Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Derail? I've been directly asked, several times, to respond to what others have asked of me. If you have an issue, you should contact a Mod rather than posting that through here.

Put tersely, the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit. Fine. But Johnson came back with a deal, and yet parliament voted for an extension anyway.

You are somehow assuming that the Opposition is somehow the beacon of sincerity in their intentions.

They're not, as their actions have shown.

Let's avoid the unnecessarily provocative terminology.

Use the proper names for people and things please.

Thanks

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

One wonders why people think that giving more control to an institution with such a poor track record in this area, at least in the minds of those who oppose migration, will leed to a better outcome.

As an atheist, I'm not one to quote the Bible.

But Proverbs 28:6 is worth a mention here:

Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuQnUJf4wfY

Seeing as there is a new speaker of the house this video put up by the sun of his best moments as deputy speaker give a sense of how he'll be in the chair. It's not going to be the same as John Bercow was. He doesn't look like he'll take any messing either.

hotmail.com

Latest polls showing support for the two main parties is growing.

It looks like 2017 all over again at the moment.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

But Proverbs 28:6 is worth a mention here:

Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.

That's you dissing most of the Tory Party, then!

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Latest polls showing support for the two main parties is growing.

It looks like 2017 all over again at the moment.

It's difficult to tell surely, at this early stage.

That said, given how effective Corbyn is as a campaigner (even though I profoundly disagree with his policies), I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a hung parliament, though perhaps with the Brexit Party holding the balance of power for a Tory government.

That's what I imagine Farage is hoping for; it maximizes his power leverage.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Put tersely, the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit. Fine. But Johnson came back with a deal, and yet parliament voted for an extension anyway.

You're implying a vote AFTER the pm came back with his deal but of course thats completely incorrect which i imagine you know. The benn act deadline was very clear, pass the house by 19 Oct or seek extension. When you say "fine" in relation to the act, you are then tacitly endorsing the extension as that was just merely following the law.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's difficult to tell surely, at this early stage.

That said, given how effective Corbyn is as a campaigner (even though I profoundly disagree with his policies), I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a hung parliament, though perhaps with the Brexit Party holding the balance of power for a Tory government.

That's what I imagine Farage is hoping for; it maximizes his power leverage.

It's early days of course.

But I feel it's been a bad start for the smaller parties. Nigel Farage is not even bothering to contest the election and the new leader of the Lib Dems is a car crash, possibly worse than Tim Farron, her predecessor.

So it's no wonder the electorate will revert to emotional loyalties in such circumstances and vote with the party that they truly 'belong' to.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

This is just depressing really,

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1191391040906891264?s=20

So EEA Nationals paid in more than £15.5b in income tax and NI than they claimed in benefits. That is a lot of money that will need to be found to fund all those extra police and hospitals and NHS staff that the Tories will promise to employ and build, if they want to continue their Brexit plans.

From table B1 if you add the Total EU figures for Tax £10,366Bn and National insurance £7,897Bn and divide by 52 you get ...



predictably enough ...



£350 million a week


Yeah send them home on a Big Red Bus :rolleyes:

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

It's difficult to tell surely, at this early stage.

That said, given how effective Corbyn is as a campaigner (even though I profoundly disagree with his policies), I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a hung parliament, though perhaps with the Brexit Party holding the balance of power for a Tory government.

That's what I imagine Farage is hoping for; it maximizes his power leverage.

The Brexit party won't win enough seats to have any influence , I can't see them winning any seats at all to be honest.

They will cost the Tories seats in the South and Labour seats in the north , but they really aren't in the running to win any themselves.

Even Farage knows that , which is why he's not standing - He hasn't a hope of winning a seat and knows that if he were to stand and lose again (for the 8th time) he'd be utterly finished and his gravy train of TV appearances and dark money funding would dry up.

This way , he doesn't stand and when none of his candidates get elected he can blame everything but him and claim that "maybe he should have stood himself and won a seat to be the voice of Hard Brexit in parliament"

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's early days of course.

But I feel it's been a bad start for the smaller parties. Nigel Farage is not even bothering to contest the election and the new leader of the Lib Dems is a car crash, possibly worse than Tim Farron, her predecessor.

So it's no wonder the electorate will revert to emotional loyalties in such circumstances and vote with the party that they truly 'belong' to.

True, I mean - taken broadly - this is what the UK electorate is faced with:

• Corbyn - a deal of some kind, polished off with a concluding referendum.
• Johnson - a deal itself, polished off without a referendum.

and...

• Liberal Democrats - annulment of Article 50; triggering political turmoil.
• Brexit Party - a No Deal outcome; triggering political turmoil.

In this context, then, it's understandable why voters are flocking back to Labour and the Conservative Parties - namely, a conclusion of some form is envisioned.

With the Liberal Democrats and Brexit Party, the same cannot be said.

Furthermore, Brexit fatigue has set in; perhaps the panacea for that is a return to things the way they were before Brexit had happened.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's difficult to tell surely, at this early stage.

