countries, if they could somehow get the one way air fare together, would come here. I bet half the Philippines would seek a better life. We'd have half the world coming here to a small island. My wife's niece, 21, wouldn't have been allowed here even for a visit if there hadn't been special circumstances ie a tragic death, as they think young girls with no job or ties to their own country like she hadn't, will just disappear and get married whilst here. Older people have a better chance of getting a visa.

Posted by: Rooney 16th January 2019, 11:59 PM

People can riot all they want, generally speaking the riots will be places the government doesn't really care about so I'm not sure destroying an already beaten town is the right thing to do. Everyone's just gotten a little heated, as they may have voted to EU but as logic is telling us now, nobody had a f***ing clue what that looked like be it the campaign or the people that voted for it.

Posted by: Riser 17th January 2019, 03:26 AM

So you're going to protest immigration policies by immigrating to another country?

Posted by: Iz~ 17th January 2019, 05:02 AM

You know what would fix that problem? What would stop them wanting to come here? FOREIGN AID (and a concerted effort by our outreach to ensure that their country becomes just as nice as ours). Our ancestors created this mess of an unequal world, so either we directly fix it through foreign aid, or we accept that immigration is a force we need to deal with.

Also, it seems like you have that last thing backwards. Older people have a much lower chance of getting a long-term visa as they are never going to be of benefit to that country's economy. Immigration is great for a country if those coming in are young, skilled people, willing to fill in gaps in the job market, and they may not even wish to become permanent residents. If you move country while you're old, you're doing it to move closer to offspring and so won't leave and/or you're going to leech off that place's services while providing nothing yourself.

Though it's nice to see you considering immigrating to another country Chris. Maybe you could go to Romania or Bulgaria and start a trend advertising us abroad as not the uneducated and boorish Brits who spend their lives living on a wet island, but rather the open Brits who want to move, be multicultural and learn about the world. Learn the language, take part in their culture, make Romanian friends, get a job and contribute to their society. You might even enjoy it.

~zaoshang hao, wo shuohua feichang zaogao de zhongguo ren, but I do try.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th January 2019, 06:38 AM

You might want to check your maths there.

The result was 325-306

Without the DUP's support it would have been 316-306

Only with their *active opposition* would it have been as close as you said : 316-315, and the gov't would still have won, not lost, as you claimed.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th January 2019, 06:54 AM

10?

Did I miss a by-election then?

In any case, the DUP *didn't* vote against the gov't - so what might have happened is moot.

Rather like Michael's claim that Labour lost the last election by 2000 votes, rather than 758,000

Posted by: Iz~ 17th January 2019, 06:58 AM

No, there are 10, and have always been 10 since 2017. The reason I deleted was I saw that Ian Paisley had been suspended so I wasn't sure if he'd voted but it seems that has passed and the Wiki page with the list hasn't been updated.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th January 2019, 07:00 AM

Ah, OK, that caught me too.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 08:46 AM

I meant older people coming for a visit, maximum 6 months. An older woman with family and less likely to disappear stands a better chance than a young lass.

Posted by: mald487 17th January 2019, 10:39 AM

Count me in as someone else that would love to work in Europe, having studied and worked abroad extensively and see the diversity I can assure you that there are MANY places just as nice if not substantially nicer, cleaner, more efficiently run than the UK.

However thanks to people like Crazy Chris me and others may never get that chance, and we are NEVER going to forgive them for that.

You know, I really do feel sorry for Brexiteers who voted to leave because of immigration. Having spoken to a lot of them in my area( note: a lot, not all) they genuinely think that leaving the EU is going to solve a lot of the UK's problems. They lack so much awareness and education on how things actually work, and are going to be in for a huge shock when a.nothing changes and b.they are maybe even worse off.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2019, 11:14 AM

And that is a major worry. There are going to be a lot of angry voters when they realise that leaving the EU has done nothing to improve their lives.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th January 2019, 02:58 PM

That's a bit of an exaggeration - it's not as if leaving the EU means we would be banned from travelling to Europe!

Posted by: mald487 17th January 2019, 03:03 PM

Oh from a travelling/holiday perspective not THAT much will change. For those of us that want the opportunity to live and contribute to another country however....

Posted by: The Snake 17th January 2019, 03:53 PM

Well, unfortunately there might have been mass demonstrations or even riots if there had of been a hard Brexit or no deal too (which looks unlikely now), especially if economically things took a downward turn as forecasted. Unfortunately the country is so divided on Brexit, a lot of people are going to be unhappy whatever happens now.

I think there will be a new party if a soft Brexit or Remain win in a second referendum happens anyway, formed of Conservative Brexiteers and perhaps moderate former UKIP members who are disenchanted with the way that party has gone now.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th January 2019, 04:09 PM

Totally agreed - every time I catch myself feeling sorry for May I remember this.


Apparently the negotiations between May and the leaders of the opposition parties are going well... She's been reading off a script!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th January 2019, 04:27 PM

I don't think "full" is the correct term because young working people pay taxes which help support the older generation, NHS, schools etc, and any EU folk over here are not entitled to free NHS, their home country pays for it. Kids born over here have a right to education here, and old people over here get no pension rights if they are EU citizens unless they have paid into the system same as everyone else. Those working here provide services that british citizens either can't or are unwilling to carry out.

The one area I agree on is the hopeless housing situation which has not kept up with demand and created a problem to the young generation (and people like me who thought we'd just save for it and buy a property cash late in life only to find the cost of housing far outstripped savings over the last 15 years leaving it impossible to buy unless you move to cheap areas in the north). That is an issue that the various governments could have resolved though, and didn't.

In terms of "who'd want to live in the EU?" err me! Spain, at least for part of the year. I could actually afford a house there too, just like hundreds of thousands of Brits living there right now and still claim my pension for an income (when I qualify in 5 years unless they extend it again). What would I be doing to ruin Spain? I will be spending over there, the UK will pay for medical costs (or insurance), I won;t qualify for any Spanish benefits, so the main negative would be me taking up a house or flat somewhere and making prices rise unless new properties are built. The other one would be pissing off Spanish people who get fed up with sheer number of Brits taking their culture over there and taking over whole areas along the coasts. It works both ways.

I think you should continue to contribute to threads, though, because Remainers like me need to hear the other side, and like it or not, the immigration factor is a major one in the way people voted. It's happening all over the developed world, because human nature traditionally blames immigrants when times get rough - instead of the government.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 04:38 PM

Okay I'll continue then. Both sides opinions should be heard after all.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 04:47 PM

That will be because the economy had nothing to do with how we voted. For me, and I'm sure lots of others as I see them say it on TV, saw some just today, we voted to reduce immigration from Europe.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 05:43 PM

May has said in a letter to Corbyn that it's now impossible to rule out No Deal.

Downing Street has just released her letter to him but can't get the link to work.

Basically she says there are only two ways to avoid an inevitable No Deal as we are definitely leaving the EU on March 29th as that is what the people voted for. So either a deal of some kind or revoking Article 50.

She says the EU won't allow any more time for further debate here.

She says "I believe it would be wrong to overturn the refrendum result"

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 06:03 PM

This looks very bad for Corbyn IMO. He talked to Hamas didn't he and defended that saying that dialogue is always good. Yet at a time of national crisis with the clock ticking down he won't get in to No.10 and talk to her without a pre-condition that she can't give. Other Labour MP's including Yvette Cooper have been today but he's now written to them all telling them not to engage in any further debate with the government over Brexit.

Posted by: mald487 17th January 2019, 06:04 PM

God I hate her so much.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 06:05 PM

Why? What do you want her to do now? Rule out no deal or revoke A50? She'd split her party if she did that and anger the ERG 40. She's reaching out to other parties to try and find a solution but Corbyn's being a stubborn old fool.


Question Time should be interesting tonight. Dianne Abbott's on.

Posted by: mald487 17th January 2019, 06:17 PM

Errr...for initiating Article 50 without a plan, for wasting negotiating time with a total unnessecary GE, for ignoring 16 million people in addition to everybody else who didn't vote, for putting the interests of her own party before 65 million people(including remainers and leavers). I'd say that's a good starting point.

I'm not a Corbyn fan either before you say anything else.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 06:18 PM

I agree that she wasted time with an election which she held thinking she'd now have a huge majority.


Am stating the obvious here but the only way she can rule out no deal now is to revoke article 50 which she says she won't do as she intends to carry out the will of the people. So if we're leaving in March and a deal has got through parliament then we leave without a deal.

Posted by: T Boy 17th January 2019, 06:25 PM

The fact that we are barely 2 months away from the exit date and have no deal/plan for what happens next surely makes even the most moronic people realise that Brexit wasn’t a very good idea.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 06:28 PM

It's obvious what happens next. Even a Sky News political guy's just said it. If she can't get an agreed EU deal through parliament and that seems unlikely now then we leave on March 29th with no deal.

Posted by: *Tim 17th January 2019, 06:31 PM

How shortsighted...

You'd think with a vote like this people would think further than "Ermagaahd people that weren't born within our borders are moving here" and think of the longterm consequences.

Never underestimate the sheer stupidity of the human kind

Posted by: T Boy 17th January 2019, 06:38 PM

That doesn’t sound like a deal or a plan to me.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2019, 06:44 PM

She's lying - again. And it's about time somebody asked her why it would be wrong to overturn the result of an advisory referendum o which the winning side broke the law. There is little point in bothering with electoral law if there are no consequences for breaking it. Maybe the Lib Dems should look for a foreign billionaire ready to pay whatever it takes to make sure there is a Lib Dem government after the next election, regardless of spending limits and restrictions on foreign donations.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2019, 06:45 PM

Her priority is supposed to be the well-being of the country, not the Conservative party.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th January 2019, 06:47 PM

It's impossible to rule out No Deal but Philip Hammond tells business leaders that No Deal will be stopped: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/hammond-tells-business-leaders-no-deal-brexit-will-be-stopped

Hmm.

Posted by: Rooney 17th January 2019, 07:23 PM

I don't actually think May wants No Deal. I suspect her saying we will leave without a deal if needs be is a negotiating tactic. Publicly she will say we will leave, but privately I think she knows how much of a clusterf*** everything is going to be. I just can't understand Corbyn's negotiating tactic, because all that is going to happen if he does enter negotiations is the backbenchers will rise up and initiate talks with the government. Calling for repeated No Confidence calls is just a waste of time.

We all know May is finished as soon as we decide what we are doing with Brexit, but Corbyn's also going to be finished pretty shortly too.

Posted by: The Snake 17th January 2019, 09:33 PM

That would be undemocratic though I think. The democratic thing is that the 'no deal' option should go to a Parliamentary vote just before the deadline, if it doesn't go through parliament (which it has next to no chance of doing) then the deadline should be extended.

Hopefully the Speaker will intervene with this and insist that no deal cannot just 'happen by default' without the support of Parliament.

In fact the two extremes of 'no deal' and 'second referendum' should both be put to a Parliamentary vote as soon as possible I think.

Posted by: ScottyEm 17th January 2019, 09:36 PM

Unsure why you would want to reduce a demograph who on average pay more tax than UK born citizens, who typically work more hours, who do the low skilled labour that so many other auK citizens don’t want to do...but ok.

Posted by: ScottyEm 17th January 2019, 09:40 PM

I was a big supporter of the people’s vote however I’ve gonna cold on the idea. I think it’ll cause more instability within communities etc. One thing everyone will agree on is that there is no solution that a majority will be happy with. I think the best solution and I predict will happen will be another several months of watering down and chipping away until we get something that will pass through parliament. I think we will get some line in line with the Norway model albeit it’ll take us bloody ages to get there.

Posted by: Calum 17th January 2019, 09:46 PM

Chris can't comprehend the fact that many migrants that come to the UK do make worthy and substantial contributions to society, and instead opts to believe that all migrants must be the root cause of rising pressure on the DWP, NHS, etc. No UK nationals would ever be part of the issue.

