Jump to content

Brexit - merged threads


scouser
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

more will be revealed

Actually, I think that part of the real problem will be that nothing more will be revealed.  I don't think Today's vote will make anything clearer.

  • The deal will be voted down (that is clear)
  • A vote of confidence is likely
  • It is likely that May will win that vote
  • We are almost back at square one because three options remain;
  1. Mays deal voted again with possibly some more woolly words from the EU (and will probably still fail)
  2. A 'no deal' by default - which Parliament has vowed to stop (and it seems that with the connivance of the speaker, this is possible)  The only real way this might happen is May carefully timing a derogation of Parliament pending a General Election, but that would likely damage her chances in an election, so we would be 'out' under a Corbyn (probably) coalition government who would immediately try to get 'back in' (and you can guess how mush the EU would make us pay for that) - add to which the pound and stock market would really plummet and economic catastrophe would be real (mainly due to Labour policy NOT Brexit)
  3. A 'no Brexit' (for now anyway) - followed by another vote (either referendum or General Election)

Taking this last option;

  • A new referendum seems likely to be (as the last one) a near 50/50 split, with a probable narrow leave win (again), so back to square 0
  • A General Election (if you believe the opinion polls 6% ish Tory lead) would probably lead to another minority or very small majority Tory government, so back to square 0
  • If Labour were to govern, it would almost certainly have to be with the support of the LibDems and/or SNP, both of whom are 100% remain, so no Brexit or the very 'softest' Brexit In Name Only (which Starmer and many senior Labour members want anyway)

 

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Actually, I think that part of the real problem will be that nothing more will be revealed.  I don't think Today's vote will make anything clearer.

  • The deal will be voted down (that is clear)
  • A vote of confidence is likely
  • It is likely that May will win that vote
  • We are almost back at square one because three options remain;
  1. Mays deal voted again with possibly some more woolly words from the EU (and will probably still fail)
  2. A 'no deal' by default - which Parliament has vowed to stop (and it seems that with the connivance of the speaker, this is possible)  The only real way this might happen is May carefully timing a derogation of Parliament pending a General Election, but that would likely damage her chances in an election, so we would be 'out' under a Corbyn (probably) coalition government who would immediately try to get 'back in' (and you can guess how mush the EU would make us pay for that) - add to which the pound and stock market would really plummet and economic catastrophe would be real (mainly due to Labour policy NOT Brexit)
  3. A 'no Brexit' (for now anyway) - followed by another vote (either referendum or General Election)

Taking this last option;

  • A new referendum seems likely to be (as the last one) a near 50/50 split, with a probable narrow leave win (again), so back to square 0
  • A General Election (if you believe the opinion polls 6% ish Tory lead) would probably lead to another minority or very small majority Tory government, so back to square 0
  • If Labour were to govern, it would almost certainly have to be with the support of the LibDems and/or SNP, both of whom are 100% remain, so no Brexit or the very 'softest' Brexit In Name Only (which Starmer and many senior Labour members want anyway)

 

I wasn't saying clarity on a way forward I was suggesting we may see more clarity on the way our politicians plan to frustrate Brexit and usurp democracy!....by manouvering to get a second in/out referendum.

In the event of Mays 'deal' being rejected and no alternative way forward being agreed by the politicians.......it's back to the country.........the choice  being 1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit.

The matter of leaving has already been decided by the people in a U.K. Wide referendum! The politicians job now is to deliver the democratic will of the people.....nothing more, nothing less!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I wasn't saying clarity on a way forward I was suggesting we may see more clarity on the way our politicians plan to frustrate Brexit and usurp democracy!....by manouvering to get a second in/out referendum.

In the event of Mays 'deal' being rejected and no alternative way forward being agreed by the politicians.......it's back to the country.........the choice  being 1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit.

The matter of leaving has already been decided by the people in a U.K. Wide referendum! The politicians job now is to deliver the democratic will of the people.....nothing more, nothing less!

But many are trying to spoil that gig!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

In the event of Mays 'deal' being rejected and no alternative way forward being agreed by the politicians.......it's back to the country.........the choice  being 1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit.

See below

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit.

I think we are all agreed it will be rejected.  However in the event of a referendum again, the choice will not be - the " 1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit ".

It will be contrived and is bound to include a 'Remain" option ........ and probably two "Leave" options, thus preventing leave.

Incidentally - on " 1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit " - it is highly likely (if the opinion polls are to be believed) that May's deal would win - because Remainers would support it in preference to a "no deal".

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Incidentally - on " 1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit " - it is highly likely (if the opinion polls are to be believed) that May's deal would win - because Remainers would support it in preference to a "no deal".

