Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

MrMusician18

It was a win of sorts for Johnson. He can now say he has majority for a deal in principle.

That's more than what May could say.

eagle eye

SeaBreezes wrote:

If the hat fits....

There are lots of people who think he is normal and a great man. See the Brexit referendum andreccet polls and the UK European election for proof.
Sp just because you and I disagree with his politics and beliefs that does not make the man a degenerate.
In fact anybody calling him that is closer to being one.

Shelga

Could parliament have voted through the WA on Saturday, assuming Letwin had never happened, only to have it fall later on during the legislative scrutiny stage?

If so, what’s the point of voting on anything in its initial phase, if it can fall later on?

I’m really struggling to understand all the various readings and texts and stages of this bill...

Joe_ Public

"Vote for me - i'm better than Theresa May." Could be another great campaign slogan.

I guess, though, if she'd been willing to go back on her promises, like Johnson was, then she could very easily have got to this stage too.

eagle eye

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people who think he is normal and a great man. See the Brexit referendum andreccet polls and the UK European election for proof.
Sp just because you and I disagree with his politics and beliefs that does not make the man a degenerate.
In fact anybody calling him that is closer to being one.

He has provably lied countless times while working as a journalist(for which he lost his job) while Mayor of London, while an MP and since he became PM, therefore by the very definition of "degenerate" ie "an immoral or corrupt person." he is definitely one.

johnnyskeleton

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

A hard Brexit would be better for the money men alright, and I can see how they could consider their own financial interests and what is in the best interests of the country to be one and the same thing.

farmchoice

Shelga wrote: »

Could parliament have voted through the WA on Saturday, assuming Letwin had never happened, only to have it fall later on during the legislative scrutiny stage?

If so, what’s the point of voting on anything in its initial phase, if it can fall later on?

I’m really struggling to understand all the various readings and texts and stages of this bill...

no if there had been no letwin amendment on Saturday and it had been voted through it would have been considered a meaningful vote.
it would have been considered to have passed and the bill would come later.
May only ever brought meaningful votes her bill was never even published.
letwin meant there could not be a meaningful vote ( the parliament signals that it agrees in principle with the proposition) it would have to be the full nine yards, first reading, second reading, committee stage,etc.

murphaph

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It was a win of sorts for Johnson. He can now say he has majority for a deal in principle.

That's more than what May could say.

May had a (slim) working majority so it was dangerous to allow anything through unless you were really happy with it. Johnson is at parliament's mercy.

farmchoice

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

A soft brexit used to be one where the Uk would stay within the customs union and the single market, this was considered good for Ireland as things would have gone on pretty much as before. but hard/sort were never defined so this was just an assumption.
hard was considered leaving the CU and SM, this was considered generally bad as it could in the long run lead to tariffs on Irish goods exported to the uk and on goods imported from the UK, this all remains to be seen in the years to come. some argue that a hard brexit might mean business leaving the Uk and coming to Ireland so in that way good for Ireland.

Dytalus

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

In terms of general economic finances, a soft is much better. Our economy won't be hit as hard so we shouldn't need as much funding.

A hard Brexit would only ensure we get more 'disaster' funding, but we'd still suffer a sizable hit to our economy even with that. No-deal is now a justification for funding from the EU's Solidarity Fund, which would allow an injection of cash into our Exchequer but isn't really a shield to economic damage. It's a band aid to fix the damage once it's done, because the Government would need to figure out how to spend it.

But the EU has other funds which are based on economic performance. With a deal in place we'd no longer be eligible for the Solidarity Fund, but funds like the ERDF are assigned based on a nation's GDP. If we take a hit to our economy, and our GDP drops, then our EU funding naturally increases. Whether it's a hard or soft Brexit doesn't matter, only its net effect on our economy.

BarryD2

farmchoice wrote: »

Johnson is now backed into a corner he cant readily get out of, he wants an election but it is not within his powers to call one. he cant say the house wont accept his WA, they just have and he has been forced into doing what he said he would never do.

