Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

VinLieger

maebee wrote: »

I read Surf's post as it was Cummings who was the leaker.

Doh of course, yeah without a doubt cummings leaked it

J Mysterio

Memnoch wrote: »

I think I would be repeating myself and dragging the discussion off-topic to get into more detail on this with you right now. But happy to do so via p.m. if you are interested.

But it is absolutely ludicrous to say that he is out brexiting the brexiteers when you look at the actual policy position from labor on offer. I think if you believe that, genuinely, then it only proves my point to the extent of the smear campaign and propaganda that have been leveled against him.

Would you ever give over with your smear campaign nonsense. This is pure condescension again - you understand the reality but we are all gullible and susceptible to anti Corbyn propoganda. We must be Watsonites! You are clearly firmly in the Corbyn is messiah camp. Many here don't have a dog in the fight and are analysing the key figures in a neutral, fully detached way based on their behaviour over many years but in particular through the Brexit crisis.

People have many legitimate criticisms of Corbyn and they are right to air them. He has failed as an opposition leader during the worst UK crisis since WWII, letting the Tories away with absolute murder. He failed in the referendum to provide clarity. His party is still split and he is doing his best to avoid stating a clear opinion. I hold him in contempt.

PeadarCo

Memnoch wrote:

But it is absolutely ludicrous to say that he is out brexiting the brexiteers when you look at the actual policy position from labor on offer. I think if you believe that, genuinely, then it only proves my point to the extent of the smear campaign and propaganda that have been leveled against him.

All it shows it Corbyn is no different from Johnson and Brexiters in general. Don't like the message shoot the messanger. Which is one of the reasons the UK is in this mess. A refusal to face difficult facts and the compromises they require.

What is their policy position? The EU doesn't give a dam really who is in charge to a huge degree. Having Corbyn as PM won't change things unless the UK changes its red lines. Remember the EU is negotiating with the UK government not the Tories or Labour or May etc the UK government.

Labour have had 3 years and we are only getting started with Brexit, remember we are only talking about the withdrawal agreement. We have not got to hard part which is the actual trade agreement. Remember the EU represents over half of the UKs trade all things considered. The idea that Labour can remain neutral is fantasy. The only way Labour and Corbyn can get away with their neutral position in the long run is that Corbyn never becomes PM and Labour remains out of government for the next 10 odd years. You can't be neutral in negotiations with a trade partner that has a massive impact on the UK economy. Remember outside the EU the UK will become a rule taker and not a maker. That Corbyn are happy to be neutral on stuff like this makes them no different from Brexiters. Because they are running away from the same issues Brexiters are, the only difference they aren't in power. As today's judgment shows theres a limit to how far you can run.

Water John

Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.

lawred2

Water John wrote: »

Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.

Gas isn't it.. bet someone will be along soon to lament SF's abstentionist policy as well no doubt

Harry Palmr

Water John wrote: »

Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.

Corbyn is sadly important with a GE on the way. If there is going to be a change of government he needs to transform himself from "ambiguous" Lexit to firm Remain and go for a second referendum on that basis if he is put into power. His current position is unsustainable - in that regard the sooner an election happens the better as the Lib Dems could become a huge spoiler for them the longer this drags on (esp if there is an extension).

briany

I see a few heads saying that the UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on matters of politics. This can't be true if they have successfully done so, though?

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.

Well I think the reason he is a top discussion topic is because many think he is a total waste of space. He ain't going to change now either.

But my feeling on this is, he is reluctant to take over the mess of a Hard Brexit that was caused by the Tories (if it happens). So he has a foot in both camps and none, all at the same time. Some tactic!

I personally think Labour is toast. Their Momentum wing is just as toxic as the ERG now. And their Conference was not in the least inspiring either. Bet Corbyn is glad it has been truncated now.

There will be no winners in this battle unfortunately. But I watch, wait and listen, and hope for the best. That means the best outcome for the EU which means us of course. We, as most realise have a hell of a lot to lose.