That said, given how effective Corbyn is as a campaigner (even though I profoundly disagree with his policies), I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a hung parliament, though perhaps with the Brexit Party holding the balance of power for a Tory government.

That's what I imagine Farage is hoping for; it maximizes his power leverage.

Power leverage? Dont you need seats, multiple seats, to achieve that? With 13% of the vote farage won a grand total of .....ONE seat in 2015. Could maybe get 2 or 3 this time but as likely to get nil. Not much leverage on those kind of figures.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True, I mean - taken broadly - this is what the UK electorate is faced with:

• Corbyn - a deal of some kind, polished off with a concluding referendum.
• Johnson - a deal itself, polished off without a referendum.

and...

• Liberal Democrats - annulment of Article 50; triggering political turmoil.
• Brexit Party - a No Deal outcome; triggering political turmoil.

In this context, then, it's understandable why voters are flocking back to Labour and the Conservative Parties - namely, a conclusion of some form is envisioned.

With the Liberal Democrats and Brexit Party, the same cannot be said.

Furthermore, Brexit fatigue has set in; perhaps the panacea for that is a return to things the way they were before Brexit had happened.

Agree with all of that, but I don't think people will vote just based on Brexit.

This is the problem with the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The NHS is already beginning to become an election issue for example.

It's possible that we could end up with a similar result of 2017.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Agree with all of that, but I don't think people will vote just based on Brexit.

This is the problem with the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The NHS is already beginning to become an election issue for example.

It's possible that we could end up with a similar result of 2017.

That's basically Tony Blair's point - blending Brexit with domestic matters is a mistake.

There are arguments for and against; personally, I think an election is the best way forward.

But yes, I think it's right that domestic matters take almost equal value with the Brexit Question; as Brexit determines the future of the UK, but domestic policies paint how that future should look.

Joe_ Public

hotmail.com wrote: »

Agree with all of that, but I don't think people will vote just based on Brexit.

This is the problem with the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The NHS is already beginning to become an election issue for example.

It's possible that we could end up with a similar result of 2017.

Didnt see the poll but heard it referred on sky this morning claiming voters trust boris johnson more on the nhs. I was frankly amazed and alarmed to hear that, as well as suspicious. If they can keep it top of the agenda i cant see how labour fail to reap a rich harvest from it. If they can't win on nhs, i dont know what they can win on quite frankly.

strandroad

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Didnt see the poll but heard it referred on sky this morning claiming voters trust boris johnson more on the nhs. I was frankly amazed and alarmed to hear that, as well as suspicious. If they can keep it top of the agenda i cant see how labour fail to reap a rich harvest from it. If they can't win on nhs, i dont know what they can win on quite frankly.

They will believe Johnson; it's the Brexit bus mark 2. His message (worthless like any other pledge from him) is spend spend spend, and voters want their simple comforts at this stage.

strandroad

strandroad wrote: »

They will believe Johnson; it's the Brexit bus mark 2. His message (worthless like any other pledge from him) is spend spend spend, and voters want their simple comforts at this stage.

As opposed to Corbyn and his 196 billion pound (a "starting" cost) re-nationalisation plan (according to the CBI)?

Corbyn's bus is far bigger than Johnsons.

The only difference is that Corbyn's bus will lead to a crash.

Akrasia

[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.

Theresa may and Johnson pretended that they were threatening the EU with a No Deal crash out when in reality, they were threatening the UK parliament. The Benn act prevented the prime minister from usurping the power of the sovereign uk parliament. It didn’t give control to the EU, it gave control to the House of Commons

Joe_ Public

strandroad wrote: »

They will believe Johnson; it's the Brexit bus mark 2. His message (worthless like any other pledge from him) is spend spend spend, and voters want their simple comforts at this stage.

I dont know will they. The nhs is extremely important to the kind of voters johnson is desperate to attract and they might be taken in by all these crazy spending pledges (aligned with tax breaks for thw well off!!) but its also playing fast and loose with the tory precious reputation as the party of fiscal rectitude. I think there's a fair chance it could backfire.

Joe_ Public

Vote tory for no deal. Predictable stuff, the ongoing strategy of how to outflank farage & tbp.

https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1191442809666060288?s=20

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Vote tory for no deal. Predictable stuff, the ongoing strategy of how to outflank farage & tbp.

https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1191442809666060288?s=20

And if they win a majority, will you accept the result and the political implications of said result?

Imreoir2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Vote tory for no deal. Predictable stuff, the ongoing strategy of how to outflank farage & tbp.

https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1191442809666060288?s=20

PM Johnson and Co. seem to be going on such a wide outflanking manouver that they risk falling off a cliff.

Surely there is only so much support to be gained at the far end of the hard Brexit spectrum. He is not going to be more credible or more hard core on Brexit than Farage to the hard Brexiteer anyway, it seems like an act of futility to me to try and out Brexit the Brexit party.

Joe_ Public

Imreoir2 wrote: »

PM Johnson and Co. seem to be going on such a wide outflanking manouver that they risk falling off a cliff.

