Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

L1011

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Possibly this Maxwellisation

Looks like this will be happening to the RHI report too based on a comment here ?
https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/11/01/election-battlegrounds-ge19-south-antrim/

Maxwellisation + using the pre-election purdah as an an excuse (which is only meant to stop positive statements...) probably.

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Possibly this Maxwellisation

Looks like this will be happening to the RHI report too based on a comment here ?
https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/11/01/election-battlegrounds-ge19-south-antrim/

There could be a very good reason why the report cannot be published, but why not state it? This is the missing witness statement all over again. When Dominic Grieve, who is head of the Committee responsible for the report, wants it published then I think there aren't much reason to block it.

The committee’s chairman, Dominic Grieve, said the decision to prevent publication before the election was “jaw-dropping” and that he could not understand on what basis it had been made.

“The protocols are quite clear. If the prime minister has a good reason for preventing publication he should explain to the committee what it is, and do it within 10 days of him receiving the report. If not, it should be published,” he said.

A final draft of the Russian dossier, the product of 18-months’ work, was sent to Downing Street on 17 October and was originally intended for publication early this week. Political approval had been expected by the end of last week.

It was intended to be the last step in what is conventionally a complex sign-off process. The report has already been cleared by Britain’s spy agencies, which contributed to the research.

serfboard

Enzokk wrote: »

When Dominic Grieve, who is head of the Committee responsible for the report, wants it published then I think there aren't much reason to block it.

If only the report could be leaked ...

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

You can split hairs over the meaning of individual words, but the end result is that Johnson made an error of judgement in this respect. That has been one of many made during his first 100 days in the job (actually less than 100 seeing as he was on holiday for most of the start of his premiership), and repeated errors of judgement are not usually considered a sign of greatness.


The main selling point of the Leave campaign was "Take back control" - specifically that the UK parliament would take back control and be free to make its own decisions. A competent Prime Minister -and any Brexiteer worth his red-white-and-blue T-shirt - would have rejoiced at the sight of British MPs voted for by British people deciding how Britain shaped it's relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. For some strange reason, Johnson did not go dancing in the streets ...

Two quick points in reply:

• Here, I'm referring to the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces. That is the opposite of the UK parliament "taking back control".
• I get it; you believe Boris is a run-of-the-mill type who got lucky and has no talents or skills. You're entitled to believe that.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Does this apply to Johnson himself? He voted against PM May and with the opposition not once but twice on her deal.

See above.

Enzokk wrote: »

I will challenge you to find the lies from the 3 leaders of the opposition parties, seeing as they all lie this should be easily done. So find the outright lies from Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Swinson and Nicola Sturgeon.

Jeremy Corbyn spent his entire life talking about the ills of the EU, now he pretends to want a close and special partnership for politically expedient reasons.

That is a gigantic lie.

Swinson has been caught out, numerous times, over her misleading use of statistics and documents. Watch the Andrew Neil interview from last week for all the gory details.

prawnsambo wrote: »

He could well harvest a thumping alright. BXP are nibbling at his polling numbers. Directly. Of course the opposition parties could form a circular firing squad and not take advantage, but it's not a given.

Farage has come out firing today with an emphasis on the Labour heartlands. Methinks this is his real target and, as days progress, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a volte-face re: Conservative-oriented seats.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Two quick points in reply:

• Here, I'm referring to the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces. That is the opposite of the UK parliament "taking back control".
• I get it; you believe Boris is a run-of-the-mill type who got lucky and has no talents or skills. You're entitled to believe that.

See above.



Jeremy Corbyn spent his entire life talking about the ills of the EU, now he pretends to want a close and special partnership for politically expedient reasons.

That is a gigantic lie.

Swinson has been caught out, numerous times, over her misleading use of statistics and documents. Watch the Andrew Neil interview from last week for all the gory details.



Farage has come out firing today with an emphasis on the Labour heartlands. Methinks this is his real target and, as days progress, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a volte-face re: Conservative-oriented seats.

Just wondering if you came up with an answer to my question yet?

You:
In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.

I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.

Me:
Please explain how Johnson's deal is Close Alignment given that the term relates to the customs union, single market and regulatory alignment.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Here, I'm referring to the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces. That is the opposite of the UK parliament "taking back control".

How is an act of parliament the opposite of parliament taking back control? Are you suggesting that parliament somehow does not include the opposition? You just don't like what parliament did with their control.

Professor Moriarty

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How is an act of parliament the opposite of parliament taking back control? Are you suggesting that parliament somehow does not include the opposition? You just don't like what parliament did with their control.

"...the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces."

It's like a Daily Mail headline.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Two quick points in reply:

• Here, I'm referring to the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces. That is the opposite of the UK parliament "taking back control".

