Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Laois_Man

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Mallon? That's a gas one! Bitter old fool that he is!

Needed by who?

If they were needed people would vote for them.

The flickering of the eyelashes towards FF says all you need to know about the SDLP.

Mallon was only ever their deputy leader

They are still needed by the up-to 190,000 people who used to vote for them in general elections - but 50% of them can't anymore (and they'll be even less in any 2019/2020 election), because they're ****e. So we're in full agreement!

Jizique

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why do people resign on the back of BJ's action? Seems crazy, you need to stay in as a vote to vote against his actions.

Who resigned?
The only one i can think of is Davidson, who resigned as Scottish Conservative leader, because she doesn't agree with the Brexit policy and because she think Johnson is a ****.
She has no vote in parliament.

FrancieBrady

Jizique wrote: »

Who resigned?
The only one i can think of is Davidson, who resigned as Scottish Conservative leader, because she doesn't agree with the Brexit policy and because she think Johnson is a ****.
She has no vote in parliament.

Young gone too.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/29/lord-young-quits-government-over-boris-johnson-proroguing-parliament

Enzokk

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why do people resign on the back of BJ's action? Seems crazy, you need to stay in as a vote to vote against his actions.

They would not resign from being a MP, just their job in government. So a minister could resign but still vote, same for the party whips who is there to ensure everyone stays in line and votes with the government. If they don't agree with the government position then they have to resign the whip.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Why can't she ?

She can do whatever the hell she wants if Johnson gives her a carte blanche, which he is proposing to do.

Its a long and complicated history though. I think, according to wiki, that parliament established its superiority in 1688 or something like that. The Bill of Rights ensured that the power was removed from the monarchy and parliament was the true seat of power in the UK. Since then the role of the monarch is ceremonial only and they have no say in the direction of the country. Even if she wanted to, to take control would have created even bigger problems as she is not elected.

prawnsambo

Jizique wrote: »

Who resigned?
The only one i can think of is Davidson, who resigned as Scottish Conservative leader, because she doesn't agree with the Brexit policy and because she think Johnson is a ****.
She has no vote in parliament.

I don't think you can say that about Davidson's thoughts on Johnson. She said in her PC that she spoke to him at length and that she believes him when he says he wants a deal. And tellingly, she urged parliamentarians to vote for a deal when it comes back to the HoC. Very strenuously urged them, I might add.

Tell me how

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think you can say that about Davidson's thoughts on Johnson. She said in her PC that she spoke to him at length and that she believes him when he says he wants a deal. And tellingly, she urged parliamentarians to vote for a deal when it comes back to the HoC. Very strenuously urged them, I might add.

Doesn't matter once she is leaving. Her mords may have purely been to stem any tide of accusations that she abandoned the conservative party and made them look weak.

In fact, I'd say that is exactly why she said it.

Shelga

Any political public figure who doesn’t explicitly condemn the prorogation in the strongest possible terms has no spine. That now includes Davidson.

The fact that there have only been 2 resignations is worrying.

prawnsambo

Tell me how wrote: »

Doesn't matter once she is leaving. Her mords may have purely been to stem any tide of accusations that she abandoned the conservative party and made them look weak.

In fact, I'd say that is exactly why she said it.

Really? I wouldn't think anything she said would have any effect on the optics of the fact of her resigning. What interested me was her belief that a new WA would be put back to parliament. The Tories have been putting out the narrative of a no deal brexit and this proroguing of parliament bolsters that. Yet you seem to think that Davidson saying that she believes a deal will be put to parliament means she's trying to strengthen the Tories?

woejus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is it the will...

This would be good watching if set to the "what have the romans ever done for us" scene

reslfj

is_that_so wrote: »

They are all still keen to explore any kind of a deal and will be up to Oct 31. No deal is not a deal.

Two things will happen a little after October 31.

1. The UK will urgently (more like desperately) need a trade deal and deals on a lot of non-trade areas.

2. The EU27 will be in a new and much stronger negotiation position with the WA text and some hard extra demands being first and only on the agenda. Poor, poor UK

The the trade deal may be negotiated and long haul lorries may drive in the EU27.