Highly likely.
There is one matter that doesnt seem to get much attention, why is May so set on 'her' deal, Chequers in effect ?
Why didnt she explore a modified Canada deal, or even a modified WTO scenario ? When I say modified, something that delivers true Brexit , but with caveats that soften it for both us and the EU.
The big question is, what is she trying to achieve ?
Some say its to scupper the process, because at heart, shes a remainer, could be true, but why ? Whats in it for her ? To go down as the most hated prime minister ever ?
Money ? Her husband and herself are extremely wealthy already.
Reputation ? Its already shattered !
Is she trying to keep both sides happy ? Its not working...at all.

Or is there a different game afoot ? I said this Oh about  100 pages ago, is it a way of getting a clean , no deal Brexit by default, but making it look like the EU , labour and the remain part of the tories caused it ?
Blame set and match ?
It might sound far fetched and long winded, how this would have the desired effect, but I cant think of any other reasons for her strange insistence on a deal that very few in parliament support, whilst offering no alternatives at all..besides no deal , or , the political suicidal route of going back to the polls , or the riot worthy option of no Brexit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Highly likely.
There is one matter that doesnt seem to get much attention, why is May so set on 'her' deal, Chequers in effect ?
Why didnt she explore a modified Canada deal, or even a modified WTO scenario ? When I say modified, something that delivers true Brexit , but with caveats that soften it for both us and the EU.
The big question is, what is she trying to achieve ?
Some say its to scupper the process, because at heart, shes a remainer, could be true, but why ? Whats in it for her ? To go down as the most hated prime minister ever ?
Money ? Her husband and herself are extremely wealthy already.
Reputation ? Its already shattered !
Is she trying to keep both sides happy ? Its not working...at all.

Or is there a different game afoot ? I said this Oh about  100 pages ago, is it a way of getting a clean , no deal Brexit by default, but making it look like the EU , labour and the remain part of the tories caused it ?
Blame set and match ?
It might sound far fetched and long winded, how this would have the desired effect, but I cant think of any other reasons for her strange insistence on a deal that very few in parliament support, whilst offering no alternatives at all..besides no deal , or , the political suicidal route of going back to the polls , or the riot worthy option of no Brexit.

 

Hope your last paragraph comes true,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Highly likely.
There is one matter that doesnt seem to get much attention, why is May so set on 'her' deal, Chequers in effect ?
Why didnt she explore a modified Canada deal, or even a modified WTO scenario ? When I say modified, something that delivers true Brexit , but with caveats that soften it for both us and the EU.
The big question is, what is she trying to achieve ?
Some say its to scupper the process, because at heart, shes a remainer, could be true, but why ? Whats in it for her ? To go down as the most hated prime minister ever ?
Money ? Her husband and herself are extremely wealthy already.
Reputation ? Its already shattered !
Is she trying to keep both sides happy ? Its not working...at all.

Or is there a different game afoot ? I said this Oh about  100 pages ago, is it a way of getting a clean , no deal Brexit by default, but making it look like the EU , labour and the remain part of the tories caused it ?
Blame set and match ?
It might sound far fetched and long winded, how this would have the desired effect, but I cant think of any other reasons for her strange insistence on a deal that very few in parliament support, whilst offering no alternatives at all..besides no deal , or , the political suicidal route of going back to the polls , or the riot worthy option of no Brexit.

 

The million dollar question really, when at the start of the process she proclaimed that no deal is better than a bad deal, why is she desperately pushing a bad deal?

Arrogance, bloody mindedness and a bit of being blinded by being too close to it maybe?

There are loads of cases where people keep making bad decisions on top of bad decisions because they become entrenched in their own point of view, a very human failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The big question is, what is she trying to achieve ?

I think that she has made bad choices (mainly in my view by having bad advisors and listening and acting on their bad advice - I offer the last election manifesto as evidence) all of the way along and has simply got backed into a corner - and as someone fundamentally very stubborn and obstinate, she is stuck there.

Initially - she set out a negotiating position and 'red lines' as did the EU.  What has happened is that the UK team has 'backed off' at every obstacle and the EU has not backed off at all.  WE should have been MUCH harder right from square one with a Thatcher style "NO NO ..NO". 

Why were we so bad? 

Well firstly, our team were mainly civil service remainers - led by David Davis - who despite some defending him as bright and successful ...... isn't seen by all that way, many saying he is lazy and disinterested.  Civil servants generally aren't good negotiators - they loose nothing either way.

Secondly - she has never had much backing from her party and once she was in a minority government - that doomed her.

Ultimately - she has been a poor leader, leading a weak team, the team headed by a succession of Brexit Secretaries who didn't stand up for themselves (other than by resigning).

In contrast the EU has negotiated not at all and just sat there saying No at every request ........ and despite being very negative  ...... it has worked very well for them.  They may yet come out with £40 billion and us still in the EU for all practical purposes, but no participation to disrupt their 'ever closer union plan'.  A Win, win, win for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think that she has made bad choices (mainly in my view by having bad advisors and listening and acting on their bad advice - I offer the last election manifesto as evidence) all of the way along and has simply got backed into a corner - and as someone fundamentally very stubborn and obstinate, she is stuck there.