Worth pointing out these stats that were published in December too:

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th January 2019, 09:55 PM

Yes, I currently think that Norway+ (EFTA) is the most likely outcome, though it doesn't remove all of the issues. I'm actually coming around to the idea of a new EU referendum but am still worried about the potential for it to be framed by Leave as Westminster saying to the general public ‘You got this wrong, try again’ which could potentially lead to an even higher leave vote.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 10:00 PM

Yes that's a possibilty but I think it would actually get more young people/students out to vote and give a remain result. Am sure remain would win any second referendum comfortably.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 17th January 2019, 10:51 PM

Some random musings - if Article 50 is delayed by six months, as it could be, then we could be in a position where the UK could end up voting in the EU Parliamentary elections, which are due to take place in May - it was taken as a given that the UK wouldn't vote in this as we would have been outside of the EU by this point, but if the UK does vote, then it could end up being quite interesting indeed. What would also be interesting is whether the deal that will be on the table post-election will be any different - given the populist shift in the past 5 years, the make-up of the Europe-wide Parliament c.2019 will be a very different beast of the c.2014 parliament - it could be possible that this EU, which is likely to be of a more Eurosceptic bent than the current one, could end up offering the UK a deal that is more palatable to Westminster, and could lead to a Brexit-deal in the year.

As I said, just random musings. I'm reluctant to make predictions as I have no idea what's going to happen, but the scenario I've outlined above might not beyond the realms of reality.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 17th January 2019, 11:29 PM

Gordon Brown says that the way forward is a delay of 12 months of A50 to allow further negotiations with the EU and lots of local consultation meetings to find out what the public really wants.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2019, 06:35 AM

The notion that we should remain in the EU merely 'because the exit process would be extremely complicated' holds no weight with me.




Generally speaking, the punishment for doing that is a fine, not overturning the result.

Only if the result is *extremely* close, say within 0.5%, might there be a legitimate reason to challenge the validity of it.



I'm not one of those who claims that most immigrants do not make a contribution, but conversely, I feel that those immigrants who commit crimes should be given no second chances!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th January 2019, 01:04 PM

The decision isn't due to compexity it's due to the sheer amount of damage leaving without a deal will do, and extending time to make arrangements to not shoot ourselves in the foot NO MATTER WHAT IS THE END DECSISION.

The referendum was based on lies financed by foreign rich people and governments via a corrupt now-bankrupt company, on one side. That is fairly substantial and must have influenced quite a lot of people - otherwise why did they feel the need to make ridiculous promises that remain unfulfilled and accept illegal foreign money? They felt the ends justified the means, so the result is clearly very suspect. That Leavers are so so frightened of a re-run without corruption and lies proves they know that to be a fact.

I think we can all agree that anyone who breaks the law should be punished. What annoys me is that EU supporters get the blame for any actions taken by EU citizens as if it's our fault or the EU's fault, yet Britain-for-British supporters don't get the blame for the vast majority of crime which is carried out by British citizens. Illogic, as I pointed out to my anti-EU friend on the Tube on Saturday when an EU citizen worse for wear from booze was playing loud music, was asked to turn it off by a bloke out with his partner, and then said noise-maker got unreasonably verbally abusive and threatening, at which point I got the blame for supporting EU citizens by my friend who's other closest friends ARE ALL EU CITIZENS AND ONE OF THEIR PARTNERS ALSO VOTED FOR BREXIT. Yet somehow they aren't equally "guilty" for it, just me. I put that record straight right away. People are so hypocritical.....

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2019, 04:14 PM

More random musings...

WE know that the 1975 referendum had 66% support for the EU (or it's predecessor), and the 2016 one had just 48% support for it. If. as claimed demographics is shifting support back to Remain, then there must've been a point between 1975 & 2016 where the support foe Leave was even higher then it was on 23/6/16 - when would that actually have been?

Posted by: Iz~ 18th January 2019, 04:53 PM

Can't really do that kind of false equivalency.

Prior to 2015, it was such a comparative non-issue. The ref forced every voter to have an opinion and created this poisonous Leave-Remain divide nearly all by itself. Yes, you had people banging on about the EU (based on what they had read in low quality newspapers about politicians using the EU as a convenient scapegoat) and from polls taken, the highest point Leave reached was 56% in 2012, but because the wider public hadn't been even exposed to the arguments about what leaving the EU would mean, it makes those polls incomparable to ones taken after the referendum was made a certainty and even less comparable to the post-referendum ones. Incidentally, comparing 1975 to 2016 as a Remain-Leave (or EU or not?) divide is similarly an invalid comparison because of how wildly different the questions are and how non-existent those two sides were. I mean what they stand for and the culture around 'belonging' to one side, not the literal positions.

In any case, because of the short memory of the public and their changeable opinions, you're probably just looking for an event in the interim which made the EU look extra bad at the time. Post-2008 with Greece's collapse would be my guess.

Posted by: Calum 18th January 2019, 05:54 PM

Like John's just said, anyone who commits a crime should be punished. But essentially what you're saying is that you think if an immigrant commits a crime they should no longer be allowed to remain the UK and should be sent back to their home country? What about UK citizens that commit crimes? Are you going to have them exiled from the UK, or let them stay because there's an elitist and backward attitude that UK citizens are any better than EU migrants?

Posted by: The Snake 18th January 2019, 07:56 PM

The whole Greece thing may have contributed a little bit to the rise of Euroscepticism in the UK, it did make the EU look bad, and many people thought the EU treating Greece too harshly at the time.

Posted by: *Tim 18th January 2019, 08:03 PM

I think mostly the greek thought that. The rest was just angry/annoyed that money kept going there without a noticable effort from the greek for a long time

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th January 2019, 12:18 AM

Yeah the more north and west you go from Greece the more it was about the irresponsible Greeks and why should we save them than the EU. The struggling southern states are more like to side with the Greeks but currently it seems to just be Italy. Spain and Portugal, especially the later, played by the rules (they complained and weren’t happy but they did it) from the EU and got stuck in to the reforms and are now financially in a much better position. Portugal went through a lot but they survived and came out of it because the EU forced them to make some hard choices and get their act together.

I am not overly supportive of the EUs approach to Greece or the fact that they pushed austerity but they had one thing really really right in that the countries needed to learn to live within their means and not splurge on credit that’s cheap but they’d never be able to pay back in a month of Sunday’s. It’s not comparable to where we were/are because we were living within our means by supporting the economy during a moment of crisis, it’s exactly the things governments should borrow for (the year pre-crisis where we should have been a bit better with the cash is another conversation) and it’s the cash that is then recovered when the economy stabilises. Portugal and Greece had such an aggressive tax gap that they were spending money they’d no hope of ever recovering and in the case of Greece it was on things that didn’t stimulate or grow the economy. All that cash on Olympic venues that are now rotting. It’s a waste of cash. Glasgow 2014 spent money refurbishing existing facilities that were well used and continue to be well used. The athletes village was designed to become social housing from the very very very first conversation which helped too

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2019, 06:19 AM

We can't get rid of British criminals, alas - but I see no reason we can't deport EU ones.

If someone arrives as a guest but doesn't abide by our laws, we should be entitled to ask them to leave - I can see nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th January 2019, 09:21 AM

Although they will, of course, she moly be replaced by British criminals deported from other countries. Funnily enough, the right-wing press tends to get upset about that as well. Consistency has never been their strongest point.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th January 2019, 11:44 AM

I'd say "logic" and "reality" has never been their strongest point

Posted by: Crazy Chris 19th January 2019, 10:52 PM

Sky News saying they have it on good authority that May has decided to call a general election for February 28th, just a month before we leave the EU. This comes after top level meetings with her Cabinet ministers and senior party officials today.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th January 2019, 10:54 PM

Oh for f*** sake not another one

Posted by: Crazy Chris 19th January 2019, 10:55 PM

I frankly don't believe it. Can't see her going for an election now and risk letting Corbyn in. Can't see two-thirds of MP's voting for an election either.

Once she'd got Parliament's permission and seen The Queen this week there'd only be a month to campaign. Isn't it usually 6 weeks?


Also didn't she say she wouldn't fight another election?

Posted by: The Snake 19th January 2019, 11:02 PM

It's not on the BBC News website, and yes it would be a silly move from the Conservatives perspective, there would be more chance of Labour winning (albeit probably with no overall majority and having to form a coalition) than the Conservatives getting their majority back.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 19th January 2019, 11:04 PM

Nothing on Sky's website but I heard it about 9.40pm and it was "Breaking News" as is most news on Sky.

Posted by: The Snake 19th January 2019, 11:08 PM

Well that means it's probably at least been proposed in the meetings as maybe a way to delay Article 50 (the EU may delay it if there was a general election) and hopefully for the Conservatives, win a Tory majority. It's a very risky strategy though,

Posted by: Crazy Chris 19th January 2019, 11:13 PM

They've just mentioned it, saying it's been discussed today but she'd have to get a vote through Parliament before Thursday to pass election legislation. It would be a genuine reason to ask the EU to postpone article 50 but as you say, very risky for the Tories.

Posted by: The Snake 19th January 2019, 11:18 PM

Especially as a strong performance in Scotland rescued the Conservatives last election and I am sure that now that the whole anti-Indyref2 thing that boosted them last time has subsided a bit, they would lose a lot of seats in Scotland to Labour or the SNP.

Posted by: Rooney 19th January 2019, 11:19 PM

Let's get this straight first off, there is absolutely no way Labour win any General Election with a majority without declaring a stance on Brexit. Corbyn and Corbynites are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think this will happen as the circumstances are completely different to 2017. The only way they can get in to power is via a Coalition with the SNP and Lib Dems (who you would expect might gain some of the Con/Lib marginal seats in Remain areas) and in general I would expect them to see voting increases. And I suspect both would want a People's Vote and potentially another independence referendum as a consequence.

Can only see May calling a General Election in order to extend Article 50. The other thing is she promised the Conservative Party she wouldn't lead another General Election (tho she did say 2022 IIRC).

Posted by: Crazy Chris 19th January 2019, 11:32 PM

From Daily Mail online

Ministers have warned that a 'once unthinkable' general election might be the only option left for Theresa May - and it could be as soon as February 28.

Senior Tory sources last night admitted there was a growing feeling around the Cabinet table that an early poll could happen.

Theresa May could be forced to call one to break the deadlock that has followed the defeat of her Brexit deal as she's 'running out of road,' reports the Sun.

One Cabinet source questioned about the possibility of a snap poll told the Daily Mail: ‘There is a dawning realisation it’s now not just possible but may be necessary.’

An aide to one Cabinet minister said: ‘I’m not sure what a general election solves while risking a Corbyn government’

Tory sources have admitted a growing feeling that an early poll could happen meaning the public would chose between May's Brexit deal or two more years of EU talks with Jeremy Corbyn as PM.

Posted by: The Snake 19th January 2019, 11:42 PM

OK, but I would be inclined to take these newspaper reports with a pinch of salt though....

It would get through Parliament I think, all the opposition parties seem to want one.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 20th January 2019, 12:09 AM

My expert opinion is that a new General Election would solve sweet Fanny Adams in relation to Brexit, as the likely post-election makeup after would still result in no clear majority for any of the possible options. That doesn't mean I don't think it won't happen, it's that it won't resolve anything in relation to this.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 20th January 2019, 12:29 AM

Not labour. It’s a small sample, but Scottish subsample from yougov has SNP at 47 and labour in the teens. Tory on 24. They’ll hold the borders and inexplicably the fishing north (seeing as all the tories have ever done is fck over the fishers) but imagine they’ll lose the other gains

The SNP have hit the start button on the indyref motor and there’s very little noise from the unionist press so far.

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th January 2019, 09:12 AM

All the opinion polls suggest that a general election would resolve absolutely nothing. The likeliest outcome atm is that the Tories would still be the largest party but with even fewer seats than they have now. The last late-February election was in 1974. I’ve just confirmed my recollection that it was the 28th. It didn’t go terribly well for the government. Of course, we could see a reversal of that election with Labour winning the most votes but the Tories winning more seats.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th January 2019, 09:15 AM

Possibly an unstable coalition of Labour, SNP & LD...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th January 2019, 11:12 AM

so her bluff on a No Deal is about to be railroaded off the table by parliament, so she's thinking of pulling a huge strop and avoiding asking the public via People's Vote by instead threatening to unleash a better option for her - forcing Labour to try and convince part of their voter base that they are behind Brexit or part of them that they aren't behind Brexit. I'm not convinced that Corbyn pissing about on the fence will work if it comes to that and that's prob what May sees is her last throw of the dice - to threaten it to get Brexiteers on board, or to carry it out and gamble again.