It seems that he'll have to go with a 3 month extension at least. If he goes for a short one, then the opposition can organise to table amendments like a customs union which would be anathema to him. So he would then be humiliated into asking for another extension for a general election.

They need a GE to sort it out but I suppose the question of the timing is who can win the wrestling match to get the best narrative.

When it does happen, it'll be very interesting to see what happens up north. You could see that voters on both sides of the divide up there will be rightly pissed off with the MPs they elected last time for different reasons. Alliance could be big winners and rightly so.

Purgative

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

Maybe we get a few Mill from the EU for a few years. It will make a good headline, I'm sure.

Will that be enough to repair the damage to farm incomes?

Enough to unravel the milk processing scheme that zig-zags across the border like a cats cradle?

Enough for the extra Garda for when the North kicks off again?

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"Vote for me - i'm better than Theresa May." Could be another great campaign slogan.

I guess, though, if she'd been willing to go back on her promises, like Johnson was, then she could very easily have got to this stage too.

what about

"Vote for me & my party!
I'm not as big a $hyster as the others!"

probably suit Jo Swinson most, and BoJo or Farage least.

10000maniacs

VinLieger wrote: »

He has provably lied countless times while working as a journalist(for which he lost his job) while Mayor of London, while an MP and since he became PM, therefore by the very definition of "degenerate" ie "an immoral or corrupt person." he is definitely one.

Having seen Stanley Johnson's comments on the Irish border, i.e "they all want to shoot themselves anyway" and they are "Bog Rats", I think to describe Boris as degenerate in the dictionary sense, he has to have "declined or become less specialized (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state."
Stanley has saved him from being labeled as that anyway.

Joe_ Public

Lot of talk about a spring election. Farage predicting it on sky this morning, among others. Doesnt really square with a 3 month extension, does it? As soon as they reach January they'll need to ask to extend all over again.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

what about

"Vote for me & my party!
I'm not as big a $hyster as the others!"

probably suit Jo Swinson most, and BoJo or Farage least.

Its not bad, but should by any measure at least be 5% credible!!

prawnsambo

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people who think he is normal and a great man. See the Brexit referendum andreccet polls and the UK European election for proof.
Sp just because you and I disagree with his politics and beliefs that does not make the man a degenerate.
In fact anybody calling him that is closer to being one.

Since when does 'popularity' define morals? The man has the morals of an alley cat. That's pretty much undeniable. He's had numerous affairs, lied about them to his boss, lied in newspaper articles repeatedly, wasted millions upon millions of taxpayer's money on vanity projects, colluded with an old friend who wanted a journalist beaten up and is under investigation for involvement in taxpayer's money going to a 'friend'. There is no objective appraisal of his history that doesn't end up with the word degenerate. At best.

Enzokk

BarryD2 wrote: »

It seems that he'll have to go with a 3 month extension at least. If he goes for a short one, then the opposition can organise to table amendments like a customs union which would be anathema to him. So he would then be humiliated into asking for another extension for a general election.

They need a GE to sort it out but I suppose the question of the timing is who can win the wrestling match to get the best narrative.

When it does happen, it'll be very interesting to see what happens up north. You could see that voters on both sides of the divide up there will be rightly pissed off with the MPs they elected last time for different reasons. Alliance could be big winners and rightly so.

How does he get an election? If he resigns it doesn't mean an election and he doesn't have the numbers to vote for one either. He cannot call a VONC in himself, at least I don't think he can as that would look very bad at the polls.

So whatever he does he is stuck and there is only a few open moves which I think he has ruled out. Working with Labour to get the deal passed, May ignored this and look where she is. Or offer a second referendum to his deal to get it passed, which he has not broached at all. So stuck in a corner not able to move unless he backtracks which will hurt him in voters eyes in favour of the Brexit Party.

