General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

3 days to pass a bill of monumental significance running to 100s of pages.

The circuses act had been given 3 weeks of scrutiny - a bill dealing with a grand total of 19 animals.

And its all on the opposition dont you know!

he could have given Parliament six months and they still would have rejected it. Corbyn was always going to vote against it, as were the SNP.

Parliament had its chance and it failed. People remember this.

bren2001

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's Labour's fault that Johnson prorogued parliament and expelled 21 Tory MPs?

It was sarcasm saying it's Labours fault the WA didn't go through.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Incidentally, movement on a trade deal would have to be concluded long before the December deadline. Analysts reckon Johnson would have to commit to the idea of a trade deal by mid summer, otherwise the EU would break off talks with him. If they felt he was just showboating or bluffing for domestic consumption, there would be no need to keep talks going.

Listening to lance forman on this yesterday, going on about johnsons "skilled poker playing" that got the eu to "cave in" on the backstop, and all the usual nonsense about threatening to walk away if they dont get what they want. When does if finally sink in that they dont have any leverage when it comes to these talks? Never had, never will.

Professor Moriarty

bren2001 wrote: »

It was sarcasm saying it's Labours fault the WA didn't go through.

Duh!

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

the December 2020 deadline is arbitrary, we have to get to the position of actually negotiating one first.

Yeah, it would be arbitrary if johnson wasnt categorically ruling out extending beyond the deadline. You do believe he's telling the truth on that, right?

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

he could have given Parliament six months and they still would have rejected it. Corbyn was always going to vote against it, as were the SNP.

Parliament had its chance and it failed. People remember this.

But... he didn't give parliament 6 months. Parliament didn't have its chance. You're just making that up. He pulled the bill and called an election instead.

If he did give parliament more time would they have rejected it? Possibly. His staunchest allies in the DUP already rejected it because it broke one of his most fundamental promises of avoiding a border down the Irish sea.

Maybe it just wasn't a very good deal? And maybe, rather than allowing it to be examined and exposed, he decided to call an election and rely on lies and deception instead?

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

he could have given Parliament six months and they still would have rejected it. Corbyn was always going to vote against it, as were the SNP.

Parliament had its chance and it failed. People remember this.

I get it, its the oppositions fault. Entirely. Not the dup or JRM or boris johnson and their erg chums who consistently voted against brexit when they had their chance. But I'm sure you're right. The people dont remember that because its all corbyns fault.

splinter65

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Again, not reported by the Telegraph. Nor is his interview with Farage. Did not happen, does not exist. They obviously took their favourite bits from Corbyn, Sturgeon and Swinson though.

This type of media bias is powerful and impactful and has played a key role in producing an ever poorer and more divided UK. Well done I suppose.

You don’t seem to realize that the print media always took a side in the UK. Despite the Telegraph Blair was elected in 1997. And many other Labour governments all over the years.
I’m constantly amused by how people on the left seem astonished when some other people don’t share their liberal views and then draw the conclusion that they’ve been brainwashed by de mejia .

prawnsambo

Aegir wrote: »

the December 2020 deadline is arbitrary, we have to get to the position of actually negotiating one first.

It's in the WA. The same deadline was in May's WA and it wasn't changed. Assuming Johnson's WA is passed, that deadline when the TP runs out is set in stone, unless an extension is sought and granted. And Johnson has said he won't request an extension to it.

Joe_ Public

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t seem to realize that the print media always took a side in the UK. Despite the Telegraph Blair was elected in 1997. And many other Labour governments all over the years.
I’m constantly amused by how people on the left seem astonished when some other people don’t share their liberal views and then draw the conclusion that they’ve been brainwashed by de mejia .

Having rupert on speed dial did rather swing things in blairs favour in 1997. Always going to win anyway but as regards the extent of the landslide, murdoch could feasibly boast it was the sun wot dun it. The joke was at the time that the right wing press had been renamed "the tony press."

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

the December 2020 deadline is arbitrary, we have to get to the position of actually negotiating one first.

No it is not - it is defined in the WA as the end of the transition period. If no trade agreement then UK leaves the transition period on WTO terms (ie No deal Brexit). I believe there is an opportunity to extend the transition period but the Tories have said they will not request and extension. I am sure I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the request needs to be lodged with the EU by the end of June 2020

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/withdrawal-agreement-bill-implementing-the-transition-period/

Leroy42

I think Johnson let the cat out of the bag in an interview with Peston this week (which if course Peston totally missed).

Peston asked him to name one trade deal that the EU had completed within a 1 year time frame, to which Johnson replied that the key difference was that the UK and EU were already aligned in terms of regulations. Peston stated that Johnson had stated divergence which of course Johnson ignored. IN the same interview Johnson said that once the WA was passed, ie 31 January they have left, Brexit will be off the agenda.