Lars

Shelga

I’ve got a flight to Scotland booked for November 1st. Has anyone seen any updates on whether flights will be affected in the event of a no-deal Brexit the day before?

My understanding is that they agreed to roll over aviation agreements before the March deadline, but can’t find anything about it relating to the new date of October 31st.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

InTheShadows wrote: »

Absolutely pathetic. These people need to get a job and except the will of the majority

Ireland has very close to zero unemployment. That was basically unconscionable 20+ years ago.

Calina

Shelga wrote: »

I’ve got a flight to Scotland booked for November 1st. Has anyone seen any updates on whether flights will be affected in the event of a no-deal Brexit the day before?

My understanding is that they agreed to roll over aviation agreements before the March deadline, but can’t find anything about it relating to the new date of October 31st.

They didn't agree anything. The EU has planning in place for a no deal scenario. Your plane flying is dependent on a bunch of conditions ibcluding route and ownership of the airline and where it is registered iirc.

prawnsambo

Calina wrote: »

They didn't agree anything. The EU has planning in place for a no deal scenario. Your plane flying is dependent on a bunch of conditions ibcluding route and ownership of the airline and where it is registered iirc.

The impact mitigation was to allow UK owned airlines fly from the UK to a destination in the EU or from an EU airport to the UK, but not from EU to EU. It was to last for nine months iirc.

Call me Al

Enzokk wrote: »

The queen is aware that she is a figurehead only and has no real power. She will accept the advice of the PM as she doesn't want to get herself involved in politics. It is shameful that Johnson did this to get her involved though, I think the royal family would have been happy to be just in the background doing their thing. Having her agree to proroguing is getting her involved in politics and it is worse in that she cannot go against the advice of the PM really.

Lord Adonis was talking with Pat Kenny this morning. He believes that bj had planned to pro rogue right up to brexit day, but that the queen wasn't ok with this, and her legal advisors pushed back against that. Rather than lose face ( all round) he pitched it out to mid October.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Facts are important. 5% at the moment. 20 years ago it was about 5%

12% in 2009
16% in 2012

It was higher in 2012 than during the 90's, hitting ~18% during the 80's.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Ireland has very close to zero unemployment. That was basically unconscionable 20+ years ago.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Calina wrote: »

They didn't agree anything. The EU has planning in place for a no deal scenario. Your plane flying is dependent on a bunch of conditions ibcluding route and ownership of the airline and where it is registered iirc.

https://youtu.be/Inr1KEoJqJ0

Michael O Leary explains that point fairly well.

BarryD2

Enzokk wrote: »

The queen is aware that she is a figurehead only and has no real power. She will accept the advice of the PM as she doesn't want to get herself involved in politics.

As I understand it, she does have certain powers not dissimilar to our own president in that she can refuse to appoint or dissolve governments and so on. She is supposed to have the greater interests of her 'people' at heart. I'd have thought that in kowtowing to Boris, that she's copped out and abrogated her responsibilities. But then maybe the monarchy are closet Brexiteers?

Clearly there's a crisis brewing in her country. The democratically elected MPs would be expected to play a role in sorting it out. And yet she chose to facilitate the shutting down of parliament - I'd think there's many a British citizen scowling in the direction of the Palace.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Lyra Black Sportswoman wrote: »

Facts are important. 5% at the moment. 20 years ago it was about 5%

12% in 2009
16% in 2012

It was higher in 2012 than during the 90's, hitting ~18% during the 80's.

The point still stands. 30,40,50,60,70 years ago we had higher unemployment. And it's 4.6% now. I don't think it can be lowered by much more realistically.

It went bad a decade ago. That's why it's so solid there has been such recovery of the economy.

LuckyLloyd

Lyra Black Sportswoman wrote: »

Facts are important. 5% at the moment. 20 years ago it was about 5%

12% in 2009
16% in 2012

It was higher in 2012 than during the 90's, hitting ~18% during the 80's.

5% is effectively full employment

Shelga

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

https://youtu.be/Inr1KEoJqJ0

Michael O Leary explains that point fairly well.

Thanks for that clip! I think I understand that the issue is the open skies agreement, not the ownership of the airline, but I still have no idea what stage the British government is at today, in terms of negotiating an alternative.