I'd never let her loose in a bookies with a stash of £50 notes she'd end up homeless on the streets in a week...

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th January 2019, 03:26 PM

So it was "Breaking News" last night after being on the front page of the i yesterday?

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 20th January 2019, 05:44 PM

I guess we'll find out this week. Parliament would have to be dissolved by Thursday to hold a general election on 28 Feb (which seems unlikely giving meaningful vote 2.0 is happening after then).

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st January 2019, 09:04 AM

May has finally stopped pretending she's trying to please everyone and has plumped for the Hard Brexiters and DUP by trying to get rid of the backstop and renegotiating the Good Friday Agreement with ireland, neither of which will happen as long as Ireland have a veto.

So she's playing chicken with the nation's future assuming when time runs out the Hard Brexiteers will come on board and vote for her deal. No they won't, they will opt for No Deal. She is a terrible gambler, hasn't a clue, so I'm presuming in that case that she's wanted No Deal all along and everything else is just lip service and lies. Either that or she's utterly useless at logic, human nature, having good judgement and talking to other people. Or both.

Posted by: mald487 21st January 2019, 01:52 PM

I've always got the impression that her own personal views on the EU aren't that strong either way and that she's basically looking for a way out of this now, deal or not. As I stated earlier I don't like her and it's her own doing, but im sure the last 2 years have been hell for her and I think she's just looking for a way to bugger off out of this.

Every interview or apperance she does she looks like she's about to spontaenously combust from the pressure of this.

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st January 2019, 04:52 PM

The Good Friday Agreement was, of course, endorsed by large majorities in referendums in both parts of the island of Ireland. But, apparently, renegotiating it is not a betrayal of those who voted for it.

Posted by: Rooney 21st January 2019, 07:38 PM

I genuinely have no idea what May is doing right now. I don't see a way that Deal is getting through Parliment and she seems determined that we we won't be extending Article 50.

Still yet to see anyone come up with a good argument for No Deal yet.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 21st January 2019, 08:29 PM

Then obviously she must think we'll leave with no deal. I'm glad she's adamant that they must honour the result of the election. She said in a round about way that there may be some sort of civil unrest if she didn't respect the referendum result.

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st January 2019, 08:34 PM

They keep spouting this nonsense about civil unrest. The normal government response to such threats is to say something along the lines of "We will not allow mindless hooligans to dictate government policy".

Posted by: T Boy 21st January 2019, 08:53 PM

Going no deal completely disrespects the 48% of us that wanted to stay. We may not have won but 48% is not an insignificant number.

Posted by: Rooney 21st January 2019, 09:05 PM

But when the Referendum happened not once did anybody mention leaving without a Deal. It's economic suicide and it is still crazy to see Parliament trying to do their best to defend democracy. I understand the slim majority voted for Brexit and I accept it, but if we leave without a Deal I suspect that's when the real riots will happen. Won't take everyone too long to complain they have lost their jobs (if they work in export manufacturing) or the cost of living has risen. Rightly or wrongly hundreds of companies are going to move their operations to abroad. Not saying any of this is even directly linked to Brexit as it's been happening for years, but a slow down of demand and economic certainty just gives businesses the justification to make operations elsewhere. One thing I will guarantee is this (is already happening) will happen.

Posted by: mald487 21st January 2019, 09:17 PM

I don't recall there being an option on that ballot paper that said "Leave the EU, Customs Union and the Single Market with no deal in place"

Posted by: The Snake 21st January 2019, 11:48 PM

I have no idea either what she is trying to achieve either. There is absolutely no way that the EU will negotiate on the backstop, apart from if a customs border was in the middle of the Irish Sea, which the Conservatives may now have to come round and accept as their only possible hope of having an EU trade deal without the backstop AND without a customs union It would lead to the disillusionment of their DUP allies, though.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 22nd January 2019, 11:20 AM

I think she hopes that when faced with her unpopular deal with the backstop and no deal, then MP's will reluctantly vote her deal through.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 22nd January 2019, 11:21 AM

The question was should we leave the EU and the people voted in a clear majority to leave. We leave the finer details to the Government.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd January 2019, 11:26 AM

And Leave broke the law.

Posted by: mald487 22nd January 2019, 01:03 PM

Do you honestly think that 17.4 million people voted leave, expecting that we would leave with no deal and that they knew what no deal would entail?

Get real and stop living in fantasy land.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd January 2019, 01:42 PM

Every single person representing the leave campaign said that we would not be leaving the single market or customs union. That is what people voted for. The day after, once they’d won they revealed they’d been lying and the hard Brexit/no deal fantasy appeared.

It was never put to the vote and it’s economic suicide. You have to be monumentally stupid to think that no deal is a viable option

Posted by: mald487 22nd January 2019, 06:11 PM

THIS

Posted by: Crazy Chris 22nd January 2019, 06:59 PM

It's better than revoking or extending A50 and not leaving in March. That would mean the referendum result has been ignored and us Brexiteers would rightly feel very angry. Well I would anyway and have spoken to others who would.

Anyway how would No Deal be so bad? The world would carry on turning and the sun would still shine and we could strike up trade deals with Japan, China, the US, Canada and Australia. The world is a big place. The EU is merely part of it. They need us far more than we need them. Bet you at the last minute they offer us a better deal.

Posted by: T Boy 22nd January 2019, 07:07 PM

Why do you think anyone cares whether you and your closed minded mates feel angry?

You didn’t think about the feelings of remainers when you voted to strip us of our freedom of movement amongst other things...

Posted by: Crazy Chris 22nd January 2019, 07:08 PM

Why won't you answer the question? How will No Deal be so bad? Same on other forums. Remainers tell us how bad it would be but not how exactly.

Posted by: T Boy 22nd January 2019, 07:20 PM

What will be so good about it though? Not having a trade deal with Europe? Companies packing up and going abroad for that reason?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd January 2019, 07:22 PM

Sorry Chris, I replied to this the other day with a long list of ways in which it would be a terrible decision. It take years to do trade deals so in the meantime we would have nothing useful and be on awful terms with all countries. So they will be able to give us any old crap deal and we'll sign it because we will be desperate as the cost of living rockets, inflation rockets, and wages stagnate as jobs in our industries are lost.

The other day Mr Fox announced a fab trade deal with Japan and heralded it as a marvellous success. The trade deal is with the EU, which includes us as the moment. In 3 months time we will have no great trade deal with Japan. We will have whatever the WTO forces us to have, which is pretty rubbish terms. That's why most sane MP's know No Deal is only being used as a pouting threat by nutty extremists who are frightened they are going to have to reveal where there stashes of cash are by the end of 2019 if we stay in the EU. Like multi-millionaire Rees-Mogg, rich on selling fags, Mr May, rich on investments "out of the country". And all celebrities stashing dosh everywhere who havent yet been caught.

It really doesn't matter if wait another year for Brexit as long as it's done properly and dont crash the economy using threats of something that will only hurt us most of all, not the EU who it'll hurt a little bit.

Posted by: Rooney 22nd January 2019, 07:26 PM

It's simple economics - the main thing everyone is rightly concerned about is the extra tariffs imposed. There everything will cost MORE for us to import and everything will cost MORE to export. Simple business tells you, less manufacturing demand = loss of jobs. Simple economics tells you if there is an increase for a business, the customer is also going to see price increases. I work for a huge global business and they have already announced in the event of a No Deal the price increases will be pushed to the customers.

Second, but a part that is often glossed over, is that we do not have the infrastructure in place to deal with a No Deal. We don't have the ports of the roads to deal with thousands of border controls. Also in a world where technology is enabling us to do things much faster, no we are facing the prospect of recruiting hundreds of extra civil servants (likely contractors) to do mind numbling administration work when this money could be best off serving the country. But I mean, who cares right, cos we can have any shape of banana?

Not one person has come up with a good argument for No Deal apart from that we will be fine in 50 years - nice one.

Posted by: Rooney 22nd January 2019, 08:54 PM

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

If anyone wants a laugh, read this. Doesn't take a genius to work out why Brexit MPs are so hard for a No Deal. Not sure what the people of Shrewsbury deserved for such a twat to be their MP.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd January 2019, 09:01 PM

Look back at what I said to you a few days ago.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd January 2019, 10:34 PM

Please have the courtesy to use his proper title - “Disgraced former Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox”.

Posted by: Iz~ 23rd January 2019, 03:48 AM

No deal means disruption. But it means more than that. It means a swift and brutal severing of any laws and agreements that have EU in the name with nothing to replace them. It means the worst possible combination of businesses packing up and out of the country. We do not have anything near the readiness to prepare for such a drastic change. If you were planning to make no deal a success, you should have started making plans and deals years before the referendum, as impossible as that would be.

No deal is, more than any other form of Brexit, the reality behind all that experts were warning about. It’s days, very possibly weeks and months of major trade disruption. It loses more jobs than any other outcome, it will cause horrible damage to the economy, prices going way up at the very least, it means a HARD BORDER IN IRELAND for Christ sakes and it is beggar’s belief that it is even being allowed to be considered. The only people who benefit are some business owners (Wetherspoons) and MPs in very specific situations, which is why they’re still for it. On the other note, Brexit-supporting James Dyson has just announced he’s moving his HQ to Singapore. How interesting how supportive of Brexit he is yet not willing to let his business remain in the country to see it out.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd January 2019, 06:28 AM

I would guess they gave about the same amount of consideration to the feelings of Remainers, as Remainers gave to those of Leavers.

It all boils down to : which is the more important - short term economics, or long term political freedom?

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd January 2019, 07:24 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/21/england-rebel-spirit-no-deal-brexit?fbclid=IwAR2skegy1JzEBYtQebxDSS_UCVd48pNDVbaL0KQuBn5Wrv5Fzo4rl4NBHQE

All the classic myths about Brexiters.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 23rd January 2019, 08:21 AM

For me it's easy to answer. Long-term political freedom and less immigration from Europe.

Posted by: mald487 23rd January 2019, 09:14 AM

But more immigration from other countries when the UK leaves to fill all of the jobs that EU citizens were doing.

So probably no fall in immigration at all.

Tell me, out of interest, what is your issue with immigrants?

Why do you take such issue with people who are different to you? If they are working and paying their taxes why should you care?

I don't understand.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd January 2019, 09:51 AM

We’ve got political freedom. I’m still waiting for a single example of a law we have been forced to adopt against the will of the government of the day.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 23rd January 2019, 11:24 AM

Trouble brewing in the People's Vote campaign: https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/the-campaign-for-a-peoples-vote-on-brexit-has-descended

Oofft.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd January 2019, 12:14 PM

There was 72 out of 25,000 laws passed in the UK between joining the EU and the end of 2015. 25% of those were the UK throwing a strop over tiny changes to the EU budget. A number of them were our idea in the first place but included a single clause we didn’t like so threw a strop.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd January 2019, 12:36 PM

or, in summary:

People's Vote supporters split on when would be the best time to attempt going for a People's Vote, and MP's not yet willing to publicly come forward until events have led to the case being stronger and other options rejected.

Meanwhile, those against a People's Vote try to make it appear as if they as divided and ridiculously bewildered as Corbyn and his acolytes are. So, the Norway Option then, how's that coming along? What meetings and planning is going on to achive that, cos all I see is other Labour MP's trying to take No Deal off the table rather than the Leader Of The Opposition.....?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd January 2019, 12:39 PM

Apologies! Can we shorten it DFDSDL Foxy-Loxy-Werrity-Matey?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd January 2019, 12:46 PM

Wouldn’t Dr Lie be even shorter while still maintaining a level of accuracy?

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd January 2019, 12:46 PM

Posted by: Crazy Chris 23rd January 2019, 01:59 PM

Just stating the obvious here but we've already had a people's vote and we voted to leave the EU so hopefully we will on March 29th. There's no need for any more peoples' votes.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd January 2019, 03:12 PM

Just stating the obvious here, but the 2016 vote was an advisory referendum with no information at all on what sort of deal we would get if we left. That vote resulted in a narrow victory for a side that broke the law, overspending by a substantial amount. There ar still suspicions about other aspects of the campaign.