Initially - she set out a negotiating position and 'red lines' as did the EU.  What has happened is that the UK team has 'backed off' at every obstacle and the EU has not backed off at all.  WE should have been MUCH harder right from square one with a Thatcher style "NO NO ..NO". 

Why were we so bad? 

Well firstly, our team were mainly civil service remainers - led by David Davis - who despite some defending him as bright and successful ...... isn't seen by all that way, many saying he is lazy and disinterested.  Civil servants generally aren't good negotiators - they loose nothing either way.

Secondly - she has never had much backing from her party and once she was in a minority government - that doomed her.

Ultimately - she has been a poor leader, leading a weak team, the team headed by a succession of Brexit Secretaries who didn't stand up for themselves (other than by resigning).

In contrast the EU has negotiated not at all and just sat there saying No at every request ........ and despite being very negative  ...... it has worked very well for them.  They may yet come out with £40 billion and us still in the EU for all practical purposes, but no participation to disrupt their 'ever closer union plan'.  A Win, win, win for them.

I think that our ability to negotiae has been undermined from the very start by parliament.

I believe that history will look back at Gina Miller as being as playing a highly pivotal roll, her campaign which led to the “meaningful vote” really sowed the seeds that allowed parliament, self interest and party politics to undermine the entire process of negotiation. Whether Gina’s involvement is seen as good or bad only time can tell.

May’s utterly hopeless general election campaign  didn't help of course.

In fact going a bit further, May being utterly hopeless has not helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, grrclark said:

The million dollar question really, when at the start of the process she proclaimed that no deal is better than a bad deal, why is she desperately pushing a bad deal?

Arrogance, bloody mindedness and a bit of being blinded by being too close to it maybe?

There are loads of cases where people keep making bad decisions on top of bad decisions because they become entrenched in their own point of view, a very human failing.

But to not see where this was going smacks of a completely moronic mindset, I dont think she is that stupid.
Im not sure its arrogance either, its like 2 drivers going towards each other with neither room to pass, one has to pull over or they will crash, unless one of them has more balls or stupidity, one must give way, or if both are equally stupid, there will be an impact.
The EU has the balls, they have nothing to lose, but is May stupid ? I dont think so.

 

9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Initially - she set out a negotiating position and 'red lines' as did the EU.  What has happened is that the UK team has 'backed off' at every obstacle and the EU has not backed off at all.  WE should have been MUCH harder right from square one with a Thatcher style "NO NO ..NO". 

Why were we so bad? 

Why were we so bad, when we didnt have to be ? Why did we give so much ground , when we didnt have to?
The obvious answer is because the core of the tory government didnt want Brexit, but thats a very very obvious conclusion, and if true and successful, will bring them down, for a very long time, why would you do that ?
Or like I say , there are other plans at play, I dont know, but we will see , very soon now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

I believe that history will look back at Gina Miller as being as playing a highly pivotal roll, her campaign which led to the “meaningful vote” really sowed the seeds that allowed parliament, self interest and party politics to undermine the entire process of negotiation.

I agree (it sowed the seeds of the present disaster) - but with reservations ....... these being that Gina Miller took a case (against HMG) to court to allow the law to judge the outcome.  She won and HMG lost.

  • Firstly - Miller can reasonably claim she was only upholding the law (unfortunately)
  • Secondly Miller can claim HMG were trying to 'bypass' the law or at best not understand it (also unfortunately looks to be true)

HMG should kept within the law and then none of this would have arisen.  If it only takes one interfering busybody to upset the whole process, it is a very weak process.  We were also (if I remember right) told by HMG that 'meaningful' didn't mean pass by a 'first past the post' system, it was only a meaningful expression of contentment (or discontentment).

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Why were we so bad, when we didnt have to be ? Why did we give so much ground , when we didnt have to?

I think it is MUCH simpler than your theories (!) ........ I think we simply had bad weak negotiators, who actually get paid whatever the outcome  ....... and probably only get (mildly) chastised if dates slip in the calendar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

But to not see where this was going smacks of a completely moronic mindset, I dont think she is that stupid.
Im not sure its arrogance either, its like 2 drivers going towards each other with neither room to pass, one has to pull over or they will crash, unless one of them has more balls or stupidity, one must give way, or if both are equally stupid, there will be an impact.
The EU has the balls, they have nothing to lose, but is May stupid ? I dont think so.

 

Why were we so bad, when we didnt have to be ? Why did we give so much ground , when we didnt have to?
The obvious answer is because the core of the tory government didnt want Brexit, but thats a very very obvious conclusion, and if true and successful, will bring them down, for a very long time, why would you do that ?
Or like I say , there are other plans at play, I dont know, but we will see , very soon now.