You really should read George Orwell's 1984. The above is what he called 'doublespeak'. Words cease to have any meaning anymore.

Deleted User wrote: »

Farage has come out firing today with an emphasis on the Labour heartlands. Methinks this is his real target and, as days progress, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a volte-face re: Conservative-oriented seats.

That sounds a lot like wishful thinking. The obvious place for Farage to campaign is Tory leave constituencies with Tory moderates.

gooch2k9

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"...the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces."

It's like a Daily Mail headline.

It's actually PM quality debating, sadly. Simply designed to bait the opposition.

As stated previosuly. Benn Act was passed due to the position Johnson pushed. Brexiteers can't complain about parliament taking a decision when they voted for it to "take back control". If the politicians actually managed to work together over there they might actually get something done, but everything that is done is designed to bolster support on their own side.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1191415158331056128

For all that the Tories increase the lead here, it's actually the best Labour poll figure since May.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.

I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.[/I]

Me:
Please explain how Johnson's deal is Close Alignment given that the term relates to the customs union, single market and regulatory alignment.

Given the number of responses I need to make, I'll offer some quick points of consideration:

• Polls are probably not the best indicator of what may/may not happen. After all, on the day of the referendum, some polls had Remain at 8-10 points ahead. General election results have similarly been sketchy. Third, the week-to-week volatility of Brexit adds to this complex situation.
• In terms of regulatory alignment and other related issues, the Johnson Deal states that any future EU/UK relationship should have "close regulatory alignment". Other aspects, such as fisheries and taxation, are also up for negotiation.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How is an act of parliament the opposite of parliament taking back control? Are you suggesting that parliament somehow does not include the opposition? You just don't like what parliament did with their control.

Quite simply because, if parliament passes an act that hands power to a foreign body, then it cannot be said to be acting in favour of its own parliament. Logic alone arrives at this conclusion.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"...the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces."

It's like a Daily Mail headline.

Perhaps, but that doesn't negate the veracity of my point.

prawnsambo wrote: »

[/LIST]
You really should read George Orwell's 1984. The above is what he called 'doublespeak'. Words cease to have any meaning anymore.


That sounds a lot like wishful thinking. The obvious place for Farage to campaign is Tory leave constituencies with Tory moderates.

I have read it, multiple times in fact. I recommend it to others.

As for "wishful thinking", it's not what I wish for, but what some commentators are now talking about.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Here, I'm referring to the Surrender Bennite Act, which handed power to the Opposition/EU forces. That is the opposite of the UK parliament "taking back control".

There was no "Surrender" of any kind. That was a nonsense term concoted by the Johnson-Cummings camp to generate a buzz on social media. The UK is not at war with anyone; there was no-one to surrender to.

This is also the second time you've referred to "EU forces" (maybe you've used the term more often; if so, I apologise for overlooking the other references ). There is no "EU force" of any relevance to Brexit. Everyone in Westminster - including Leaver-MPs - is a citizen of an EU member state, and no-one is obliged to work for, or fight on behalf of, the EU.

British people, elected by British voters to represent them in the British Parliament, acted to protect the interests of their British constituents against the unlawful actions of a British Prime Minster according to British law, as challenged by British plaintifs and upheld by the British courts. Said PM was the recently chosen leader of a British party that went on to lose its majority, mainly because he threw out those members who disagreed with this unlawful actions.

That is as much taking back control as any country has ever exercised in the course of modern history, and the EU had no involvement other than its role as the addressee of a letter that Parliament instructed Johnson to send.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn spent his entire life talking about the ills of the EU, now he pretends to want a close and special partnership for politically expedient reasons.

That is a gigantic lie.

Swinson has been caught out, numerous times, over her misleading use of statistics and documents. Watch the Andrew Neil interview from last week for all the gory details.

So no examples of flat out lies at the same level of Johnson. I agree with you that politicians will use vague statements in their speeches and use statistics in sneaky ways to try and put their point across. That is what Swinson was doing, I agree that is sneaky but it is not an outright lie like Johnson and Farage.

In other news Sir Lyndsay Hoyle has been elected as the new speaker. He was dragged to the chair as is the tradition of previous speakers.

There is also a Dispatches program on Channel 4 about Cummings and the Russian connection. I will try to find a link later as I have myself not watched it yet.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I have read it, multiple times in fact. I recommend it to others.

Well you should stop using the ideas you got from it, because the rest of us have read it too.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for "wishful thinking", it's not what I wish for, but what some commentators are now talking about.

You should know by now that unnamed and unsourced 'commentators' butter no parsnips here.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite simply because, if parliament passes an act that hands power to a foreign body, then it cannot be said to be acting in favour of its own parliament. Logic alone arrives at this conclusion.

The same Logic concludes that as no power was passed to any foreign body, your argument is defeated.