Surely there is only so much support to be gained at the far end of the hard Brexit spectrum. He is not going to be more credible or more hard core on Brexit than Farage to the hard Brexiteer anyway, it seems like an act of futility to me to try and out Brexit the Brexit party.

Can only assume theyve crunched the numbers and come up with this as a winning strategy. Or maybe just some mad gamble by their resident "evil genius" Mr Cummings. Frankly i really dont know what their game is.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And if they win a majority, will you accept the result and the political implications of said result?

Not for me, non uk resident, to accept or not accept anything. Just an interested bystander, no more nor less. If they vote to go down that route, then off with them far as I'm concerned. Own the consequences and the devastation that comes with it.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

And if they win a majority, will you accept the result and the political implications of said result?

And if they win a majority will the Tory party accept it given how much in fighting and ignoring the whip they've done to date ?

VinLieger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree.

One of the faults with the UK government, and this goes back many years, is that they had the ability to control non-EU migration (and to some extent, EU migration) but did next to nothing to control the numbers.

They should have made a positive effort. In fact, had they done so, Brexit may not have happened.

That said, my comment above refers to the "principle" of migration, independent of the UK or any other country.

And yet you support brexit which will lead to trade deals with the likes of india and china where massive levels of immigration will be a key part of those countries demands.

theological

Imreoir2 wrote: »

PM Johnson and Co. seem to be going on such a wide outflanking manouver that they risk falling off a cliff.

Surely there is only so much support to be gained at the far end of the hard Brexit spectrum. He is not going to be more credible or more hard core on Brexit than Farage to the hard Brexiteer anyway, it seems like an act of futility to me to try and out Brexit the Brexit party.

Johnson's deal is a moderate Brexit agreement with good provisions for Northern Ireland. His deal is one that both sensible leavers and remainers who accepted the result and want to move on (I suspect this is most 2016 remainers at this stage) can get around.

Polling looks like Johnson has a very good chance of coming back with a majority.

Edit:

VinLieger wrote: »

And yet you support brexit which will lead to trade deals with the likes of india and china where massive levels of immigration will be a key part of those countries demands.

Priorities like immigration, and trade deals are matters for after withdrawal. It will be a matter for subsequent governments as to who they want preferential trade deals with. I would have thought America was a bigger first priority. The UK already does a large portion of its trade with non-EU countries, those should be the first for preferential arrangements.

Enzokk

The Dispatches program was about the advisors to Johnson and Corbyn and their influence on the leaders. Not much new Brexit information other than what we know already.

The article I linked earlier has more information on the Russian links though,

Link here

Allegations that Moscow money has flowed into the Conservative party via emigres living in the UK making high-profile donations, were also heard by the committee – although the party has consistently denied receiving money improperly.

In 2014, Lubov Chernukhin – the wife of the former Russian deputy finance minister – paid £160,000 to play tennis with Johnson and David Cameron. The match was the star lot at a Conservative summer party auction. Another guest at the 2013 fundraiser was Vasily Shestakov, Vladimir Putin’s judo partner.

Committee members were also briefed on an extraordinary – and for a while an apparently successful – attempt to penetrate Conservative circles by Nalobin, who instigated a pro-Kremlin parliamentary group, the Conservative Friends of Russia.

...

Conservative Friends of Russia held its 2012 launch party in the Russian ambassador’s Kensington garden, with about 250 Russian and British guests present, including Tories who went on to play a prominent role in the referendum campaign. One was Matthew Elliott, now chief executive of pro-Brexit group Vote Leave, alongside Dominic Cummings, now the prime minister’s chief strategist.

Another guest was Johnson’s future girlfriend Carrie Symonds, a Tory party activist. At the time she worked in the office of John Whittingdale, the pro-Brexit MP who was the group’s honorary vice-president. The group collapsed after revelations of Nalobin’s alleged ties with the Kremlin’s SVR foreign intelligence agency.

It could be nothing but coincidence that major donors in the Conservative Party are Russian and that major players from Vote Leave all attended a Conservative Party event at the Russian Ambassadors residence. I do question though what Cummings was doing at a Conservative Party event when he isn't even a member and seems to detest them personally. And that this all happened in 2012, long before Vote Leave was even launched and there was no talk about Brexit or a referendum.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

The Surrender-Bennite Act should never have been passed. It's an egregious example of collaborationism between Remainers with EU forces.

Reported for trolling. Daily Mail propaganda nonsense. No evidence provided when asked.

McGiver

theological wrote:

Johnson's deal is a moderate Brexit agreement with good provisions for Northern Ireland. His deal is one that both sensible leavers and remainers who accepted the result and want to move on (I suspect this is most 2016 remainers at this stage) can get around.

No it's not. It's a very hard Brexit. Estimated 5% GDP loss, depending on the FTA (if there is one), which will likely be Canada - - - . And it can result in no deal in December 2020 when then transition period expires and they don't ask for an extension.