Difficult not to feel bitter about the cavalier attitude of the Tories towards their trading partners and neighbours. But sure what can you do.

Infini

serfboard wrote: »

My money's on Cummings.

Its obvious its that troll who leaked it, we've had leaks that it was cummings and co who pushed for this. Now the opposition has crushed them utterly in the supreme court and someones head will need to roll, hence cummings is trying to push the AG under the bus before he gets thrown under it.

Those leaks look very selective too I wonder what the whole thing looks like because Im pretty sure its not pretty for the rest of them trying to hide from this.

Nate--IRL--

briany wrote: »

I see a few heads saying that the UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on matters of politics. This can't be true if they have successfully done so, though?

It has jurisdiction to rule on matters of Law, which it has done.

Nate

J Mysterio

Exactly this:

https://twitter.com/stevenjbarnett/status/1176513335958880256

Kuenssburg put out three tweets with full quotes (no soundbites/ paraphrasing) from another 'no. 10 source'. She is still just regurgitating the stuff and with no analysis of it.

Why is she doing that? Should she not put their name to it? I know that from time to time there are 'off the record' type things (fair enough), but with Kuenssburg, it's a daily occurence. Surely that is not legitimate journalism - she has to pressure people and oust this stuff on the record.

maynooth_rules

Water John wrote: »

Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.

And that ****e would have been flushed away a long time ago had Corbyn been realistic with a Brexit policy, instead of trying to be all things to all men and in essence be a hopeless opposition leader

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Exactly this:

https://twitter.com/stevenjbarnett/status/1176513335958880256

Kuenssburg put out three tweets with full quotes (no soundbites/ paraphrasing) from another 'no. 10 source'. She is still just regurgitating the stuff and with no analysis of it.

Why is she doing that? Should she not put their name to it? I know that from time to time there are 'off the record' type things (fair enough), but with Kuenssburg, it's a daily occurence. Surely that is not legitimate journalism - she has to pressure people and oust this stuff on the record.

Its her style and what got her the job. She cultivates sources from both sides and then plays them against each other without taking a view. Now this can work if she stays 100% impartial, but I have my doubts about her being impartial. You can guess as well her sources within Labour will not be as good as the Tories so from a work point of view she would prefer a Tory government as well.

https://twitter.com/dimasciov/status/1174394692693299200?s=20

BarryD2

J Mysterio wrote: »

People have many legitimate criticisms of Corbyn and they are right to air them. He has failed as an opposition leader during the worst UK crisis since WWII, letting the Tories away with absolute murder. He failed in the referendum to provide clarity. His party is still split and he is doing his best to avoid stating a clear opinion. I hold him in contempt.

+1. In truth, Corbyn plays much the same game as May did - trying to be all things to all people, thus falling on their arses between the stools.

Not a fan of Boris but at least in his favour is that he offers one definite objective. Not in favour of that objective but it's hard to see how it can be derailed when the main opposition party vacillates so much.

Kermit.de.frog

Varadkar before meeting with Johnson

We are very keen that there be a deal, that the UK should be able to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion. That’s in Ireland’s interest, it’s in Britain’s interest too.

But there are certain guarantees that we expect to be honoured; that there won’t be a hard border between North and South.... that North-South cooperation will continue as envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement, that what was given to us by the British government back in December 2017.

Downing Street read out of meeting

The prime minister met with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at the UN General Assembly today. They discussed the Brexit talks and the ideas that the UK has been putting forward, including on the issue of consent.

The prime minister was clear that the UK would be leaving on 31 October and said that he was cautiously optimistic that we would be able to do so through negotiating a deal which is acceptable to both sides.

The prime minister underlined his steadfast commitment to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and said that we will never place infrastructure, checks or controls at the border.

They agreed on the vital importance of ensuring the peace, prosperity and security of Northern Ireland. The leaders agreed to stay in close contact in coming days.

woohoo!!!