The Leave campaigners promised sunlit uplands and no downside if we voted to Leave. They said that we would hold all the cards in negotiations with the EU. Now we are told that leaving will be a success because "the world will keep on turning". A vote on the deal will be a vote on reality rather than a vague, undefined concept.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd January 2019, 03:21 PM

We don't have full control of our economy - VAT for example.



Exactly.



You are clinging to that aspect like a superglued limpet. The result is *not* going to be annulled on that basis - and even if it were, it would piss off voters so much, that any rerun would produce a much bigger Leave majority!

Posted by: mald487 23rd January 2019, 03:29 PM

I wouldn't bother trying to open up a dialogue with him. He's made his mind up. As long as people that talk different or look a bit different sod back off to where they "came from", he doesn't care who gets hurt. But yay....Blue passports!

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd January 2019, 03:47 PM

You’ve been put in your place on VAT before. Do you want me to link it again for you to ignore a second time or would you prefer to just sit down, shut up and accept you don’t know what you’re talking about?

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd January 2019, 04:18 PM

If we do leave, I rather hope that some foreign billionaire ensures a new government is elected that is committed to rejoining on whatever terms we can get, i.e. joining Schengen and adopting the euro. Clearly the Quitters won't mind if said foreign billionaire ignores all the electoral rules because they don't actually care about such apparently trivial matters.

Posted by: *Tim 23rd January 2019, 04:20 PM

Omg there's 2 of them now?

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd January 2019, 04:26 PM

Could you *be* any more patronising?

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd January 2019, 04:27 PM

Very droll.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 23rd January 2019, 05:07 PM

I find that rather rude and condescending. We're not a different species you know.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 23rd January 2019, 05:37 PM

This is quite interesting

"Q: If no deal is taken off the table, will you encourage MPs to back May’s deal?

Rees-Mogg says no deal cannot be taken off the table without the connivance of the government. He says if the Commons passes a no-deal bill, there are other mechanism available to the government. It could prorogue parliament, he says.

Rees-Mogg says government should if necessary prorogue parliament to stop Yvette Cooper’s bill to block a no-deal Brexit.

Proroguing is what happens to parliament at the end of a session."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/jan/23/brexit-latest-news-developments-pmqs-may-corbyn-wont-be-able-to-use-vote-next-week-to-stop-no-deal-liam-fox-claims-politics-live?page=with:block-5c4871d3e4b051f53796678c#block-5c4871d3e4b051f53796678c

"Rees-Mogg Issues Warning to May (2 p.m.)

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group, has said that if the Cooper-Boles attempt to delay Britain’s departure from the EU were to pass, the government should suspend Parliament -- using a process known as prorogation.

That would stop the current session, meaning that all pending legislation - including Cooper and Boles’s bill - would fall. If the government didn’t do this, Rees-Mogg told supporters in London, it would make May complicit in taking no-deal off the table, and her party would hold her to account.

That sounds like a veiled threat that his group of pro-Brexit lawmakers might try to bring down her government."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/fox-warns-davos-no-deal-is-real-possibility-brexit-update

Posted by: *Tim 23rd January 2019, 05:51 PM

I find your racism and xenophobia towards hardworking Europeans condescending.

Posted by: mald487 23rd January 2019, 06:10 PM

As do I

Posted by: T Boy 23rd January 2019, 06:34 PM

Nor are all the people you want to get rid of because they weren’t born on your island.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 23rd January 2019, 06:41 PM

How can I be racist when I'm married to an Asian lady? I am not racist at all but we are an over-populated country and our public services are stretched to breaking point. Enough is enough.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 23rd January 2019, 06:43 PM

I don't want to get rid of them at all but don't want any more coming here unless they're specialists like engineers, Dr's, vets, scientists etc. with jobs already lined up to start. You can't tell me all those coming here from the EU have jobs lined up. I know some and they haven't.

Posted by: Rooney 23rd January 2019, 07:54 PM

But Chris what you are forgetting about this whole immigration issue (and has been pointed out multiple times) is if we make any trade deals then immigration is going to be a key part. So it doesn't matter if they are Polish, Greek or French they will be replaced with Indian, Chinese and Canadian.

That won't happen as it would require the Queen to intervene. Shut down Parliament to avoid pissing off a few people. I can't see her doing it, and let's be clear a lot of people want No Deal because they trade in Gold which is linked gains with economic instability. It's just fantastic, the brilliant super power Great Britain will be reduced to WTO trade deals. We have achieved the grand scale of f*** all in 2 years, what makes anyone think we are going to pluck trade deals out of our arses.

And don't even get me on Dyson, he's basically giving a sneak preview of what all loads of businesses are going to do - move their operations elsewhere. If you want to trade with your neighbours, you move to your neighbours.

Posted by: T Boy 23rd January 2019, 07:55 PM

As for the ‘my wife is Asian so’ comments it reeks of ‘I can’t be racist, I have a black friend!!!!1’ teas.

As for the above quote. You only want skilled people to come over? Ok, so any of the ones without jobs should shove off?

It would be lovely if the only residents of the country all had jobs and contributed in a positive way. If that was a residency requirement, we wouldn’t have to have you living over here either.

Posted by: mald487 23rd January 2019, 08:51 PM

I wouldn't bother. Like you said, he's had this very valid point brought to his attention multiple times and he's obviously chose to ignore and not reply to it(because he knows it's true). That or like many Brexiteers he's so wet for 'no immigrants' that he's shutting this information out because it contradicts his dreams in la la land and god forbid things don't work out the way the leave campaign promised.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd January 2019, 08:56 PM

Yes. Bring up VAT again when you’ve already been told that you’re full of shit and you’ll find out just how patronising and arrogant I can be!

Posted by: Rooney 23rd January 2019, 09:03 PM

It's sad because people just push the whole 'project fear' angle, when people really have no idea. Sure of course it would be great to only accept skilled immigrants, but the reality is we actually have a lot of skilled and educated workers at the moment in the UK. The EU laws allows businesses to tap in to the talent market and be very flexible across Europe. We have a shortage of some STEM and healthcare professions, but I'd argue a lot of countries do as well.

Shame really as businesses are already moving their operations before our eyes but it's going under the radar. As for someone earlier saying sacrifice short term enconomics, it's not really. It's more medium-long term. The idea of No Deal was never discussed during Leave, but suddenly everyone is getting completely wet over it. We've waited 2 years for Brexit, I genuinely don't see why it's such a big deal not to leave on March 29th. If it was the right idea to leave without a Deal surely we would just have f***ed off A50 and just decided to stick 2 fingers at the World. But no we wouldn't do that cos it's bloody stupid.

Posted by: *Tim 23rd January 2019, 09:14 PM

Should we get rid of your wife as well then? Cause obviously she or her ancestors immigrated to the UK

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 23rd January 2019, 09:33 PM

I can't emphasise enough how brilliant a point this is.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 23rd January 2019, 10:00 PM

Can we tone down the language please and be a bit more respectful of each others' views, even if you don't agree with them?

In terms of No Deal, I do think that were it to happen (very unlikely IMO) further to all of the potentially negative issues discussed here it would likely be the end of the United Kingdom with Scotland seeking independence within 5 years as well as the full reunification of Ireland in a similar timescale.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd January 2019, 10:04 PM

Sturgeon will be at a microphone within a second of no deal happening, if the offical starting gun on Indyref2 hasn’t already happened by then

Posted by: Common Sense 23rd January 2019, 10:58 PM

The big difference is that I WAS BORN HERE to two British parents. I didn't come in to the country so am fully entitled to the sickness benefits I receive as my parents paid enough in taxes even if I haven't.

Posted by: Common Sense 23rd January 2019, 11:01 PM

I wouldn't dream of going to France, Germany, Italy, Romania or anywhere else in Europe and getting a steady income due to my illness.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 23rd January 2019, 11:58 PM

And who is going to do the low-skilled and manual labour jobs? Perhaps you might find your periodic assessments become more difficult and the Government fights to fill the shortage of low-skilled wokers? Have you ever considered that?

It's frankly ludicrous for you to be sat there spouting this nonsense when you don't actually contribute anything to society yourself.

You also realise that as EU migration drops, it will rise from outside of the EU.

Posted by: mald487 24th January 2019, 12:04 AM

So?

Posted by: mald487 24th January 2019, 12:08 AM

But others Brits might and do. However you're taking that away from us.

Why? Because of immigration. Even though you have already had it explained to you countless times that immigration will not go down.

Thanks a bunch.

Posted by: T Boy 24th January 2019, 06:13 AM

This shoddy entitled attitude is what makes me ashamed to be British. So because you won the birth lottery, you can have everything you want when those in need must suffer because they were born elsewhere and according to you that’s their problem.

We are going to suffer with No Deal, and one day you will realise.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 06:23 AM

So in other words, you're not actually interested in knowing why I voted for Brexit - that's useful to know...

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 06:29 AM

No matter *how* compassionate we might be, we are just one small country and therefore cannot solve the world's problems. Should we really beggar ourselves by trying to do do anyway?

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 06:58 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/05/brexit-corbyn-electoral-catastrophe-yougov-poll

If Corbyn backs Brexit, he faces electoral catastrophe
The biggest Brexit survey yet shows Remain ahead – and Labour losing by a landslide in a general election if it does not oppose leaving the EU.

**********************

Corbyn's in a Catch-22 situation.

1. Loss by a landslide of he doesn't oppose Brexit
2. Losing a lot of Leave votes in Labour's traditional heartlands if he does.
3. Neither side trusting him if he continues to sit on the fence.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 24th January 2019, 07:21 AM

What does it matter where you are born. If you come to this country and pay taxes and make a life for yourself then they are making a contribution to society.

The “i was born here” game is a dangerous path to go down. We don’t have citizenship based on being born here like the US does. A lot of brits are born abroad for various reasons. I was born in Germany because my parents were stationed here with the military. Countless brits were born abroad for that reason or similar (iirc, including John in Singapore). So we weren’t “born here” does that make us lesser in your world?


In 2.5 years you’ve yet to actually give us anything that resembles a reasoned argument or something that isn’t a meaningless sound bite.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 07:29 AM

Are you sure you've not simply been brainwashed by the Guardian to consider them so?

Seriously though, I do not have to justify my reasons to anyone, whether real or spurious!

Posted by: Common Sense 24th January 2019, 07:52 AM

So you think that just because I can't work due to long term illness, depression, I can't have a say on anything? How ridiculous. I've not simply chosen not to work and I'm still a British Citizen. My dad fought in the war and both my parents worked and paid taxes all their working lives.

Posted by: Common Sense 24th January 2019, 07:58 AM

As a fellow Brexiteer I'd be interested in why you voted OUT though Vid. Everyone I know who voted out did so because we have too many immigrants. My sister voted Remain and is very angry that we're leaving. The subject's taboo bewteen us now. She called me a lunatic for voting out. Well there's millions of us lunatics then.!

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 08:02 AM

I voted out for the more pragmatic reason that I believe it's foolishly short-sighted to give up political independence for short-term economic reasons.

Posted by: Common Sense 24th January 2019, 08:09 AM

Yes that's a very good reason actually.

Posted by: Iz~ 24th January 2019, 08:42 AM

What even does political independence mean to you? Surely you should be well aware that we already have the definition of political independence as a member of the EU and there are no plans for that to change for any EU members at present.

There's a real possibility that Brexit, particularly one fueled by no deal, could lead to the break-up of the Union, so what does that do to your notion of political independence should the nation called the United Kingdom cease to exist?

There are no benefits associated with severing ties in order to be 'completely independent', why PRECISELY is that worth economic turmoil? Tell me the benefits.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 24th January 2019, 08:58 AM

Political independence means absolutely F.A. - it’s a meaningless sound bite. You’ve never in 2,5 years moved beyond that soundbite to actually say why you think we don’t have political independence or provide any examples to back your assertion that we don’t currently enjoy political independence

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 09:07 AM

[quote name='5 Silas Frøkner' date='Jan 24 2019, 08:58 AM' post='6168186']
Political independence means absolutely F.A. - it’s a meaningless sound bite. [[quote]

Oh really - tell that to any country that's been occupied on war, or by colonization...

