Another new Brexit thread

[west didsblue]

Oh I do

And if the point is reached where I am proved to be wrong I will reconsider my views.

As it is events have proven me to be repeatedly correct - so the situation has not arisen.

I know that this simple fact has been infuriating for you and others - but it is what it is

Piffle.

 

[mcfc1632]

Regards this "take no deal off the table" bullshit from the wizened old bullshitter:

Can people not see what an utterly ridiculous request / suggestion that is? Let's put aside for one moment that the next Parliament will have a different disposition of MPs which will make up their own minds on what to accept / not accept. We'll park that enormous fly in his made up ointment for one moment.

But at the end of the transition period, the UK will be faced with 3 options. There are only 3 and can never be more than 3.

1. Accept the negotiated deal
2. Say sorry we can't accept the deal, but we don't want to leave without one so let's negotiate ANOTHER delay and try again.
3. Reject the negotiated deal and say sorry, we're off with no deal and WTO terms

Those are the ONLY options.

Corbyn would have us unilaterally remove option 3. Can people not see how utterly bonkers that is??? How on earth, do we expect to get a favourable outcome from an EU which does not want us to leave, if the EU knows that our only options are to accept whatever shitty deal they offer, or to stay in? Can anyone explain to me how that can possibly work, and how that can in any way be a good idea???

I am in sales and negotiate contracts with clients all the time. That's my job. How on earth would i maximise the revenue for my company if my opening line with procurement was "Let me just start by saying I do not have a walk away position, and i will accept any price you care to name"?

It is a total joke. The only people espousing this as a strategy can only be thick as pig shit, or have ulterior motives, like us never leaving at all.

You are of course absolutely spot on when you say:

"....if the EU knows that our only options are to accept whatever shitty deal they offer, or to stay in? Can anyone explain to me how that can possibly work, and how that can in any way be a good idea???"

I have been expressing the importance of having the 'No-Deal' option available for over 3 years and you are again also correct ot observe:

"It is a total joke. The only people espousing this as a strategy can only be thick as pig shit, or have ulterior motives, like us never leaving at all."

Given that I would never suggest that people could really be that stupid - I leave that sort of thing to others - I am going for the 'ulterior motives' angle.

 

[Hesperus]

If you take all the emotion out of it. I can only see a 2nd referendum being the way to decide Brexit. A GE is likely to return another hung parliament, given the public are still split 50/50 on Brexit. Debating Johnson’s deal will most likely end in the government pulling it because the opposition will table and pass some amendments that the government can’t accept, such as, giving parliament a say in extending the transition period for example. A second ref with clear choices will end this once and for all in the shortest possible timeframe.

For the reasons I’ve given above even if we have a GE I think we’ll end up with a second ref anyway.

 

[George Hannah]

The U.K. had no qualms meddling in U.S. elections in the 1940s. We’re just better at hiding it now.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...erfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634

Our U.S. cousins have taken the bar, however, and raised it considerably.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-in...ast-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481

not quite the same thing is it G?

 

[Chippy_boy]

We’re intending to give it a right good whack with Brexit so there’s that. You can’t talk about idiotic spending plans without talking about spending £39 billion to have more restrictive access to European markets or the billions spent on no deal prep after having negotiated not one but two withdrawal deals with the EU. I see no logic in maintaining the Tories are best for the country after the shambles of the years under Cameron and then May and now the ‘considered and calm’ stewardship of Johnson who anointed himself as ‘Minister for the Union’ and then three months later sold out NI whist crafting a template for other nations to follow in leaving our Union.

I’m no fan of Labour or Corbyn but dire warnings against adopting policies common in mainland Europe whilst in the middle of the current shitshow is not convincing. Are you seriously telling me that a Corbyn Govt with SNP (or whoever) support would have produced a worse outcome in the Brexit negotiations then we have to date? You reckon a Keir Starmer led team would have made a worse hash of it than Davis? You reckon Labour would have sold out our Union without the democratic consent of the country concerned?

Your entire case for the Tories seems to be predicated solely on your pant wetting terror of Labour. You are a prisoner of your own fear.

I think you're deluded Bob if you cannot see the harm the Marxists would do. Yes Brexit is a shambles but that was always going to be the case.

BTW, I no longer believe you when you say you used to vote Tory. I think you made that up. Every comment from you for 3 years is pro the Marxists.

 

[Chippy_boy]

If you take all the emotion out of it. I can only see a 2nd referendum being the way to decide Brexit. A GE is likely to return another hung parliament, given the public are still split 50/50 on Brexit. Debating Johnson’s deal will most likely end in the government pulling it because the opposition will table and pass some amendments that the government can’t accept, such as, giving parliament a say in extending the transition period for example. A second ref with clear choices will end this once and for all in the shortest possible timeframe.

For the reasons I’ve given above even if we have a GE I think we’ll end up with a second ref anyway.