BarryD2 wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

People have many legitimate criticisms of Corbyn and they are right to air them. He has failed as an opposition leader during the worst UK crisis since WWII, letting the Tories away with absolute murder. He failed in the referendum to provide clarity. His party is still split and he is doing his best to avoid stating a clear opinion. I hold him in contempt.

+1. In truth, Corbyn plays much the same game as May did - trying to be all things to all people, thus falling on their arses between the stools.

Not a fan of Boris but at least in his favour is that he offers one definite objective. Not in favour of that objective but it's hard to see how it can be derailed when the main opposition party vacillates so much.

I think he suffers from what all ails them, unicorn wish lists.

briany

BarryD2 wrote: »

+1. In truth, Corbyn plays much the same game as May did - trying to be all things to all people, thus falling on their arses between the stools.

Not a fan of Boris but at least in his favour is that he offers one definite objective. Not in favour of that objective but it's hard to see how it can be derailed when the main opposition party vacillates so much.

Johnson has offered an objective that satisfies no majority. He's even more f**ked than Corbyn is.

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

Exactly this:

https://twitter.com/stevenjbarnett/status/1176513335958880256

Kuenssburg put out three tweets with full quotes (no soundbites/ paraphrasing) from another 'no. 10 source'. She is still just regurgitating the stuff and with no analysis of it.

Why is she doing that? Should she not put their name to it? I know that from time to time there are 'off the record' type things (fair enough), but with Kuenssburg, it's a daily occurence. Surely that is not legitimate journalism - she has to pressure people and oust this stuff on the record.

She's perfectly free to comment on these quotes in the same thread. Total silence looks bad.

Spanish Eyes

The FPTP system has to be the most undemocratic voting system ever.

Leaving aside the fact that PR was rejected some years ago it is unreal, especially in a SAFE seat, where as long as the rosette is the right colour, in you go. Why would you bother engaging in politics at all? No reason, no reward.

I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly that the voting system and safe seats has led to an hiatus in political engagement now. Why bother engaging if the local MP will romp home anyway even if you dislike him/her intensely and vote for someone else?. What is the point?

Sooner or later this issue will have to be tackled. But it would be like the ubiquitous turkeys and Christmas epithet.

Lib Dems on PR would gain a lot of seats I think. But that is just a dream anyway, so scratch that.

The will of the people my eye.

Mr.Nice Guy

Water John wrote: »

Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.

He's not though. He is plainly targeting the Brexiter vote and the events of today won't harm him much, if at all. In fact, they may help him as most of the Brexiters turned on the judges long ago.

Labour meanwhile are busy turning on themselves.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1176410685099692032

Tell me how

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The FPTP system has to be the most undemocratic voting system ever.

Leaving aside the fact that PR was rejected some years ago it is unreal, especially in a SAFE seat, where as long as the rosette is the right colour, in you go. Why would you bother engaging in politics at all? No reason, no reward.

I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly that the voting system and safe seats has led to an hiatus in political engagement now. Why bother engaging if the local MP will romp home anyway even if you dislike him/her intensely and vote for someone else?. What is the point?

Sooner or later this issue will have to be tackled. But it would be like the ubiquitous turkeys and Christmas epithet.

Lib Dems on PR would gain a lot of seats I think. But that is just a dream anyway, so scratch that.

The will of the people my eye.

It's part of a much broader topic.

We have PV in Ireland but also claims of voter apathy, disinterest and non-participation.
In the US, the electoral college is said to be undemocratic too but there are also valid reasons for it being used.

The FPTP does seem particularly weak over the last number of years though, that much is true.

briany

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The FPTP system has to be the most undemocratic voting system ever.

Leaving aside the fact that PR was rejected some years ago it is unreal, especially in a SAFE seat, where as long as the rosette is the right colour, in you go. Why would you bother engaging in politics at all? No reason, no reward.