It may mean nothing to you, but that's because you've had your sense of nationhood brainwashed out of you by PC universities.

People like me, Chris, and much of the older generation have *not* lost that though- and what's more, we are proud to retain it!

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th January 2019, 09:31 AM

When does your campaign to leave the UN, NATO, the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank begin?

Posted by: *Tim 24th January 2019, 09:33 AM

Wait. Are we really comparing the EU to colonization and occupation by war?! That's ridiculous. You are yet to give a point where y'all truly lost political freedom thanks to the EU.

Can't complain about someone not willing to listen to your points when you yourself avoid a discussion when questioned about your standings

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 09:58 AM

Very droll - however we are not bound to them in the same way we are to the EU.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 10:00 AM

I said political *independence* - and besides, a comment like 'Political independence means absolutely F.A. - it’s a meaningless sound bite.' is disrespectful to all those people who died in various wars defending this country!

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th January 2019, 10:11 AM

What about the obligation to act in defence of a NATO country that is attacked? As for the WTO, you’ll soon find out how they can tie our hands if we leave the EU without a deal.

Posted by: mald487 24th January 2019, 10:35 AM

Amen

Posted by: *Tim 24th January 2019, 10:47 AM

And still no answer has been given

Posted by: blacksquare 24th January 2019, 12:19 PM

It never will.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th January 2019, 12:56 PM

oh please, Ive been trying to get you to put forward genuine cases for Brexshit for 2 years in vain, you always resort to a huffy, "I'm entitled to my views" when I show up your claims for what they are - such as your rubbish VAT one which I clearly recall Phil correcting excellently not months ago, yet your memory is so poor you come back and repeat the same thing!

On other comments, yes I also agree with Dr Blind about please not making personal comments keep it to the issues - and I also have a sibling who voted opposite to me, and we have had two very loud arguments about Brexit, one of them in the street to the horror of the rest of the family who chose to record it all for posterity....

So we agree to disagree now and don't talk about it!

Re the EU, everything they have passed has been agreed democratically by the UK government, or we have opted out. It wasn't forced on us. We had a vote in 1975, I'm quite happy to keep with that one because we made up our minds then and there is no need for another vote even thoughsome were too young to vote then and loads of people who voted are dead - because that seems to be the argument against another vote. If people haven't changed their mind then why worry about asking them formally and making sure that everyone knows and got what they voted for?

Errr BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T AND BREXITEERS KNOW IT TO BE TRUE.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 24th January 2019, 01:18 PM

Let me be perfectly clear when I say this. I am from a military family, I was born in a military hospital on a military base during the military occupation of West Germany. Dragging them into your weak argument to try and add some weight to it is highly disrespectful

It is a meaningless soundbite because you and others who scream it at the top of your lungs can not define it or show evidence as to why you think we do not have it. Ergo a meaningless soundbite.

Posted by: Common Sense 24th January 2019, 02:35 PM

Okay I lied. Not everyone I know said they voted out because of immigration. One dog-walker said he hates the EU rule that says we can't sell bent bananas or can only sell them as seconds. So that's why Adrian voted OUT. Would anyone like to take that point up then. I also don't care if they're straight or bent but the EU does.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th January 2019, 02:55 PM

Except it doesn’t.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2019, 03:08 PM

All of you Remainers must surely realise that, the more you dismiss Leavers reasons for voting Leave, the more fixed we become in our determination to make sure Brexit happens - in short, we deeply resent the implication that we are 'brainwashed simpletons'!

Posted by: *Tim 24th January 2019, 03:28 PM

I am simply asking for your reasonig behind the statement that you want political independence. I fail to see how my questions have been dismissive. I have asked you several times, yet you have failed to give me an answer as to why you think the EU is limiting the political independence of the UK. This leads many to think that you indeed are brainwashed and will take loes for facts.

So once again. Enlighten me. Give me your arguments. Don't reply with a "I WANT THIS" but give me actual examples of the EU limiting the UK. I dare you


(Also "you remainers". As you may know I am from mainland Europe. We'll be fine with or without y'all. The union is stronger with y'all but still strong enough to overcome this setback with ease. The arguments of leavers are making me feel less sorry for the UK, cause in 90% of the time they hold no weight or truth to them.

Good lucking booking them trade deals they're speaking off though. I'm sure the months if not years of WTO negotiations will do the UK well and get y'all better trade deals than with the EU)

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 24th January 2019, 05:23 PM

Utter rubbish like that is the reason for this blog: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths.html

Posted by: T Boy 24th January 2019, 05:47 PM

And yet you said we’d been ‘brainwashed’ by PC universities so even if what you’re saying is true, you’re doing that same thing.

Digging your heels in just because someone disagrees with you is a child like tactic. You’ve basically said you stick to your views harder because people dismiss them, again with really explaining them. This suggests you no longer know what you really want and just that you want it.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th January 2019, 06:27 PM

The attitude of so many Leave voters (not just here) just helps to illustrate what a stupid idea the referendum was in the first place. In a parliamentary democracy MPs are accountable to the electorate. We can find out how they voted and ask them to explain why they voted the way they did. If we don't like their answer, we can vote against them.

By contrast, voters in a referendum are accountable to nobody. They can choose whether to explain their vote. If they wish, they can simply toss a coin to decide how to vote. If we don't like the way they voted, we can't do a lot about it. Decisions of this magnitude should be made by people who are accountable and who are at least under some obligation to explain their vote.

Posted by: The Snake 25th January 2019, 12:55 AM

I disagree, I think it was right that the issue was put to a referendum, but if opinion is shown to have changed considerably; ie. if all opinion polls show a clear Remain majority higher than the 4% difference in the first referendum, then there should be a second referendum.

Posted by: Iz~ 25th January 2019, 03:22 AM

It was always wrong to put the issue to a referendum. I’ve held this opinion ever since Cameron announced the policy, but back then it was very hard to express why it was such a bad idea, as surely more democracy is good, right? Wrong, there’s a reason why most functioning democracies rarely make use of direct democracy and it is embarrassing that my birth country fell for the trap so hard while still insisting that actually the spikes at the bottom make for a comfortable reclining position.

Now there’s mountains of evidence as to why direct democracy is bad from the sheer fallout and clusterf*** that has been the Brexit victory. I only look to a second referendum as a possible way the country can haul itself out of this mess, and I’m not sure I can trust it to do that. I support the notion, but only because we’re in this deep.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2019, 06:18 AM

There is some merit in your argument, but as long as we are stuck with FPTP, voting against them on issues where their views differ greatly from the population is pointless, as they just close ranks,



The problem with that is - polling just before the referendum suggested a Remain win, so how can we trust polls?

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2019, 07:20 AM

Because if adopted widely, people would realise there is no longer any need for politicians?

As for whether we needed a Brexit referendum - refusing one would not have made the issue go away, and in all likelihood would have strengthened UKIP even further.

Posted by: Common Sense 25th January 2019, 09:18 AM

So if we have an election and a party wins and forms a majority goverernment but a year later the main opposition party is leading in the opinion polls should we re-run the election? NO. Of course not.

Posted by: Iz~ 25th January 2019, 10:26 AM

You are actually an anarchist? What successful nations have gotten by without politicians? Come on now. Deciding on democratic initiatives takes experience and expertise and as hopeless as the current government is, ostensibly that's their job. This situation couldn't be less of an advertisement for the success of direct democracy.

Quite, and if UKIP got enough support to get into Parliament and make it their mission statement to explore avenues of leaving the EU, fine. Let them do that. Let them spend years preparing and come up with a reasoned directive for leaving the EU that doesn't harm us.



Snake's somewhat incorrect, that's not why we should run a referendum, just because Remain is leading in the polls. It's not as simple as polls can be misleading although they certainly can, but it isn't enough. To stretch your analogy, we have elections when the government has lost confidence of Parliament (ignoring the relatively new Fixed Term as it's just proving to be full of exceptions). So when MPs have lost confidence in their ability to deliver Brexit, they should not default to no deal but should, in the absence of any other option, put it to the people again, asking 'is this what you really want? We have failed to negotiate a deal that will pass Parliament. Do you want us to take this current deal that Parliament has voted down, or should we cancel it?'.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2019, 11:38 AM

My comment on direct democracy was not meant to be taken entirely seriously, hence the smiley - but I do feel that one of the main problems with the democratic process is that it is SO BLOODY SLOW!

As for UKIP getting into parliament and making a difference, that's almost impossible under the FPTP system - yet another aspect of the two-party system specifically designed to thwart change. Hence UKIP took the only course open to them - effectively circumventing parliament and appealing directly to the people.

Posted by: Common Sense 25th January 2019, 12:16 PM

I think MP's should have voted for the deal that May negotiated. It's not that bad. They'll regret not voting for it if we crash out with no deal.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2019, 02:38 PM

They think they can bluff her into, either renegotiating, or holding a 2nd referendum - but it's a game of Russian Roulette they're playing!

Posted by: Common Sense 25th January 2019, 03:07 PM

So how do you personally think this will end Vid. Do you think we'll crash out with no deal? I can see her asking the EU to extend A50. Can you? The Chancellor, speaking to Sky News this morning, seemed to suggest that no deal's a real possibilty now though.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 03:24 PM

Any sensible government would accept that there is no realistic prospect of leaving with a deal at the end of March. Given that leaving with no deal would make all previous bad government decisions look quite reasonable, A50 has to be extended or revoked. It may require the promise of a referendum to get the rest of the EU to agree to an extension.

Posted by: Common Sense 25th January 2019, 03:44 PM

Well I for one hope we do leave on March 29th whether with a deal or not. This impasse needs to come to an end now. Let's get the hell out sharpish.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 03:49 PM

Perhaps you would like to answer some of the questions you have been asked about No Deal.

Posted by: The Snake 25th January 2019, 03:55 PM

I don't know why the EU would be so reluctant to agree to an extension anyway without conditions. Yes it might be a bit of a bother having the UK MEPs up for re-election in the May elections but if the EU extends Article 50 it would beneficial for them surely, as I am sure they would prefer to have a deal with the UK than no deal (although of course no deal wouldn't affect them that much).

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 04:00 PM

They would need some reason to believe that a resolution was achievable.

Posted by: Rooney 25th January 2019, 04:01 PM

It's worthless, no matter how many times people try and tell Brexiteers about their new fantasy (which even the most ardent of fantasists never mentioned during the referendum campaign) they just don't listen. It's a shame to say this - but they are clueless (unless they're investment bankers). It's fine to walk away from the EU with a Trade deal in place, but to leave without one is just economic suicide. If the WTO was so great, the rest of the world would be trading on their terms.

Can already see May squirimg out of everything that happens by saying 'we voted for it'. It's an absolute disgrace how we have got to where we are.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2019, 04:04 PM

I think that if MP's obstructionism forces us out with No Deal, then *all* MP's will share the blame & consequences, not just the Tories!

Posted by: Rooney 25th January 2019, 04:05 PM

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1088738148438499328

This is hilarious btw - must watch for both Remainers and Brexiteers. But shows really why anyone that tells you leaving with No Deal is a good idea is a complete and utter melt.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 04:29 PM

That's May's tactic. She is trying to make sure that, whoever gets the blame, it ain't her. We can only hope the electorate aren't stupid enough to fall for it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th January 2019, 04:56 PM

Snap! My dad was in the RAF for 22 years, and I was on military bases in Germany and Singapore, as the British Empire died in the Far east, growing up. My dad served in the military during the Aden conflicts in the mid 60's while mum and me and bro lived in Liverpool till he got back. My dad voted REMAIN. So where did Vidcapper do his military service? What about the War generation fighting for peace in EUrope by voting for the Common Market in 1975? Having seen the consequences, like Churchill, and even like Thatcher, they knew it was a good thing and trying to twist facts to suit a generation that grew up and did well out of being in the EU but are too blinkered over minor issues to see the greater good it brings but are fond of saying "we" when they weren't even born, or served their country, when older folk who did hold a more realistic view, is just cheek.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th January 2019, 05:03 PM

Local Gov is getting advice from Central Gov about continuation of things like bidding processes and buying shit following a No Deal ("business as usual") so it may be that it will happen unless Parliament takes control away from the Mad Cat Woman.

