Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

LeinsterDub

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

I think Mogg's role is now the joker - keep distracting the public from Bojo's dying political bluster. Pure Shakespeare.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

You're giving Johnson and his ilk far too much credit

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. I've just googled it, and I didn't get anything about JRM slouching.

"Rees-Mogg Lies" - first 7 hits I get are him lying down, #8 him telling lies.
"Tory Lies" - #1 hit I get is him lying down.

(Your Google results may vary since Google shows you what it thinks you want to see mixed with what people who pay them want you to see).

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Rees-Mogg Lies" - first 7 hits I get are him lying down, #8 him telling lies.
"Tory Lies" - #1 hit I get is him lying down.

(Your Google results may vary since Google shows you what it thinks you want to see mixed with what people who pay them want you to see).

I see a problem if this was the plan though, the Brexit campaign was fought to help parliament regain power from what it lost to the EU (paraphrasing here), and to get away from your lies you have someone disrespecting parliament. For the sense of fair play that the English apparently have (see we voted for it, just deliver it even if it is mental attitude), this seems like a miscalculation to me.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

For the sense of fair play that the English apparently have (see we voted for it, just deliver it even if it is mental attitude), this seems like a miscalculation to me.

It's also an example of thinking this crew are up to something Machiavellian when maybe they are just jackasses, I am not convinced of it myself.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Rees-Mogg Lies" - first 7 hits I get are him lying down, #8 him telling lies.
"Tory Lies" - #1 hit I get is him lying down.

(Your Google results may vary since Google shows you what it thinks you want to see mixed with what people who pay them want you to see).

My google results may vary because what I googled was "Tory government lies", as you originally suggested.

Sam Russell

boggerman1 wrote: »

Anyone that listened to Eamon dunphy's podcast from this week with that plastic paddy Brendan O'Neill will know the real reason poor mogg had to lounge about.according to Brendan its because he's so tall that he finds it difficult to sit up straight in them uncomfortable benches.I kid u not

I thought it was because Mogg has no backbone.

A Shropshire Lad

The DUP are the main problem. Once the Cons dont need their votes they will get shafted

What was it Carson said

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's also an example of thinking this crew are up to something Machiavellian when maybe that are just jackasses, I am not convinced of it myself.

Well, the view that Cummings is a fiendishly clever operator who plays 4-dimensional chess and bamboozles his opponents has certainly taken a battering these last few weeks. His puppet government has repeated all the mistakes of the May government, but on steroids and at double-speed, with the same wheels-coming-off-the-clown car results.

bob mcbob

prawnsambo wrote: »

To be fair, moving a nuclear arsenal (difficult and all as that may be) is a manageable exercise given enough time. And Scottish independence (if it were to happen) would take a great deal of time. Welsh devolution took eight years and that was a small enough move in comparison. But the problems with the NI border will happen overnight, will have no lead in time, have no 'transition period' or any other sort of prep time. It will be one day in the same system as Ireland and the next it won't.

Not exactly - Trident is based where it is because there are 3 different deep water routes that the subs can take when they leave Faslane - so that it is difficult for Russian subs to track them. There are no similar bases anywhere in England or Wales.

trellheim

Yes so apparently the UK just used a black marker to X out the backstop from May's WA and claimed they were serious proposals .




everyone else going "wtf"

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1169894807335886848

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1169642574027661312

slightly late to the party I know


but when Gavin Barwell thrashes you in public you really have to wonder

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1169729911122202625

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

I wouldn't get too worked up about whether or not their constitution is written down - across the pond, "our friends in America" have one beautifully written and on display for all to see, but that hasn't deterred the current administration from finding ways to ignore its provisions.

All constitutions have flaws and are (and should be) constantly updated. One of the flaws of the US constitution is the massively tortuous method by which it can be updated. Partly due to the size and diversity of the US, but also reflecting the time it was original written in. And of course the US President has executive power which the current one is wielding like a child with a water pistol. The UK 'constitution' is a mess of law and convention that dates back hundreds of years. Not constitutionally relevant, but as an example, it is still illegal to walk into the houses of parliament in a suit of armour. That's been on the statute books since the 14th century.

trellheim

PS Gina Miller just lost the prorogation case https://order-order.com/2019/09/06/gina-miller-john-major-lose-prorogation-case/

ToBeFrank123

prawnsambo wrote: »

All constitutions have flaws and are (and should be) constantly updated. One of the flaws of the US constitution is the massively tortuous method by which it can be updated. Partly due to the size and diversity of the US, but also reflecting the time it was original written in. And of course the US President has executive power which the current one is wielding like a child with a water pistol. The UK 'constitution' is a mess of law and convention that dates back hundreds of years. Not constitutionally relevant, but as an example, it is still illegal to walk into the houses of parliament in a suit of armour. That's been on the statute books since the 14th century.

The modern equivalent would be a bullet proof vest. Anyone who walks in there wearing one is up to no good. Sounds like a good law to me.

ToBeFrank123

trellheim wrote: »

PS Gina Miller just lost the prorogation case https://order-order.com/2019/09/06/gina-miller-john-major-lose-prorogation-case/

Was Gina Miller the reason that the Withdrawal Agreement had to be passed by the House of Commons?

trellheim

something along those lines, that parliament was sovereign ... but that was back before the dark ages chuckle

DOCARCH

Now that the DUP are in effect out of the equation....their votes mean nothing now....I would have thought BJ would have jumped at NI only backstop, which EU would agree to (did previously), and put revised WA to the HoC? Might be one way of delivering Brexit?

quokula

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Rees-Mogg Lies" - first 7 hits I get are him lying down, #8 him telling lies.
"Tory Lies" - #1 hit I get is him lying down.