The only thing the Benn Act did was to effectively postpone Brexit for (another) three months. The UK has not ceded any power to the EU in the first four days of this month that it hadn't already ceded in 1973 (as amended by subsequent treaties).

If you believe otherwise, please point out the relevant text in the Act.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Given the number of responses I need to make, I'll offer some quick points of consideration:


[*]Polls are probably not the best indicator of what may/may not happen. After all, on the day of the referendum, some polls had Remain at 8-10 points ahead. General election results have similarly been sketchy. Third, the week-to-week volatility of Brexit adds to this complex situation.
[*]In terms of regulatory alignment and other related issues, the Johnson Deal states that any future EU/UK relationship should have "close regulatory alignment". Other aspects, such as fisheries and taxation, are also up for negotiation.

Weirdly, you managed to misquote yourself and left out the salient line. Here it is again:

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".
It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.
I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.


How exactly is Johnson's deal going to bring about "reasonably close alignment"? Where does it say that it wants a customs union? Where does it say that it wants to remain in the single market? Where does it say that it wants close regulatory alignment?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

The same Logic concludes that as no power was passed to any foreign body, your argument is defeated.

The only thing the Benn Act did was to effectively postpone Brexit for (another) three months. The UK has not ceded any power to the EU in the first four days of this month that it hadn't already ceded in 1973 (as amended by subsequent treaties).

If you believe otherwise, please point out the relevant text in the Act.

That's quite simply incorrect.

The Surrender-Bennite Act handed power from the UK Prime Minister - who hitherto was handling Brexit - to the EU in two important respects: first, it forced the Prime Minister to take an axe to his pledge to leave the EU on 31 October; second, it empowered the EU to allow an extension for as long as possible. 31 January was the recommended date, but the EU could easily have proposed 31 December 2020.

The EU had the trump card, not Johnson. For a UK parliament to shamelessly stitch-up their own Prime Minister, handing that power and influence to EU forces, demonstrates exactly what I mean to say - namely, that no matter what way you square that circle, it cannot - ever - be described as the UK "taking back control".

That is the height of doublespeak you, ironically, have levelled against me.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

That's quite simply incorrect.

The Surrender-Bennite Act handed power from the UK Prime Minister - who hitherto was handling Brexit - to the EU in two important respects: first, it forced the Prime Minister to take an axe to his pledge to leave the EU on 31 October; second, it empowered the EU to allow an extension for as long as possible. 31 January was the recommended date, but the EU could easily have proposed 31 December 2020.

The EU had the trump card, not Johnson. For a UK parliament to shamelessly stitch-up their own Prime Minister, handing that power and influence to EU forces, demonstrates exactly what I mean to say - namely, that no matter what way you square that circle, it cannot - ever - be described as the UK "taking back control".

That is the height of doublespeak you, ironically, have levelled against me.

It did what was intended and it was done by the British Parliament. It took the threat of no deal (which is an outcome that neither parliament nor the people want) away from the PM.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How exactly is Johnson's deal going to bring about "reasonably close alignment"? Where does it say that it wants a customs union? Where does it say that it wants to remain in the single market? Where does it say that it wants close regulatory alignment?

This is odd reasoning. Countries can be closely aligned in respect to trade without being in a customs union. That is very very close alignment that would cause the UK not to be able to form an independent trade policy. The same is true of the single market.

Many major countries in the world manage to have good trading relationships without being in a customs union. Many countries find it an odd notion that they need to cede control over their tariff regime in order to have a good trading relationship.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

It did what was intended and it was done by the British Parliament. It took the threat of no deal (which is an outcome that neither parliament nor the people want) away from the PM.

It handed power to EU forces. That is not acceptable.

If that is an example of "taking back control", then I'd tremble to see what "taking back no control" would look like.

Joe_ Public

The benn act really didnt do that much. It certainly didnt block Johnson getting his deal anyway. His self-described "great" deal which he could have got the day after he became pm if he was so inclined. He didnt have enough time to pass it through the house so extension was inevitable anyway. Thats if he was truly serious about getting it through. He was, wasnt he?

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

This is odd reasoning. Countries can be closely aligned in respect to trade without being in a customs union. That is very very close alignment that would cause the UK not to be able to form an independent trade policy. The same is true of the single market.

Many major countries in the world manage to have good trading relationships without being in a customs union. Many countries find it an odd notion that they need to cede control over their tariff regime in order to have a good trading relationship.

Sure. What is "close alignment"?

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. What is "close alignment"?

Why don't you offer your definition first?

Itssoeasy

Enzokk wrote: »

So no examples of flat out lies at the same level of Johnson. I agree with you that politicians will use vague statements in their speeches and use statistics in sneaky ways to try and put their point across. That is what Swinson was doing, I agree that is sneaky but it is not an outright lie like Johnson and Farage.

