Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
west didsblue said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49027889
No deal recession predicted for next year.

And still Johnson seems hell bent on going for it.

He's either insane because he thinks it's a credible threat that will make the EU blink or he's insane for actually intending to do it.
Click to expand...
Or he's a lying **** who has no intention whatsoever to do it. Anyone who believes a single word this **** says needs sectioning.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Why did they need a vote? Surely it's obvious parliament would never vote to close / bypass themselves, and I'm actually surprised the figure is not nearer 100%. I also never realised it required a parliamentary vote to porogue parliament - amazing :-)
Click to expand...

Some will be after Cabinet jobs and some are Brexit extremists
 
BobKowalski said:
Yeah because threatening no deal has worked a treat so far.

The two dumbest things we did were 1) triggering A50 without a plan or any consensus on the possible outcomes of the negotiations. 2) threatening no deal.

No deal isn’t a threat or leverage. It just signalled we didn’t have a fucking clue. We still don’t it seems. No deal is just capitulation. No deal means we have given up trying to work a way out of this mess and we are allowing other countries to dictate our fate. Baffling craven stupidity to be honest.
Click to expand...


I would've said there were 4 dumb things

1) Calling the referendum in the first place
2) triggering A50 without a plan or any consensus on the possible outcomes of the negotiations
3) Laying down the red lines
4) threatening no deal
 
cibaman said:
Many of the proponents of No Deal, such as Owen Patterson, were strong advocates of a soft Norway style brexit, prior to the referendum. The shock result generated a huge amount of hubris which just seems to have become worse and worse as we've gone on.
Click to expand...

Patterson? So was Farage. Johnson's preferred option was Canada. There is no democratic mandate for No Deal. All the main players advocated some sort of "soft" Brexit - it's a lie to say hard/soft was a Remainer invention.

And don't forget the official leave promise that (whatever happened) "we'll be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border".

Lies, lies, lies. Not democracy.
 
Vic said:
Parliament passed laws to decriminalise suicide, so that's democratic. It doesn't make suicide a good idea.
Click to expand...
Yeah mate, can you just imagine the noise they would make though. Probably recruit another bloody army of believers too. I would prefer to see a minimum standard of behaviours and attendances brought in. That might be a bit more useful.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Why did they need a vote? Surely it's obvious parliament would never vote to close / bypass themselves, and I'm actually surprised the figure is not nearer 100%. I also never realised it required a parliamentary vote to porogue parliament - amazing :-)
Click to expand...
It doesn’t need a vote to prorogue. That’s the point. This is a clever move by sensible MPs to ensure that it is not possible, using a technicality about N Ireland.
 
I remain in full confidence that if we go to a GE, which we probably will, this **** and his cretinous bunch will be hammered by the electorate.

I’m hoping the majority haven’t completely lost their marbles.
 
Len Rum said:
Apparently De Pfeffel got his facts wrong as regards his much publicised kipper stunt.
It's British ( not EU) laws that determine the packaging of said kippers.
Click to expand...
We had a box of Manx kipper fillets delivered from IoM earlier this year and they arrived without ice pillows. Boris could have been the victim of a UKIP plot - hope so. FYI they are less smelly to cook than the Craster/Whitby etc varieties but the taste is slightly inferior. My wife, who hates him with a passion, informs me that his friends & family call him Al, Boris is his stage name.
 