Maybe, but I think you underestimate how unpopular the Marxist party is and just how much of their vote will go the Libdems. Johnson would walk a majority IMO were it not for the slight unknown of a December election. But I think he'd still get a majority.

Which is of course why the Marxist won't allow a GE.

 

[Hesperus]

Maybe, but I think you underestimate how unpopular the Marxist party is and just how much of their vote will go the Libdems. Johnson would walk a majority IMO were it not for the slight unknown of a December election. But I think he'd still get a majority.

Which is of course why the Marxist won't allow a GE.

Taking party allegiances out of it. The people are still split 50/50 over Brexit so that’s likely to be returned in parliament after a GE and we’re back to square one, a parliament that can’t pass a Brexit deal.

 

[Vic]

All your prattle about what Johnson has said is just your attempt at distraction - that is your desperation showing

I have been predicting the outcome for months - in what way is anything Johnson, Corbyn or anyone else said relevant?

I make my predictions based on my own assessments - and, again, on this occasion I have been proven to be right

Which conveniently doesn't answer the question. Did you make that prediction before or after Liar Johnson said no government could accept it? Because that was months ago.

Can you honestly not see the relevance?

Let me make it simple. Did you predict that we'd end up with a border down the Irish Sea before or after Johnson said that was something no British government could accept?

Either way, when he said that, did you believe him (as you were predicting, so you say, that that is what would happen)?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Taking party allegiances out of it. The people are still split 50/50 over Brexit so that’s likely to be returned in parliament after a GE and we’re back to square one, a parliament that can’t pass a Brexit deal.

That's too simplistic. By way of illustration:

If the voters were split 50-50 between Remain and Brexit and there were 3 parties, party A supporting Brexit and parties B and C supporting Remain - both equally popular - then party A would get 50© of the vote and B and C, 25% each. Party A would win all 650 seats.

So clearly how divided each sides vote is, is really important. As it stands, the Marxists are absolutely toxic to a large part of the electorate and any Remainer who is vaguely centre left, centre or right will be forced to vote Lib Dem. This will destroy the Marxist vote and lose them countless numbers of seats. The Tory vote will be split as well by the BXP but how much? Most people think by much less.

 

[adrianr]

We’re intending to give it a right good whack with Brexit so there’s that. You can’t talk about idiotic spending plans without talking about spending £39 billion to have more restrictive access to European markets or the billions spent on no deal prep after having negotiated not one but two withdrawal deals with the EU. I see no logic in maintaining the Tories are best for the country after the shambles of the years under Cameron and then May and now the ‘considered and calm’ stewardship of Johnson who anointed himself as ‘Minister for the Union’ and then three months later sold out NI whist crafting a template for other nations to follow in leaving our Union.

I’m no fan of Labour or Corbyn but dire warnings against adopting policies common in mainland Europe whilst in the middle of the current shitshow is not convincing. Are you seriously telling me that a Corbyn Govt with SNP (or whoever) support would have produced a worse outcome in the Brexit negotiations then we have to date? You reckon a Keir Starmer led team would have made a worse hash of it than Davis? You reckon Labour would have sold out our Union without the democratic consent of the country concerned?

Your entire case for the Tories seems to be predicated solely on your pant wetting terror of Labour. You are a prisoner of your own fear.

 

[Gabriel]

not quite the same thing is it G?

They rarely are, given the circumstances are never quite the same. However, I’m not entirely sure what your criticism of Macron is in this instance. Do you oppose France’s right to exercise its veto? Do you oppose Macron’s apparent support of Johnson? Genuinely not sure.

As someone more interested in ‘the game’ than the result, I sense that France’s position was really what the EU wanted- not wanting to make a decision- and that France was simply the protagonist in an elaborate diplomatic charade.The EU can wear an air of exasperation, delay everything for a few more days, and punt the ball back over la Manche. Labour will now seek to delay into 2020, and the EU will then ‘reluctantly’ reconvene and agree to extend until January 31st. ‘But this really, really is the last time, no really.’

 

[Vic]

So - you are admitting Corbyn is a shit leader?

I don't think I've ever said otherwise. Perhaps surprised by 2017, and that he can be impressive when talking one to one or in groups (compared to media performance) but he can't do one to one with the whole electorate.

 

[Vic]

Maybe, but I think you underestimate how unpopular the Marxist party is and just how much of their vote will go the Libdems. Johnson would walk a majority IMO were it not for the slight unknown of a December election. But I think he'd still get a majority.

Which is of course why the Marxist won't allow a GE.

I see what you did there. You object to "Liar Johnson" but think going "Marxist" every few seconds is OK. You think Corbyn is a Marxist, I think Johnson is a liar. I think the current vogue expression is "quid pro quo".

 

[Didsbury Dave]

They rarely are, given the circumstances are never quite the same. However, I’m not entirely sure what your criticism of Macron is in this instance. Do you oppose France’s right to exercise its veto? Do you oppose Macron’s apparent support of Johnson? Genuinely not sure.