Kirsty Wark was fairly annoying though, kept interrupting him with misinformation. Michael O’Leary obviously knows this stuff inside out. I’m not sure I’d agree with him though that just because his planes are full, people love flying Ryanair!

robinph

Enzokk wrote: »

They would not resign from being a MP, just their job in government. So a minister could resign but still vote, same for the party whips who is there to ensure everyone stays in line and votes with the government. If they don't agree with the government position then they have to resign the whip.

Resigning the whip is different from the Whip resigning.

The Whip resigning is the person with the role of keeping the members in line and ensuring they turn up to vote in the right way resigning from doing that job.

Resigning the whip is something else, which I don't fully get the implications of, but means that you effectively become an independent MP for a while I think because you say you won't follow the instructions from the party whips regarding voting. Not sure what "benefits" it is that they lose by doing so though. I think they also use it as a punishment for party MP's that have done something wrong, in a slap on the wrists kind of level, and the party would withdraw the whip from them.

VinLieger

Lyra Black Sportswoman wrote: »

Facts are important. 5% at the moment. 20 years ago it was about 5%

12% in 2009
16% in 2012

It was higher in 2012 than during the 90's, hitting ~18% during the 80's.

5% is pretty much agreed as being as low as its likely to get.


Currently the UK claim theirs is 3.8% however they class anyone who does 1 hour or more of work a week as being employed so its not comparable and quite a disingenuous figure.

robinph

BarryD2 wrote: »

As I understand it, she does have certain powers not dissimilar to our own president in that she can refuse to appoint or dissolve governments and so on. She is supposed to have the greater interests of her 'people' at heart. I'd have thought that in kowtowing to Boris, that she's copped out and abrogated her responsibilities. But then maybe the monarchy are closet Brexiteers?

Clearly there's a crisis brewing in her country. The democratically elected MPs would be expected to play a role in sorting it out. And yet she chose to facilitate the shutting down of parliament - I'd think there's many a British citizen scowling in the direction of the Palace.

She does have powers, but can't really use them as to do so would mean the end of the monarchy. Much like the UK can leave the EU with no deal if it wants to, but to do so would be monumentally stupid and mean the end of the UK.

Or the EU could agree to the UK's demands regarding the backstop, but to do so would mean the end of the EU.

The Queen is not as stupid as the UK government.

20silkcut

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To their own head, and then making demands.

Unfortunately Ireland is in the splash zone.

Took a flight to London from Dublin last week. Within 5 minutes or so of been airborne the welsh coast was clearly in view from my seat in the plane. Within another 10-15 minutes we were flying over it.
It just struck me how geographically close we are to Britain. How different the view points are on either side of that sea that can be crossed in minutes by air.
How big the impact will be on us.
In relative terms we are living on top of each other. We are very definitely in the splash zone.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

5% is pretty much agreed as being as low as its likely to get.

Currently the UK claim theirs is 3.8% however they class anyone who does 1 hour or more of work a week as being employed so its not comparable and quite a disingenuous figure.

I'm not sure if we also have this, but they also have an 'inactive' cohort that is defined by not having looked for work in the last four weeks. It's very large, iirc the same number as those classified as unemployed.

Stop moaning ffs

Whatever it’s worth from this guy. You’d wonder why he’s tweeting it

https://twitter.com/jamiebrysoncpni/status/1167059118907150337?s=21

prawnsambo

Following on from the discussion about Ruth Davidson and what she said, we now have what looks like spin coming from Dominic Cummings to negate what she said about a deal.

josip

robinph wrote: »

She does have powers, but can't really use them as to do so would mean the end of the monarchy. Much like the UK can leave the EU with no deal if it wants to, but to do so would be monumentally stupid and mean the end of the UK.

Or the EU could agree to the UK's demands regarding the backstop, but to do so would mean the end of the EU.

The Queen is not as stupid as the UK government.

One has been put in a bit of a bind and I doubt if one appreciated it one bit.
One however probably decided to 'suck it up' in the knowledge that one will outlast the current imbecile, much as one has outlasted the previous 13.

BarryD2

robinph wrote: »

She does have powers, but can't really use them as to do so would mean the end of the monarchy.

Please explain? How they can they be powers if she can't use them?