The Queen's advice this morning is something perhaps about democracy and agreement and getting along, rather than threats and spouting demands on all sides, as well as the general public to calm down and stop being angry with each other which as we know from history always turns out well.....

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 25th January 2019, 05:24 PM

There is no benefit to the EU of extending A50 if it only prolongs the current uncertainty further into 2019. For them, they need to see a benefit to them and their members of the extension. They have been transparent that they want to see the UK stay and that if there is a possibility of that happening they will support any necessary paperwork to make that happen

Posted by: Common Sense 25th January 2019, 05:37 PM

Yes all the MPs who voted against May's deal will be to blame if we crash out with no deal on 29th March.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 05:41 PM

No they won't. They are not the ones stubbornly insisting that there are only two alternatives. That would be the mad woman in number 10.

Posted by: Rooney 25th January 2019, 05:47 PM

I don't think we can blame them for not voting it though, that's essentially blackmail. I have no idea about the Deal itself and I don't pretend to, but it seems universally hated by both sides. The ERG are pretty vocal about it being bad and right now it does seem very House of Cards in the political spectrum.

There are lots to blame, I mean in hindsight we really should not have triggered Article 50 without a proper plan. You can blame to Jeremy Corbyn a lot for that and the current government. It's ridiculous we are about to single handedly destroy our economy for no economic benefit. At least we have some MPs trying to stop a No Deal.

Posted by: T Boy 25th January 2019, 06:06 PM

I’ll probably just blame you and the other Brexiteers for being so desperate to destroy our country just because you haven’t the compassion to share it with people who are different.

Posted by: Common Sense 25th January 2019, 06:20 PM

I wouldn't mind Europeans coming if they had a job lined up already but most don't have. They look for one when they get here. I've nothing against all the nurses who come from the Philippines as without them the NHS would face a severe staff crisis. There shouldn't be free movement within the EU and there should be stricter criteria as to who comes. If that was the case a lot of us who voted out for the immigration reason may not have.

Posted by: Calum 25th January 2019, 06:29 PM

What difference does it make if they have a job lined up before they arrive; or are looking for one when they arrive? That's certainly more than can be said for the likes of yourself who, to reiterate Ben's earlier point, don't contribute to society.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 25th January 2019, 07:53 PM

Sick to my back teeth of repeating this to you and vidcapper. It’s like you’re being wilfully thick.


EU LAW THAT THE UK HAS CHOSEN NOT TO APPLY EXPLICITLY ALLOWS US TO CONTROL MIGRATION FROM THE EU BY REQUIRING EU NATIONALS TO REGISTER, PROHIBITING THEIR RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDING WHEN THEY ARRIVE IN THE UK AND DEPORTING THEM IF THEY DONT HAVE A JOB WITHIN THREE MONTHS

Read something other than the daily mail for once in your damn life

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 08:05 PM

It is also worth pointing out that the country that pressed hardest for this law was the UK.

Posted by: mald487 25th January 2019, 09:08 PM

Don't keep ignoring this Chris.

Posted by: Common Sense 25th January 2019, 09:10 PM

I don't read the Daily Mail, The Sun or any other newspaper. Haven't done for years. I base my opinions on real every day life and what I see going on every day in my community.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 09:19 PM

In which case, a propos your comment earlier this week, you should have noticed the the bananas on sale in greengrocers, supermarkets etc. are decidedly curved.

Posted by: Calum 25th January 2019, 11:42 PM

I'll go with your ludicrous statement in the first quote for a moment. So, because you see a handful of migrants within your one community in the UK, you take one glimpse at them and automatically assume they're either not seeking employment or even in employment? And that justifies the foundations of your whole reasoning for voting Leave?

The cheek and hypocrisy of all of this coming from somebody who is not seeking employment, throwing persistent tantrums about fitness-to-work assessments, receiving financial support from the government in the form of benefits, etc is unbelievable. Your terribly misinformed, self-entitled vote for Leave is not going to deliver any of the wonderful outcomes you anticipate, Chris.

Posted by: Liаm 26th January 2019, 06:24 AM

I have to laugh at Dyson's HQ moving to Singapore because of Brexit, if you had to sum up the hypocrisy of Leave voters and campaigners in one thing to an alien from Mars, that'd be it f*** up the country, and sod off when it becomes clear it will affect them, leaving everyone else to just drown in the sea of absolute shite.

*insert hands in the air Emoji 99 times over*

With all due respect, it is often people on benefits you hear complaining about immigration and using it as an excuse for why they don't get a job, if it's not that they just won't work no matter what. I know it's hard, but if you aren't qualified for jobs or don't bother with them, you absolutely cannot complain that people who are qualified, do bother and work hard have jobs, or at least come to a place where they can look for opportunities. And I'm sure you don't complain when their jobs are contributing towards paying your benefits....

Besides, it's not even just the EU obviously, whenever I hear any explanation for why people voted Leave, it comes across that they saw someone in a burqa in Aldi and decided that all immigrants must go, on the spot, the EU as a scapegoat. And that's part of why this whole thing leaves such a bitter taste, Leave won by such a small margin and all you hear is woefully blind and misinformed people making comments like this as to why they voted Leave, and because they are too ignorant to share a country that's been a melting pot of cultures for so long with anybody else, the next generation are having to bear the tidal wave of everything going wrong. People are all fine to eat the food it gives us, but god forbid they have to sit on a bus next to a mother who tells her child to sit down in Romanian or is talking to her sister on the phone in Russian and they decide immigrants have ruined their community and the whole country.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2019, 06:42 AM

Hey, don't try & drag me into the xenophobia - that has never been *my* motivation for voting Brexit.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2019, 06:44 AM

Surely you're not suggesting it would be *less* bitter if Leave had won by a larger margin?

Posted by: Iz~ 26th January 2019, 07:11 AM

The bitter part of Leave winning by a small margin is public figures and everyone acting like it was a conclusive margin and an undebatable victory.

The bitter part of Leave winning by a bigger margin would be sheer despair at the country being wilfully stupid and knowing that there was little chance it would change.

Neither are good but I'd take the first one.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2019, 07:26 AM

Could you explain that a little further - what would be 'wilfully stupid' about a country making that choice?

Posted by: Iz~ 26th January 2019, 07:33 AM

The same downsides that we've been telling you about for years, voting to lose free movement in an entire continent, voting to lose countless EU funded projects, voting to introduce turmoil and the unknown on the back of vague promises that turned out to be lies almost as soon as the result was announced. Only with a bigger margin, we'd have known that more of the voting public had fallen for it.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2019, 09:17 AM

So even if, say, 90% had vote for Brexit, they'd still have 'fallen for it'?

Just how high a % would it take to convince you that it was a genuine expression of voters opinions?

As for the 'downsides' you mention - clearly they were not considered downsides to a majority of those who voted.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th January 2019, 09:54 AM

No, they wee dismissed as "Project Fear" by the liars in the Leave campaign. Of course, others in the Leave campaign said there were no downsides at all. That was a lie, wasn't it?

Posted by: Iz~ 26th January 2019, 10:01 AM

Yes.

No %. A clean campaign and a situation where its proponents would not have to scrabble for reasons why leaving benefits us instead of vague promises that it'll be worth it in the end.

We really don't know that because of all the misinformation spread during the campaign and how every Leaver has a different reason for leaving, some even voting in the hopes of a situation where we do not lose benefits like freedom of movement.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th January 2019, 10:21 AM

I think a much larger majority WOULD have made the case for leaving pretty air-tight.

As I say oevr and over I can;t stand hypocrisy from politicians especially. The Brexiteers who don't want another people's vote to see that we are all getting what we thought we were voting for are the same people who wanted (in advance) follow-up referendums in Wales, Scotland & BREXIT before they knew the results, and also after the results in Wales. That includes Rees-Frog, Forage, and the other leading lights of the lies told in the referendum campaign by the illegally-funded foreign-supported liars of Leave. When you support corruption you don't believe in democracy at all, and as we've seen once they all found that the Law, Parliament, and UK laws & processes don't go the way they wanted (which they claimed they wanted to "take back control") they make enemies of everybody that doesn't fall for their lies in their self-interested attempts to subvert UK democracy. Personally I loathe them for what they've done and history will judge them harshly.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th January 2019, 11:24 AM

Time for a prediction. If we do leave, within five years the proportion of people (excluding those too young to have voted) who say they voted Leave will be under 40%. If we leave without a deal, that will happen within three years.

Posted by: mald487 26th January 2019, 11:30 AM

Would suprise me if it's even less than that. You also have to take into account the number of leave voters that will be dead by then.

Posted by: Liаm 26th January 2019, 11:38 AM

As Iz said, knowing the country is so stupid to be decisively for it would be awful but I'm often of that mindset. At least if it was a larger loss, it wouldn't be a care of "if only the campaign was managed better" "if only people were more educated". I just feel like those things could easily have swung it, such a near miss just feels a bit worse. Of course any outcome ending in Brexit is bitter enough...

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th January 2019, 11:49 AM

I’m being cautious!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th January 2019, 01:53 PM

It's already less than 36% of the population isn't it? Remain is about 34% and most likely deaths since then have been weighted more to Leavers.

Or to put it another way, 64% of the country didn't vote for economic suicide, so one should assume they were happy with the status quo.

Now That's What I Call Democracy....

But yes, if it's a tits-up disaster then numbers of people admitting they caused it by voting for dodgy liars who made false claims and were gullible will drop year-on-year as no-one wants to look like an idiot at work or to friends. My friends who voted Leave don't give a toss what the consequences are though so it'll probably remain fairly accurate, give or take natural causes losses.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th January 2019, 02:17 PM

oh, and if anyone wants cheering up, how about this Twitter post?


"John O'Connell
‏

Confirmation today from multiple US sources via our US colleagues that Nigel #Farage upgraded by FBI from 'Person of Interest' in Multiple Data Crimes to 'Actively being Investigated'.

Likely to be asked to schedule an interview on his next visit."

Now this is what the Government should be doing. Throws the whole result into the air, if he goes down, as centrepiece of the whole movement.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th January 2019, 02:44 PM

No, the government is too busy demonstrating its independence by following the Americans in declaring the winner of the Venezuelan election to be someone who wasn't even a candidate.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2019, 02:48 PM

How do you know that the people who voted Leave because of freedom of movement, only did so because they were 'brainwashed' into it. rather than genuinely believing it to be a mistake? Or they don't believe that the money saved from our contribution would be better spent directed on the UK?



Speak for yourself.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th January 2019, 04:42 PM

What money saved? Nearly all the forecasts suggest that the net effect of leaving will be negative. The UK's net contribution (after allowing for the rebate and grants for various projects) will be more than wiped out by the impact on the economy, including the impact on trade.

Posted by: Common Sense 26th January 2019, 04:56 PM

Has anyone else received a template email to send to their MP? Just sent mine. It says the people voted out and asking him not to vote to get rid of No Deal and not to vote to revoke or extend A50 but to do the will of the people, honour the referendum and get us out on March 29. If anyone wants the template I'll gladly PM you one to email to your MP. It's time they listened and delivered the referendum result. Am also going to send it to No.10.

Posted by: Rooney 26th January 2019, 05:05 PM

Chris surely at this moment you are just trolling. Nobody voted for No Deal.

Posted by: Common Sense 26th January 2019, 05:07 PM

Am not just trolling at all. That's what I received and have forwarded it to Stephen Timms MP. Just wondered if anyone else has got it as I was wondering why me? Can't see who sent it.

Posted by: Rooney 26th January 2019, 05:19 PM

No doubt someone has illegally mined your data. Seems to be common trend in politics these days.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th January 2019, 05:21 PM

Thankfully my MP is one of those calling for a referendum on the deal.

Posted by: Common Sense 26th January 2019, 05:44 PM

Well am proud to be a Brexiteer and have nothing to hide. I know my best friend from primary school is deleting remarks I make on his Facebook timeline. Suppose he'd say it's his Facebook after all. Think I'll unfriend him as we have absoloutely nothing in common at all. Anyway can post what I like on mine, within the law of course.