As someone more interested in ‘the game’ than the result, I sense that France’s position was really what the EU wanted- not wanting to make a decision- and that France was simply the protagonist in an elaborate diplomatic charade.The EU can wear an air of exasperation, delay everything for a few more days, and punt the ball back over la Manche. Labour will now seek to delay into 2020, and the EU will then ‘reluctantly’ reconvene and agree to extend until January 31st. ‘But this really, really is the last time, no really.’

It’s obvious what Macron is doing: he’s playing the “Bad Boy of Brexit” role for the EU, to subtly excerpt pressure without the EU themselves looking grubby.

The United, dignified and clever way they’ve handled themselves over this madness compared to the way we have is so blindingly obvious to anyone who isn’t a total fool.

And yet we continue.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I see what you did there. You object to "Liar Johnson" but think going "Marxist" every few seconds is OK. You think Corbyn is a Marxist, I think Johnson is a liar. I think the current vogue expression is "quid pro quo".

You started it.

And if Liar Johnson is OK then "the Marxists" most certainly is. It's far less offensive and is accurate.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I know the EU don't want to meddle, but if they were to simply say on Monday that they refuse the extension, then there would be emergency debate in the HoC, the WA would be passed immediately through both houses and the deal would be done. And we could move on to phase 2. Shame this won't happen.

 

[Hesperus]

That's too simplistic. By way of illustration:

If the voters were split 50-50 between Remain and Brexit and there were 3 parties, party A supporting Brexit and parties B and C supporting Remain - both equally popular - then party A would get 50© of the vote and B and C, 25% each. Party A would win all 650 seats.

So clearly how divided each sides vote is, is really important. As it stands, the Marxists are absolutely toxic to a large part of the electorate and any Remainer who is vaguely centre left, centre or right will be forced to vote Lib Dem. This will destroy the Marxist vote and lose them countless numbers of seats. The Tory vote will be split as well by the BXP but how much? Most people think by much less.

I think your being too anti labour in your analysis. Others on this thread have already explained why the Torres will lose seats to the Lib Dem’s SNP and Brexit party. Labour will lose votes for sure, but You’re just labour bashing and hoping for the best at an election for the Tory’s. It’s by no means a given that the conservatives will gain a workable majority.

 

[Vic]

That's too simplistic. By way of illustration:

If the voters were split 50-50 between Remain and Brexit and there were 3 parties, party A supporting Brexit and parties B and C supporting Remain - both equally popular - then party A would get 50© of the vote and B and C, 25% each. Party A would win all 650 seats.

So clearly how divided each sides vote is, is really important. As it stands, the Marxists are absolutely toxic to a large part of the electorate and any Remainer who is vaguely centre left, centre or right will be forced to vote Lib Dem. This will destroy the Marxist vote and lose them countless numbers of seats. The Tory vote will be split as well by the BXP but how much? Most people think by much less.

That's not simplistic, that's just dumb. Most Remainers (as in Determined Remainers) will vote for whichever party is likely to beat the Tories, so many Lib Dem Remainers will vote for their local Labour candidate if he/she is most likely to keep out the Tory, and Tory Remainers (unless very Tory) may vote LibDem rather than Tory. Lib Dems may even calculate that there is no way Corbyn can win an overall majority so to give LibDems a chance of sharing power they may not be bothered by silly "marxist" stuff. In fact, rather than continue here tonight, I'll get phoning some voters.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think your being too anti labour in your analysis. Others on this thread have already explained why the Torres will lose seats to the Lib Dem’s SNP and Brexit party. Labour will lose votes for sure, but You’re just labour bashing and hoping for the best at an election for the Tory’s. It’s by no means a given that the conservatives will gain a workable majority.

Of course it isn't. I said it was a possibility. You seem to have ruled it out.

 

[George Hannah]

They rarely are, given the circumstances are never quite the same. However, I’m not entirely sure what your criticism of Macron is in this instance. Do you oppose France’s right to exercise its veto? Do you oppose Macron’s apparent support of Johnson? Genuinely not sure.

As someone more interested in ‘the game’ than the result, I sense that France’s position was really what the EU wanted- not wanting to make a decision- and that France was simply the protagonist in an elaborate diplomatic charade.The EU can wear an air of exasperation, delay everything for a few more days, and punt the ball back over la Manche. Labour will now seek to delay into 2020, and the EU will then ‘reluctantly’ reconvene and agree to extend until January 31st. ‘But this really, really is the last time, no really.’

Germany and Ireland and the other countries most affected by Brexit are trying hard not to be seen to be interfering in our domestic affairs by agreeing to the extensions we ask for. Instead, Macron follows the well worn French path of doing the exact opposite in yet another unsuccessful attempt to inflate their declining significance. They always fall in with rest at the end but rarely without a tedious episode of such pathetic posturing for the gallery.