Joe_ Public

Johnson can of course circumvent the ftpa by introducing a one line bill to force an election. Just requires a simple majority to achieve it. Such a bill can be amended though so that might put him off a bit.

Junkyard Tom

When questioned on what the UKGov does if, in the longer term, Stormont doesn't reconvene the NI SoS, at the NI Affairs Committee, advises that they'd have to work very closely with Dublin.

A thinly veiled threat of joint authority.

farmchoice

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Johnson can of course circumvent the ftpa by introducing a one line bill to force an election. Just requires a simple majority to achieve it. Such a bill can be amended though so that might put him off a bit.

this option has been mooted repeatedly by everyone but team Johnson, for some reason they definitely dont fancy it, i suppose if it could amended it could present all sorts of problems for him.

J Mysterio

Terrible tragedy of smuggled people dying in lorry cargo seems oddly prescient given the debate and trouble over the 'sea border'.

The lorry came to London via Holyhead from Bulgaria via Ireland. Strange route of course.

Thirty-nine people found dead in a container in Essex.
Lorry driver from Northern Ireland has been arrested on suspicion of murder

BonnieSituation

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

When questioned on what the UKGov does if, in the longer term, Stormont doesn't reconvene the NI SoS, at the NI Affairs Committee, advises that they'd have to work very closely with Dublin.

A thinly veiled threat of joint authority.

Can ya link to that?

BarryD2

Enzokk wrote: »

How does he get an election? If he resigns it doesn't mean an election and he doesn't have the numbers to vote for one either. He cannot call a VONC in himself, at least I don't think he can as that would look very bad at the polls.

Obviously he needs the Labour Party to agree on an election. So isn't it all about managing the public narrative and spin? Both sides will be wrangling to get themselves into a position that plays well to the public. The EU are going to need to hold their noses and turn a blind eye to another bout of shenanigans.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just because an MP voted for the second reading stage doesn't mean they'll make it law.

Indeed, I think two of the Labour rebels yesterday made that point to Corbyn in the HoC, and he told them he understood their point of view. He still asked them not to do it, but he sees their point.

farmchoice

J Mysterio wrote: »

Terrible tragedy of smuggled people dying in lorry cargo seems oddly prescient given the debate and trouble over the 'sea border'.

The lorry came to London via Holyhead from Bulgaria via Ireland. Strange route of course.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/thirty-nine-people-found-dead-in-a-container-in-essex-1.4060089?mode=amp

not to go off topic too much but there is obliviously something not right in the details of the story, why the hell go all the way through the england only to leave again to then re-enter through NI.

LeinsterDub

farmchoice wrote: »

this option has been mooted repeatedly by everyone but team Johnson, for some reason they definitely dont fancy it, i suppose if it could amended it could present all sorts of problems for him.

He is afraid of the amendments. If he proposed it and Labour added an amendment to it to lower the voting age to 16 he'd then be in the position of either allowing 16 year old to who and the younger you are the less likely it is you vote Tory or he'd have to vote against his own bill .

Joe_ Public

farmchoice wrote: »

this option has been mooted repeatedly by everyone but team Johnson, for some reason they definitely dont fancy it, i suppose if it could amended it could present all sorts of problems for him.

Guess he's worried they'll amend it to enfranchise 16 year olds, and maybe bring more emigrants into voting fold too. Brackets of citizens who remain stubbornly immune to the pm's wondrous charms.

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

Terrible tragedy of smuggled people dying in lorry cargo seems oddly prescient given the debate and trouble over the 'sea border'.

The lorry came to London via Holyhead from Bulgaria via Ireland. Strange route of course.

Thirty-nine people found dead in a container in Essex.
Lorry driver from Northern Ireland has been arrested on suspicion of murder

If it came via Dublin-Holyhead, it greatly would increase the chances of those poor people dying. Would have added an extra 24 hours inside the container at least.