I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly that the voting system and safe seats has led to an hiatus in political engagement now. Why bother engaging if the local MP will romp home anyway even if you dislike him/her intensely and vote for someone else?. What is the point?

Sooner or later this issue will have to be tackled. But it would be like the ubiquitous turkeys and Christmas epithet.

Lib Dems on PR would gain a lot of seats I think. But that is just a dream anyway, so scratch that.

The will of the people my eye.

I have noticed a staggering correlation - parties who'd stand to win seats through PR are in favour of PR. Parties who stand to lose seats are against.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

Its her style and what got her the job. She cultivates sources from both sides and then plays them against each other without taking a view. Now this can work if she stays 100% impartial, but I have my doubts about her being impartial. You can guess as well her sources within Labour will not be as good as the Tories so from a work point of view she would prefer a Tory government as well

Fully agreed re the Tory/ Labour point. She leans conservative, likes the characters involved and is sympathetic to them and that this entails more access/ communication with/ from Tories.

But RE her style... That is totally bizarre for the BBC (national broadcaster) political editor. She is surely the head of a department and runs editorial policy. I thought Journalism 101 was getting something on the record/ verifiable/ attributed to someone. Her content is effectively worthless, and what's worse, she could be being manipulated.


"I'll tweet that right away"

Edit: while the footage in that Frankie Boyle clip was funny, it was also disturbing. Their relationship is even more cosy that I had thought.

Spanish Eyes

briany wrote: »

I have noticed a staggering correlation - parties who'd stand to win seats through PR are in favour of PR. Parties who stand to lose seats are against.

Well that's stating the bleeding obvious. My point was that it is fundamentally undemocratic amidst all this talk about the will of the people.

Anyway, onwards we go to the next drama.

Spanish Eyes

Tell me how wrote: »

It's part of a much broader topic.

We have PV in Ireland but also claims of voter apathy, disinterest and non-participation.
In the US, the electoral college is said to be undemocratic too but there are also valid reasons for it being used.

The FPTP does seem particularly weak over the last number of years though, that much is true.

General Elections in Ireland are very engaging for many people, and the knowledge many voters have about tactical voting 1, 2, 3 and the PR system itself etc. is amazing.

Also the fact that there are multiple seat constituencies here means a TD has to keep working. I bet many safe seat MPs just coast along.

GM228

Sky News saying Johnson has spoken with the Queen, wonder how that one went?

Perhaps he has asked for a new prorogation

Dyr

serfboard wrote: »

My money's on Cummings.

Apparently leaking the AG's advice has serious consequences if you're a minister, resignation

Tell me how

GM228 wrote: »

Sky News just saying Johnson has spoken with the Queen, wonder how that one went?

Perhaps he has asked for a new prorogation.

I suspect that it was merely fulfilling some obligation given the result from the SC this morning.

The fact that he is in NY obviously meant it was a phone call, perfunctionary at best I expect.

Tell me how

Bambi wrote: »

Apparently leaking the AG's advice has serious consequences if you're a minister, resignation

Esther McVeigh was found to have lied to parliament, the consequence of which is generally resignation also. That never happened.
All prior evidence of standard behaviour is off the charts here.
Is there any evidence for how a PM should behave for having lied to the monarch?
Or how about if a Mayor had misused public funds, I expect that's a resignation, at minimum.

prunudo

Enzokk wrote: »

Its her style and what got her the job. She cultivates sources from both sides and then plays them against each other without taking a view. Now this can work if she stays 100% impartial, but I have my doubts about her being impartial. You can guess as well her sources within Labour will not be as good as the Tories so from a work point of view she would prefer a Tory government as well.

https://twitter.com/dimasciov/status/1174394692693299200?s=20

Very strange camera angles in the clips from that Frankie Boyle show, nearly like its some satire show with a very good lookalike.
Not sure of her name, but the female comedian in the white top, I think she's right about her take on their relationship.