In other news Sir Lyndsay Hoyle has been elected as the new speaker. He was dragged to the chair as is the tradition of previous speakers.

There is also a Dispatches program on Channel 4 about Cummings and the Russian connection. I will try to find a link later as I have myself not watched it yet.

Yes it's because the speaker centuries ago was the one who had to communicate the decisions the House of Commons made which wouldn't always to the monarchs liking and they could possibly get a bollocking of the king or queen so they took it reluctantly. That's what I've read in the past anyway.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

In other news Sir Lyndsay Hoyle has been elected as the new speaker. He was dragged to the chair as is the tradition of previous speakers.

Yes, this is the tradition:

Upon the passage of the motion, the speaker-elect is expected to show reluctance at being chosen; she or he is customarily "dragged unwillingly" by MPs to the speaker's bench.[8] This custom has its roots in the speaker's original function of communicating the Commons' opinions to the monarch. Historically, the Speaker, representing the House to the monarch, potentially faced the monarch's anger and therefore required some persuasion to accept the post.[9] Contrary to an often repeated claim, no speaker has ever been executed for his actions in that capacity. Six former speakers have been executed (sometimes many years after their terms); for five of these, the execution was due to their close association with a former king after a new monarch had succeeded.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Why don't you offer your definition first?

Now, you said:

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

When I asked you what that meant in relation to SM, SU and regulatory alignment you said:

In terms of regulatory alignment and other related issues, the Johnson Deal states that any future EU/UK relationship should have "close regulatory alignment". Other aspects, such as fisheries and taxation, are also up for negotiation.

You said Johnson wanted "reasonably close alignment" and then you said his deal wanted "close regulatory alignment."


Prove it.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

It handed power to EU forces. That is not acceptable.

If that is an example of "taking back control", then I'd tremble to see what "taking back no control" would look like.

It handed the EU27 a decision to make on the basis of a request from the British government. That's the beginning and end of EU involvement. But I note that you didn't engage with the assertion that the purpose was to prevent something happening that neither the British public nor the parliament wanted.

Because that doesn't suit your 'betrayal' narrative. Which is quite frankly a childish notion.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Now, you said:

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

When I asked you what that meant in relation to SM, SU and regulatory alignment you said:

In terms of regulatory alignment and other related issues, the Johnson Deal states that any future EU/UK relationship should have "close regulatory alignment". Other aspects, such as fisheries and taxation, are also up for negotiation.

You said Johnson wanted "reasonably close alignment" and then you said his deal wanted "close regulatory alignment."


Prove it.

The Johnson Deal is galaxies distant from any conception of "no deal".

In that respect, it acts as a reasonable compromise that is sufficiently close to the EU. Further, the EU expects close regulatory alignment in any future arrangement.

It's that simple. If you haven't read the Johnson Deal, I suggest you do so with haste.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

That's quite simply incorrect.

The Surrender-Bennite Act handed power from the UK Prime Minister - who hitherto was handling Brexit - to the EU in two important respects: first, it forced the Prime Minister to take an axe to his pledge to leave the EU on 31 October; second, it empowered the EU to allow an extension for as long as possible. 31 January was the recommended date, but the EU could easily have proposed 31 December 2020.

First of all: the name of the Act is the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 - there is no mention of the word "Surrender" in the Act; all those references are the result of Johnson's insult to the collected opposition parties, all duly elected members of Parilament whose constitutional duty it is to oppose the government.

Secondly: the Prime Minister made a foolish promise knowing full well that he was going against the will of a significant number of the people of the country. If he didn't recognise the foolishness of his position, then that undermines your assertion that he is a great intellectual and an effective leader. On the other hand, if he truly believed that he would be able to accomplish what he said, then (a) he made a serious error of judgement; and (b) he should have had the decency to admit his error instead of blaming the people who told him not to challenge them.

Thirdly: the EU had (and still has) the power to offer an extension of any length. The so-called Benn Act did not change that in any way - the EU responded to Johnson's request in the same way that it responded to May's two requests. So you're going to have to come up with a better example of "power" being handed over by the UK.

Incidentally, what is your opinion of Hard Brexiters (including members of the ruling Tory Party) inviting foreign governments to veto the UK parliament's request for an extension? Is that not more of a surrender? Or would you simply describe it as treason?

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The Johnson Deal is galaxies distant from any conception of "no deal".

In that respect, it acts as a reasonable compromise that is sufficiently close to the EU. Further, the EU expects close regulatory alignment in any future arrangement.

It's that simple. If you haven't read the Johnson Deal, I suggest you do so with haste.

Once again, how does Johnson's deal mean reasonably close alignment? Where does Johnson's deal state that he wants "close regulatory alignment"? Because it's beginning to look like you're making things up.