(Your Google results may vary since Google shows you what it thinks you want to see mixed with what people who pay them want you to see).

See also "Boris Johnson Bus" gives that bizarre ramble he gave in an interview a few weeks ago about painting cardboard buses, rather than the lies he spread on the side of one during the campaign.

gmisk

DOCARCH wrote: »

Now that the DUP are in effect out of the equation....their votes mean nothing now....I would have thought BJ would have jumped at NI only backstop, which EU would agree to (did previously), and put revised WA to the HoC? Might be one way of delivering Brexit?

He might still need their 10 (atm) votes after another general election.

quokula

DOCARCH wrote: »

Now that the DUP are in effect out of the equation....their votes mean nothing now....I would have thought BJ would have jumped at NI only backstop, which EU would agree to (did previously), and put revised WA to the HoC? Might be one way of delivering Brexit?

He won't do it because it would just expose the fact that the hardcore brexiters in the Tory party will still vote against it regardless.

And the vast majority of MPs who voted against it in Labour, SNP etc did so because it was going to be too hard a Brexit, not because of the backstop.

The backstop is just a convenient way of trying to shift blame to Ireland / the EU for parliament not agreeing anything. If it wasn't that it would be something else.

Infini

DOCARCH wrote: »

Now that the DUP are in effect out of the equation....their votes mean nothing now....I would have thought BJ would have jumped at NI only backstop, which EU would agree to (did previously), and put revised WA to the HoC? Might be one way of delivering Brexit?

Honestly cosidering the level of stupidity at this point I dont believe they're interested in anything but a car crash Brexit. Our side needs to prepare for this as its the most likely outcome if Boris isnt given the boot and if they eventually do that when they eventually come crawling back that theyre forced to take whatever deal is on the table if its Boris still in charge.

That bring said if parliment has decided to ask for an extention and theres an election they should give another short extention to allow a new government to be formed expecially if Labour gets in. At least them yhere might be an orderly process then and some class and dignity restored to the UK.

hollypink

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Was Gina Miller the reason that the Withdrawal Agreement had to be passed by the House of Commons?

No, that case ruled that parliament had to vote on triggering Article 50.

am i bovvered

DOCARCH wrote: »

Now that the DUP are in effect out of the equation....their votes mean nothing now....I would have thought BJ would have jumped at NI only backstop, which EU would agree to (did previously), and put revised WA to the HoC? Might be one way of delivering Brexit?

Given the extreme sh1tshow we are witnessing, I believe this is a good call and would have a chance of passing.
Now, how do we get this idea into the brain of Boris ?

DOCARCH

am i bovvered wrote: »

Given the extreme sh1tshow we are witnessing, I believe this is a good call and would have a chance of passing.
Now, how do we get this idea into the brain of Boris ?

To sort of answer my own suggestion, after 4 days of HoC sitting, I think BJ is now toxic and is now a lame duck! I think anything he proposes will simply be rejected!

If he had suggest NI backstop before all the sh**show of this week, there may have been a slim chance of getting it passed. On the other hand there is a large cohort in his own party who very simply want no deal/nothing/crash out.

funkey_monkey

DOCARCH wrote: »

Now that the DUP are in effect out of the equation....their votes mean nothing now....I would have thought BJ would have jumped at NI only backstop, which EU would agree to (did previously), and put revised WA to the HoC? Might be one way of delivering Brexit?

It will not have an effect as the whole reason for Brexit remains in the WA. This is why the ERG said no when asked if removal of the Backstop would mean they would back the WA.

In the context of the Union's and the United Kingdom's commitments set out in paragraph 1,
the United Kingdom shall continue to apply provisions of its domestic law transposing the
following provisions of Union law, as applicable at the end of the transition period:
(a) Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the
field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC;
& /en 355
(b) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax
avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market; and
(c) Article 89 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential
supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC
and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The modern equivalent would be a bullet proof vest. Anyone who walks in there wearing one is up to no good. Sounds like a good law to me.

Police officers on duty being arrested for breaking a 14th century law would look good alright.

elli21

I was listening to the Ferrari show on LBC when Dr Nichols asked JRM the question.JRM told The Dr he should be ashamed of phoning in to create fear.Ferrari reapetedly told the Dr that he had no idea if he was a DR or not.

Dr Nichols said yesterday that he didn't phone LBC...they phoned him to talk to JRM but he was only permitted one question...He thought it was strange that he was intruduced as Dave from Birmingham.Ferrari clearly lying IMO that he had no idea that Nichols was a DR

funkey_monkey

I'm not sure but I think the reason would be that they would have to legislate to introduce it and once it would be in the statute book it would be difficult to get removed without the transparency of why it was being removed.

Correct?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No insults please. There is a warning in the OP and the thread title.

10000maniacs

jm08 wrote: »

I don't think that was a racist rant, more an answer to either BSE or Foot and Mouth when the British Beef and Lamb industry was wiped out and British Beef banned from Europe. Paisley agreed that Northern Irish Beef was now Irish! That entailed checks coming in from GB onto the island of Ireland.

Yeah, maybe. He didn't use the words "Antichrists", "rabbits" and "vermin" in that one. But it sounded a tad multi pronged to me. That is just my opinion BTW.

funkey_monkey

The DUP have (had) a large support in the agri industry. They know fine well that when it comes to keeping blue tongue, FMD, etc out of the herd it makes full sense to check the animals at point of entry to NI from GB.
Anything else and they would lose significant support to the UUP.