Posted by: T Boy 26th January 2019, 06:31 PM

I don’t exactly know what there is to be proud of being a Brexiteer. There certainly won’t be many who proud of you.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th January 2019, 07:36 PM

Thanks, but my local MP is a self-interested rude rich Tory tit and I have no doubt he will vote No Deal given the opportunity. He's certainly given short-shrift to me on a previous letter which I'm thinking of framing. I complained about the stupidity of allowing petrol stations to disappear leaving the remaining ones getting quick-fill-up's by tankers which grinds the country to a halt in the event of a strike, (or perhaps more likely these days, long queues at borders). His response, paraphrased? Sod off, stop whingeing, I don't care, I got petrol OK in my lovely house near Sandbanks so you must be a moaner.

All the local garages had sold out, outside the rich areas presumably, during a strike caused by Tory government policies, and if your car had low fuel it wasnt practical to drive about looking for one that wasnt empty (I tried that).

Typical Tory Brexiteer in fact, no forward planning and couldnt give a toss about consequences.

Posted by: Common Sense 26th January 2019, 08:25 PM

I am very proud to be putting my country of birth FIRST before any tin-pot superstate EU that we should have never joined in the first place. Now I'm off to eat a ruler straight banana which the EU has said I must buy.

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 26th January 2019, 08:36 PM

Keep it.

In fact, shove it up your arse.

Posted by: T Boy 26th January 2019, 08:44 PM

And I’m proud that I put not just what I wanted first, but what was best for our country. You seem to have put only your selfish reasons first since your yet to tell us what we’re going to gain from any of this.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th January 2019, 08:49 PM

Good luck with finding a straight banana. Very single one I have ever eaten (and that's a lot of bananas) has been curved. I'm surprised the prisons aren't full of people convicted of openly flouting this mythical law.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 26th January 2019, 08:52 PM

What about those of us that don’t have a country of birth of the UK but are British?

I was born on a military base while my father was serving in the Air Force. My country of birth is Germany but as a Fetus I contributed more to this country than you ever have or ever will.

Why am I having my connection to my country of birth stripped from me? My rights to live and work in my country of birth? Does that not matter to you at all?

Posted by: mald487 26th January 2019, 09:01 PM

THIS - SECONDED.

Stick your banana and you're precious letter where the sun doesn't shine.

Thanks to you and people like you I may have to relocate after March 29th from a country that I love and a job that I worked bloody hard to obtain, in a place where I pay taxes and contribute to society. Something that you'd know nothing about.

Posted by: Common Sense 26th January 2019, 09:04 PM

I resent the personal insults. I am unable to work due to illness and am not one of these workshy scroungers who just want to linger on benefits.

Posted by: mald487 26th January 2019, 09:07 PM

I resent(in the event of no deal) being made to abandon my job,.my friends and my partner.

So, ya know tit for tat mate!

Not nice is it? Suck it up, that's what we've had it to do.

Posted by: Common Sense 26th January 2019, 09:10 PM

What makes you think you'll have to leave the country? Another scare story. Mrs. May said that no Europeans will have to leave. Am sure you'll be able to stay here.

Posted by: mald487 26th January 2019, 09:16 PM

You've got in the wrong way around. I'm British living abroad. We do not know what will happen yet after March 29th. If(and it's a BIG if at this point) theres a deal, then there will be transition period which will last until December 2020, during this time we'll be able to apply for residency.

That is only in the event of a deal. If there is no deal, then we literally don't know at this point what will happen.

Take a look on the government website. It explains this clearly.

So excuse me if I have little time for your nonsense.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 26th January 2019, 09:24 PM

Thanks for answering my question there Chris. You don’t have an answer because there is no justification for racism

Posted by: Calum 26th January 2019, 09:28 PM

Oh please. Nobody's insulting you; merely pointing out the facts and how absolutely ridiculous your thoughts on how brilliant leaving the EU is.

You say you're not a scrounger and don't want to be on benefits, yet almost all of your judgement on EU immigration in the UK stems from assuming they may also be on benefits, draining resources, etc. You've tried to argue however many times over the impact that certain outcomes would have on your benefits, so clearly you're expecting yourself to be in receipt of benefits for a good while without actively job-seeking or finding the help that you might need.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2019, 06:40 AM

At the moment that's just speculation.



We also didn't not vote for No Deal - it simply wasn't an option.



Quite so - why should we be ashamed for putting the priorities of our our country ahead of others?



You don't think Brexiters also believe we are putting the interests of our country first? The only difference is that we are looking long-term at the bigger picture, rather than at short-term economics.

Posted by: T Boy 27th January 2019, 08:02 AM

Then can you finally reveal what the bigger picture is? And none of this ‘political freedom’ nonsense, I want actual detail. What benefit will I see from me struggling in the near future?

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2019, 08:19 AM

I'm sorry that you don't think political freedom is worth anything - and how do you *know* you will be struggling?

NB There can be no specific detail for a relatively abstract concept like political freedom, at least none that I know by experience that Remainers would accept.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th January 2019, 08:40 AM

1. The government's own stats and the Bank of England, and business and economic experts the world over all say it will be worse, so we can speculate that the sky will turn pink tomorrow but the reality is that it will almost certainly be blue. Grasping at straws because you don;t like the evidence.

2. All the people in the Liar Leave campaign said there would be a deal for definite. People believed them. Trying to rewrite recent history again cos you don;t like reality.

3. Remainers are also putting the priority of the country first - that YOU choose to think we are and will be worse off is your choice, but that doesn't mean remainers are some self-destructive species of lemmings. That is how we see Leavers, so stop trying to claim moral higher ground again, both sides think the same.

4. Remainers also look to the long-term, and in fact demonstrate an ability to look at consequences, both long-term and short-term, in a way that leading brexiters don't and can't other than make vague unsubstantiated promises that they fail to carry out. Can't even deliver on things they promised 3 years ago, never mind 40 years from now.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th January 2019, 08:55 AM

Davy Davey promised that we would get “the exact same benefits” as we currently get from membership of the Single Market. When it was suggested that that was only possible by remaining a member of the SM, he just ignored the point - as did all his fellow Quitters. It should be clear to anyone that that promise cannot possibly be met by crashing out without a deal.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th January 2019, 09:06 AM

Well as Sir Vince said: Years of economic pain justified by the 'exotic spresm' of leaving the European Union.

Posted by: T Boy 27th January 2019, 10:24 AM

It’s not that I think it’s not worth anything, it’s more that I can’t see that we don’t have it now.

And it’s a pretty much certainty that everyone bar the richest of the rich will struggle with No Deal.

Again, you’re unable to actually answer any question about the benefits of leaving.

Posted by: *Tim 27th January 2019, 11:23 AM

Not the Brexiteers actually admitting that there was no vote for or against a No Deal therefor making their own argument of the peoples vote void 😂😂😂

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2019, 11:59 AM

1. Not as much as I'd like.

2. Not *unable*

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th January 2019, 12:16 PM

"I'm keeping my well-supported views secret just as I have been doing for 3 years but I'll keep repeating the same phrases over and over until you annoying people with facts and reason and truth shut up and accept the lies that have been spread by rich foreigners and rich Tories and believed by millions"

BTW I see Mr May getting involved in the discussion today instead of sticking with his own day-job of generating money for rich people by storing it in tax havens and investments and clever financial instruments. I wonder why he's so keen on getting it sorted out before the EU rules on open-ness come into force later in the year?

Posted by: T Boy 27th January 2019, 12:48 PM

1. Not as much as you’d like. Enlighten me as to what this extra freedom is that we don’t have please.

2. Perhaps you are able but you’ve refused to do so. And now it feels like I’m talking to one of my students.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2019, 03:04 PM

Is it any wonder I refuse to post my reasons, when *every single time* I try, they get dismissed as Leave propaganda, and myself treated like a re**** for believing them...

Posted by: Rooney 27th January 2019, 03:13 PM

I completely respect your views Vidcapper's and Chris' as well. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I think from both sides there is propaganda and fear, not all of it likely to be true. But a strong country is built on a strong economy. By all accounts, it will take years and years for our economy to prosper -this is not short term economics, it's not even medium term economics, it's long term economics. Crashing out with No Deal and then trying to negotiate deals is just quite frankly the most short sighted thing our country could possible do.

Esentially we are creating a decision that will benefit absolutely nobody that is able to vote as most of us will be pensioers or dead by the time any economic grand master plan comes to fruition.

I can see the argument for leaving the EU but I cannot see the argument for leaving the EU without a deal because there is not one. Not one person has come up with an argument that is any good and there's a reason the majority of the politicians are so against a No Deal bar the usual loonatics - because they know we are commiting economic suicide.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th January 2019, 03:28 PM

N nobody has even put a convincing case for long-term economic benefits. Leavers have been asked many straightforward questions, but they haven't even attempted to answer most of them. For example, why would a country give an island of 65m people a better trade deal than the one they'd give a bloc of 500m?

Posted by: Rooney 27th January 2019, 03:40 PM

This is what I don't get either, we have no poker face and no strong negotiation points. How do people expect we're going to get good Trade Deals? Of course everyone is going to want to trade with us because they see a great opportunity to get a great deal for themselves and because we have zero leverage and we need to negotiate deals we're going to get screwed over. It's just pig ignorant and if anyone belives that the USA is going to offer us a fantastic trade deal, because they are not. Right now are they are in true isoloationism and see an opportunity to make a great deal that benefits themselves.

Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2019, 03:44 PM

This is the latest then. From The Guardian online. Light at the end of the tunnel at last?

Jean Claude Juncker has reportedly told Theresa May in a private phone call this morning, Sunday, that shifting her red lines in favour of a permanent customs union is the price she will need to pay for the EU revising the Irish backstop.

Without a major shift in the prime minister’s position, the European commission president told May that the current terms of the withdrawal agreement were non-negotiable.

Details of the call, contained in a leaked diplomatic note, emerged as Juncker’s deputy, Frans Timmermans, said there had been no weakening of the resolve in Brussels in support of Ireland, and accused the Tory Brexiters of a “cavalier” approach to peace.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th January 2019, 03:56 PM

The hardline Quitters won’t be happy with that.

Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2019, 04:12 PM

No but as they're saying on Digital Spy, it does show there is room for movement from the EU with the backstop when we all thought it was absolutely set in concrete that they'd never budge on it.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2019, 04:16 PM

The problem with any deal is that it won't be enough for most Remainers, and too much for most Leavers, so I have some sympathy with those trying to negotiate in such an untenable position.

Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2019, 04:26 PM

No-one wants us to leave without a deal really and not even me, but if MP's won't vote through May's deal which apart from the backstop wasn't bad from what I've read of it and I have researched it when I was bored late last night. Of course I'd prefer a deal and with Juncker saying there's a way they'll budge on the backstop I think we may be seeing light at the end of the tunnel at last.

Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2019, 04:29 PM

Yes I have immense sympathy for May and her negotiators. Remember she has a team and isn't just negotiating herself as a mean lone wolf that won't budge, as some have called on other forums. I feel sorry in a way for the EU as they're trying their best too but it's hard to appease everyone.

Posted by: *Tim 27th January 2019, 05:04 PM

Too bad y'all still won't be able to buy straight bananas

Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2019, 05:13 PM

I'll switch to apples then. British apples.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th January 2019, 05:18 PM

Still waiting Chris

Posted by: Rooney 27th January 2019, 06:03 PM

Whilst I agree, I always suspected Brexit would end up being Brexit all in name and I think this is what would be best for the country (but obviously not for the hard-liners on both sides). The problem we have always had is we've never had any idea on what we wanted, and everything that the Hardliners do want is unetenable in reality. Sometimes you have to compromise but we're not.

I find it interesting as well how the likes of Gove and Boris Johnson are really trying to stay away from a No Deal Brexit as much as possible despite being the faces of the Leave campaign.




I've read a fair bit and a lot of people seem to think the backstop is just an excuse for people wanting more from the Deal. I'm not sure the ERG and even the DUP are that arsed about a permanent border. I suspect it's because everyone thinks they can negotiate something better - which may or may not be true, but we've just about run out of time which is why I believe extending the deadline and everyone working together is the best option. Right now we have so many different party idelogies coming first and foremost with people not putting the country first.