Nigel Farage and co have been keeping very quiet. I rather suspect they are readying to pounce as soon as the torries have finished stuffing the chicken that feeds them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LABOUR-FINE-copy.png?resize=540%2C304&ssl=1The Labour Party has been slapped with a record fine of £12,000 by the Electoral Commission for failing to declare its donations accurately. The Electoral Commission said it was the “highest fine we have issued for an offence of this kind” and added that “as a well-funded political party [Labour] should be able to meet its legal requirements”. If this was the Tories or a pro-Brexit campaign it would be all over the media…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:
  • Firstly - Miller can reasonably claim she was only upholding the law (unfortunately)
  • Secondly Miller can claim HMG were trying to 'bypass' the law or at best not understand it (also unfortunately looks to be true)

Miller didnt wake up one day and think, 'Mmm that particular point of law being ignored is really getting on ...nerves, I must take the government to the court and get it sorted, it will probably cost several hundred thousand, and make me hated across the country , but my civic duty to my adopted country is more important'
She was used as a figurehead , and possible fall woman by soros, through her hedge fund manager husband, financed by him, and  instructed by him.
She was a puppet.

 

2 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Nigel Farage and co have been keeping very quiet. I rather suspect they are readying to pounce as soon as the torries have finished stuffing the chicken that feeds them.

Theres nothing they can say or do at the moment without muddying the waters unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

I wasn't saying clarity on a way forward I was suggesting we may see more clarity on the way our politicians plan to frustrate Brexit and usurp democracy!....by manouvering to get a second in/out referendum.

In the event of Mays 'deal' being rejected and no alternative way forward being agreed by the politicians.......it's back to the country.........the choice  being 1) Mays deal or 2) no deal exit.

The matter of leaving has already been decided by the people in a U.K. Wide referendum! The politicians job now is to deliver the democratic will of the people.....nothing more, nothing less!

Another referendum? Then the choice will be  May,s Deal, or Remain! They will NEVER give us the chance to stuff them ever again!

27 minutes ago, grrclark said:

The million dollar question really, when at the start of the process she proclaimed that no deal is better than a bad deal, why is she desperately pushing a bad deal?

Arrogance, bloody mindedness and a bit of being blinded by being too close to it maybe?

There are loads of cases where people keep making bad decisions on top of bad decisions because they become entrenched in their own point of view, a very human failing.

She chose a team of Remoaner advisors right at the start!  That,s the problem!

23 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I think that our ability to negotiae has been undermined from the very start by parliament.

I believe that history will look back at Gina Miller as being as playing a highly pivotal roll, her campaign which led to the “meaningful vote” really sowed the seeds that allowed parliament, self interest and party politics to undermine the entire process of negotiation. Whether Gina’s involvement is seen as good or bad only time can tell.

May’s utterly hopeless general election campaign  didn't help of course.

In fact going a bit further, May being utterly hopeless has not helped.

Gina Miller and pals, funded by George Soros!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Miller didnt wake up one day and think, 'Mmm that particular point of law being ignored is really getting on ...nerves, I must take the government to the court and get it sorted, it will probably cost several hundred thousand, and make me hated across the country , but my civic duty to my adopted country is more important'
She was used as a figurehead , and possible fall woman by soros, through her hedge fund manager husband, financed by him, and  instructed by him.
She was a puppet.

 

A puppet funded by the anti-British George Soros, who is the financial muscle behind the so-called Peoples Vote (Remain by any other name!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

She was a puppet.

I'm sure that is so, but a willing one.

 

13 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Nigel Farage and co have been keeping very quiet.

Who are the "and co"?  Nigel Farage's big 'elephant in the room' problem is that he has always been a 'one man band'.  I like a lot of what he says, and he says it very well indeed, but he has not been able to bring together a group of like minded (and there can be no shortage) successfully to form a credible party.

 

9 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Then the choice will be  May,s Deal, or Remain!

I believe if Remain is a choice (and I believe it will be), there will be two leave options offered - to ensure the leave vote is split.  What these will be I don't know, but could be chosen from May's deal, Norway (very 'soft, almost BRINO), Canada ++ (harder) or no deal.

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I believe if Remain is a choice (and I believe it will be), there will be two leave options offered - to ensure the leave vote is split.  What these will be I don't know, but could be chosen from May's deal, Norway (very 'soft, almost BRINO), Canada ++ (harder) or no deal.

Yellow Hi Vis Safety Vest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Why didnt she explore a modified Canada deal, or even a modified WTO scenario ? When I say modified, something that delivers true Brexit , but with caveats that soften it for both us and the EU.

David Davis's deal was exactly that, (Canada ++)

it was chucked out for the Checkers deal, that was the reason he rapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...