Last edited:
Didsbury Dave said:
It doesn’t need a vote to prorogue. That’s the point. This is a clever move by sensible MPs to ensure that it is not possible, using a technicality about N Ireland.
Click to expand...
Not sure it is clever or sensible really. It seems both sides of the,argument regard the existing deal as unacceptable at present, therefore it's a fair assumption that there needs to be a renegotiation. The threat of no deal and the 39 billion are possibly the only leverage that can be used to draw the EU back into negotiations. Without that they will of course refuse to renegotiate what is an excellent deal for the EU as it stands. I'm not a great proponent of a no deal brexit, and actually very much doubt Boris is, as he's probably just playing to the gallery in the tory leadership elections. To legislatively remove no deal/perogation at this stage is manifestly stupid, although I could see the sense in it if it genuinely looked like Boris was going to do it. As it stands this just increases the likelihood of a deal very like the existing one being pushed through, which as we know seems to uniquely combine the very worst aspects of remain and brexit.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Not sure it is clever or sensible really. It seems both sides of the,argument regard the existing deal as unacceptable at present, therefore it's a fair assumption that there needs to be a renegotiation. The threat of no deal and the 39 billion are possibly the only leverage that can be used to draw the EU back into negotiations. Without that they will of course refuse to renegotiate what is an excellent deal for the EU as it stands. I'm not a great proponent of a no deal brexit, and actually very much doubt Boris is, as he's probably just playing to the gallery in the tory leadership elections. To legislatively remove no deal/perogation at this stage is manifestly stupid, although I could see the sense in it if it genuinely looked like Boris was going to do it. As it stands this just increases the likelihood of a deal very like the existing one being pushed through, which as we know seems to uniquely combine the very worst aspects of remain and brexit.
Click to expand...

The £39 billion is relative peanuts and a no-deal would harm us a lot more than the EU, it is not a viable option

The truth of the matter is, there is no ‘good’ deal available.
 
Blue Hefner said:
The £39 billion is relative peanuts and a no-deal would harm us a lot more than the EU, it is not a viable option

The truth of the matter is, there is no ‘good’ deal available.
Click to expand...
If we accept that, then anyone that moves to prevent brexit on the basis of the 'deal' are manifestly lying and are simply trying to stop brexit. I'd have more time for this if it was honestly stated, but it seems a case of the very same folk who get upset by arcane laws like perogation are happy enough when other technical legal points serve their purpose. That would be fine if those same folk didn't ask us to trust/believe them and characterise others as deceitful.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Not sure it is clever or sensible really. It seems both sides of the,argument regard the existing deal as unacceptable at present, therefore it's a fair assumption that there needs to be a renegotiation. The threat of no deal and the 39 billion are possibly the only leverage that can be used to draw the EU back into negotiations. Without that they will of course refuse to renegotiate what is an excellent deal for the EU as it stands. I'm not a great proponent of a no deal brexit, and actually very much doubt Boris is, as he's probably just playing to the gallery in the tory leadership elections. To legislatively remove no deal/perogation at this stage is manifestly stupid, although I could see the sense in it if it genuinely looked like Boris was going to do it. As it stands this just increases the likelihood of a deal very like the existing one being pushed through, which as we know seems to uniquely combine the very worst aspects of remain and brexit.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "both sides"?
Both sides agreed it. One side got buy in from 27 countries and the other side couldn't even get its most strident Brexit supporting MPs to vote for it.
The more I hear about it, that deal was the best we could have got. The fact that it's actually shit is because Brexit itself is shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Not sure it is clever or sensible really. It seems both sides of the,argument regard the existing deal as unacceptable at present, therefore it's a fair assumption that there needs to be a renegotiation. The threat of no deal and the 39 billion are possibly the only leverage that can be used to draw the EU back into negotiations. Without that they will of course refuse to renegotiate what is an excellent deal for the EU as it stands. I'm not a great proponent of a no deal brexit, and actually very much doubt Boris is, as he's probably just playing to the gallery in the tory leadership elections. To legislatively remove no deal/perogation at this stage is manifestly stupid, although I could see the sense in it if it genuinely looked like Boris was going to do it. As it stands this just increases the likelihood of a deal very like the existing one being pushed through, which as we know seems to uniquely combine the very worst aspects of remain and brexit.
Click to expand...

It reduces the possibility of an “accidental” No Deal Brexit through idiotic Brinksmanship by Brexit loons. “No Deal” was never a credible card in our negotiation, it was like holding a gun to our own head and hoping the EU would remove it because they didn’t want gunpowder on their shirts. We’ve been threatening it for 2 years and it’s achieved absolutely nothing.

Every single victory like this for the sensible politicians is a step closer to revoking, by whatever means, and from my point of view that is worth celebrating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top