The EU would be willing to cut the backstop, but it will mean a concession which is likely to be a permanent customs union. Again, not really what the extreme Brexiteers will want and Remainers will argue we might as well be in the EU..

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 27th January 2019, 07:46 PM

Your move Theresa

Posted by: Harve 27th January 2019, 08:12 PM

Is permanent customs union not also Labour's condition for voting through the detail.

Would be interesting for both parties's MPs as well as their partisans.

Posted by: Klaus 27th January 2019, 08:19 PM

Pushing aside the economics, I can’t understand why anyone would push for a No Deal in any form considering the impact that it would have on the already problematic and unsolvable Northern Ireland/Ireland relations.

Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2019, 08:25 PM

Yes it is.

Posted by: The Snake 27th January 2019, 08:33 PM

-

Posted by: The Snake 27th January 2019, 08:34 PM

Indeed. And I also don't know why anyone would push for a customs union Brexit either considering it would basically be like being in the EU but with no say in what happens in it!

Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th January 2019, 08:35 PM

Yes, and I think that it is the majority view in Parliament that could see a deal passed (even the SNP might support it). There is growing support for Norway+ which seems like a way of honouring the vote but not completely destroying the economy, and leaves us in a position where we could easily rejoin in a decades time if public support was there for it (e.g. 70/30 instead of 50/50 as it is now).

Of course TM would be really reluctant to do it as it'll split the Tory party - it'll split Labour too but probably less so.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th January 2019, 09:27 PM

The SNP wouldn’t support a customs union on its own, if we were talking single market then the SNP would vote that through. Their position since 24/06/2016 has not changed, it’s always been that if we must go through with this then it has to be the Norway+ model of single market and customs union because that’s the least economically damaging, we still keep a lot of our free movement rights and it’s the closest to respecting a) what the leave campaign told the public over and over, and b) the Irish border and c) that both NI and Scotland chose to remain and finally d) that the vote really wasn’t that decisive.

EEA is a stupid move because we become a rule taker not a rule maker but it is the best compromise option if we really must leave

Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th January 2019, 09:47 PM

Yes, sorry - I meant with the Norway EEA added to it (e.g. Norway+)

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th January 2019, 09:51 PM

Ah yes, then absolutely. They’ve been cheerleading for that outcome the whole time.

Posted by: The Snake 28th January 2019, 09:32 AM

What do we think will happen with the amendments tomorrow?

I can't see any chance of Sir Graham Brady's amendment being passed at all, all opposition will vote against, as might Tory Remainers. There is quite a high probability I think that it might not even be called by the Speaker because it is a position which is highly unlikely to be agreed to by the EU.

Yvette Cooper's amendment should pass though I think, just about. Meaning Parliament will have agreed to a delay to Article 50.

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 28th January 2019, 11:38 AM

I really can't understand on any level having even a shred of sympathy for Theresa May. The situation she's in is entirely of her own making and choice.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 28th January 2019, 12:59 PM

I think it’s likely all the amendments will be rejected as well as the deal itself again

So we will have wasted another 2 weeks and still be in the same position

Posted by: Common Sense 28th January 2019, 02:55 PM

Yes I think they'll all be rejected. Hopefully Cooper's will be too as A50 should not be delayed.

Posted by: Common Sense 28th January 2019, 02:55 PM

Yes I think they'll all be rejected. Hopefully Cooper's will be too as A50 should not be delayed.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th January 2019, 03:34 PM

Not in season As we'll find out in March when 30% of our fresh food suddenly stops coming from the EU, and therefore empty shelves cos the rest of the world can't suddenly magic more food out of thin air without pissing off existing customers.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th January 2019, 03:45 PM

Ouch! "Reasons" are not facts. If you throw something in as a reason then people are free to explain why it isn't the case, if it isn;t the case, and agree with it, if it is the case and they can give clear reasons why it is the case.

Legal cases aren't sorted by people having a REASON to believe something that isn't true ("my mate told me", "I'm scared of foreign politicians", "I want Parliament to decide on our future except where they don;t agree with me then they are traitors"), it's based on an assessment of all the available evidence, whether you like it or not, and so far the available evidence (and the government's own evidence) is that it will be overwhelmingly damaging, short-term and long-term.

This is not me trying to crucify you or anyone else for your beliefs, it's me trying to get you to understand why we don't have to accept "reasons" when their is hard logic staring us in the face, and not one single promise made by the Leave side has come true to date, nor have the Project fear Turkey/ Ruled by an EU army/ keeping out foreigners/etc any substance either.

Easiest deal in history. Except it isn't.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 04:04 PM

Oh, I've long since realised that you won't accept my reasons for voting Brexit.

And what's with 're-tard' getting starred out? It wasn't aimed at a specific person - and I didn't realise it was considered a 'snowflake-offending' word anyway?

Posted by: Common Sense 28th January 2019, 04:11 PM

All scaremongering. There's even rumours that insulin and other important drugs will run out but manufacturers say they have several months' supply in hand already.

Posted by: Iz~ 28th January 2019, 04:21 PM

The board's censorship system has been mostly unchanged for years prior to snowflake becoming a politicised insult, including this word. I happen to agree with this, it's not a classy word.

You also seem to consider there being an importance to our acceptance of your opinions, or our acceptance of the result, as if this thread isn't going to continue to go round in circles ad infinitum regardless until whenever the business concludes, or the heat death of the universe, whichever's first. Our acceptance doesn't matter, so why not lay your cards on the table. We're not going to think less of you.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th January 2019, 05:13 PM

No. Major suppliers who rely on Next day deliveries from the EU have said it'll happen. Apples dont grow on trees you know! Not in winter they don't. Feel free to tell sainsbury's and co where they can get some fresh fruit n veg come No Deal then when lorries are stuck at borders for days.... (government has put troops on alert for absolutely no reason whatever, just to scare everyone, then. Scare them into accepting her deal?) cos they are very anxious about it and you can put their minds at rest giving them alternatives....

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2019, 05:38 PM

Labour have stuck to their usual policy of taking a principled stand. They will be abstaining on the legislation that takes away our freedom of movement.

Posted by: Jester 28th January 2019, 07:29 PM

Labour will abstain on the vote to stop a no deal?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2019, 07:53 PM

This is a different piece of legislation.

Posted by: Jester 28th January 2019, 08:16 PM

Hmmm, either way I despair of Labour almost as much as I do of the Tories (almost, never ever as much).

What a mess. It is almost unbelievable that a government would allow the effective economic suicide of a nation - and yet we sit by and allow it to happen.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 28th January 2019, 08:21 PM

Stewart McDonald (SNP MP) on Twitter

A Tory MP has told us we need to stop freedom of movement in order to counter extremism. Freedom of movement - the greatest diplomatic achievement in European history - was designed to keep the extremism that built the Berlin Wall in the past. Honestly, read a book.

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2019, 08:40 PM

The number of times Labour have abstained in this whole saga is a disgrace. Labour, of course, keep banging on about the fact that two senior Lib Dems missed one vote and ignore the fact that they missed it because they had been led to believe that labour would be abstaining yet again.

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2019, 08:41 PM

You're assuming Tory MPs can read.

Posted by: Rooney 28th January 2019, 08:56 PM

The worst opposition government I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2019, 09:42 PM

The worst government and the worst opposition in my lifetime - and that's a few decades longer than yours.

Posted by: Rooney 28th January 2019, 10:03 PM

Both could be struggling to fill their front benches by Tuesday if what I've been reading tonight is correct.

Corbyn doesn't want a No Deal, but he won't back Cooper's amendment - the guy is a fukin spoon.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis 28th January 2019, 10:06 PM

Corbyn is as good as AWOL right now

Meanwhile, Theresa is still in no. 10 rocking back and forth over her precious and refusing to do something constructive to find a consensus

Posted by: Harve 28th January 2019, 10:17 PM

Why does all the juicy politics stuff always happen on Tuesday, when I work a 29 hour day.

Posted by: Rooney 28th January 2019, 10:20 PM

Looks to me like May is more concerned about keeping the Tory party together over everything else. I mean she's apparently whipping her party to vote for an amendment they haven't even seen.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 28th January 2019, 10:28 PM

Not surprising when this entire three year farce has been about keeping the Tory party from splitting in half

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 06:43 AM

No, it isn't - but some works are used purely for emphasis, and if not directed at a specific individual, I don't see the problem.

iro the latter - I *have* laid my cards on the table, many times!



Parliament has painted itself into a corner - either it takes a risky course, or it effectively abandons democracy by ignoring a referendum result. I consider the latter to be far more dangerous than the former.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th January 2019, 08:04 AM

It's not ignoring a referendum result. It's taking off the table a threat to ruin the economy doing something that wasnt promised by any Brexiteer in 2016, in fact they all claimed it WOULDN'T happen, and it wasn't specifically mentioned on the ballot. The slim win by Leave was for A BREXIT not any specific kind of Brexit. Nothing being legislated on right now stops the former it just removes the totally-agreed-worst-case-scenario as it looms as a stupid default by extremists wanting to destroy jobs and lives so they all do nicely out of it.

Posted by: Common Sense 29th January 2019, 08:46 AM

Britain's best selling newspaper's headline today is "Don't Let Labour Kill Brexit", with a pic of Corbyn. The Sun's urging Labour MP's to not back Cooper's amendment which would give parliament the authority to force A50 to be revoked. It goes on to say that Brexit was what the people chose in a referendum so shouldn't be stopped by MP's. They are right. The Sun usually talks sense.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 29th January 2019, 09:04 AM

The sun only ever talks out it’s arse.

Why are you avoiding my question from the other day Chris?

Posted by: mald487 29th January 2019, 09:44 AM

Yes Chris, I've noticed that whilst all of the points you've made in this thread have been addressed by other posters, you've avoided answering quite a few very valid uestions asked directly to you in this thread. I wonder why that might be?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 10:08 AM

OK, but I still reject phrases like 'economic suicide'.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2019, 01:34 PM

The UK is a parliamentary democracy. That means Parliament is sovereign unless it legislates to the contrary. In the case of the 2016 referendum, parliament did NOT legislate to the contrary. That leaves MPs still bound by their code of conduct to act in the best interests of their constituents and the country as a whole. The Sun (owned by an economic migrant), as usual, is wrong.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2019, 01:36 PM

All the forecasts say it would be a terrible idea. Just to pre-empt your oh-so-predictable reply, would you expect a Chancellor to start a Budget speech by saying he hadn’t bothered looking at any forecasts?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 02:45 PM

IMO parliament delegated the decision to the people - therefore they are bound by their code of conduct to follow the result of the referendum.

Posted by: Iz~ 29th January 2019, 03:50 PM

Any leader that does not act in the best interests of the people, even when the people disagree with them, is no leader. Parliament should do what they believe is best for the country, no matter what.

In any case, May announcing she's going to ask the EU to reopen negotiations, to waste more time when the EU tells her no again. I would say an extension is coming because god forbid this shitshow has an end (and no, I would not prefer no deal, you don't need to point that out).

Posted by: Common Sense 29th January 2019, 04:14 PM

Watching the debate on BBC Parliament and was watching Sky News before. Sounding like Cooper's delay amendment will fail and I for one hope it does. The PM spoke against it and IDS is right now. He says rather than delay, MP's need to all work together and find some kind of agreement before the end of March. They sure do. Delaying or revoking A50 is not the answer and the will of the people must be carried out.

Posted by: Common Sense 29th January 2019, 04:17 PM

Yes they are and to ignore that referendum result would be very bad and dispespectful to everyone who voted OUT. Thank goodness our PM is determined to honour that result.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2019, 04:22 PM

They can only do that by legislating to do so. Opinion doesn't come into it.

Posted by: Common Sense 29th January 2019, 04:24 PM

It will have an end on 29th March. We don't need an extension. We can leave with NO DEAL.

Posted by: Common Sense 29th January 2019, 04:24 PM

DELETED. DOUBLE POST.

Posted by: Common Sense 29th January 2019, 04:35 PM

LOL. Are you Dianne Abbott in disguise?


Sorry Dianne, couldn't resist.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 04:43 PM

And what else did they do with the legislation for the 2016 referendum?