My reading of those two positions is that Johnson is going to delivery exit by 31 January, i the hope that people think it is done and thus it stops being the everyday story it is now. Johnson can them simply agree to whatever trade deal suits both sides the best, basically maintaining alignment, but that nobody will be really bothered to check or even care.

So in essence Brino is where they are going.

LuckyLloyd

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t seem to realize that the print media always took a side in the UK. Despite the Telegraph Blair was elected in 1997. And many other Labour governments all over the years.
I’m constantly amused by how people on the left seem astonished when some other people don’t share their liberal views and then draw the conclusion that they’ve been brainwashed by de mejia .

Are Andrew Neil’s comments newsworthy or not? The Telegraph certainly thinks Channel 4’s apology today is newsworthy, top headline newsworthy.

IAmTheReign

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Where did you get this from? I haven't seen anyone talk about extension discussions next summer. Boris Johnson himself guaranteed a deal by end of next year only yesterday.

“It’s very much in their (the EU’s) interest to do a deal with us and I have no doubt that they will and if you say ‘can I absolutely guarantee that I can get a deal’? I think I can,”

He'd hardly say that if he's planning on having to talk extensions in June would he?

In his deal, some preliminary agreement must be reached by 1 July to be implemented from Dec. 2020. Or there must be some convincing target that a deal will indeed be reached by Dec. 2020 from 1 July.

Johnson can opt to Leave after Dec. 2020 with no deal - but the extension must be sought before 1 July.

The UK can extend the Brexit transition period once for one or two years, but must agree this extension with the EU before 1 July 2020.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In his deal, some preliminary agreement must be reached by 1 July to be implemented from Dec. 2020. Or there must be some convincing target that a deal will indeed be reached by Dec. 2020 from 1 July.

Johnson can opt to Leave after Dec. 2020 with no deal - but the extension must be sought before 1 July.

Theres nothing in that link that suggests any preliminary agreement has to be reached in order for extension to be agreed. Have you another link?

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

In his deal, some preliminary agreement must be reached by 1 July to be implemented from Dec. 2020. Or there must be some convincing target that a deal will indeed be reached by Dec. 2020 from 1 July.

Johnson can opt to Leave after Dec. 2020 with no deal - but the extension must be sought before 1 July.

From the bill itself

The United Kingdom, having had regard to progress made towards conclusion of the agreement referred to in Articles 1(4) and 2(1) of this Protocol, may at any time before 1 July 2020 request the extension of the transition period referred to in Article 126 of the Withdrawal Agreement. If the United Kingdom makes such a request, the transition period may be extended in accordance with Article 132 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Says absolutely nothing about progress being made. If they request an extension it will be granted is effectively what it says.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think Johnson let the cat out of the bag in an interview with Peston this week (which if course Peston totally missed).

Peston asked him to name one trade deal that the EU had completed within a 1 year time frame, to which Johnson replied that the key difference was that the UK and EU were already aligned in terms of regulations. Peston stated that Johnson had stated divergence which of course Johnson ignored. IN the same interview Johnson said that once the WA was passed, ie 31 January they have left, Brexit will be off the agenda.

My reading of those two positions is that Johnson is going to delivery exit by 31 January, i the hope that people think it is done and thus it stops being the everyday story it is now. Johnson can them simply agree to whatever trade deal suits both sides the best, basically maintaining alignment, but that nobody will be really bothered to check or even care.

So in essence Brino is where they are going.

ERG. Can't see Baker, Francois, Mogg et al agreeing to anything that resembles a soft Brexit. Ditto Tory party members, most of whom want a hard Brexit.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

From the bill itself

Says absolutely nothing about progress being made. If they request an extension it will be granted is effectively what it says.

It's the implication that matters.

Quite clearly, if no progress has been made - then Johnson must either Leave on Dec. 2020, which he has stated he will, or if progress has been made and it appears that an arrangement may be agreed, then an extension will not be sought in June.

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

Says absolutely nothing about progress being made. If they request an extension it will be granted is effectively what it says.

Technically, it does not mean that. 'May be extended' allows that it also may not. Legally speaking, the word 'shall' is used where there is no discretion and 'may' where there is.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

ERG. Can't see Baker, Francois, Mogg et al agreeing to anything that resembles a soft Brexit. Ditto Tory party members, most of whom want a hard Brexit.

Yeah and when johnson has been busy effectively purging the party of whimpish soft brexity types to replace them with hardcore leavers, you'd wonder what kind of options that would leave in the event of being returned to power. Looks well enough boxed in there to me.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the implication that matters.

Quite clearly, if no progress has been made - then Johnson must either Leave on Dec. 2020, which he has stated he will, or if progress has been made and it appears that an arrangement may be agreed, then an extension will not be sought in June.

If no progress has been made, he can ask for an extension. The ball is entirely in the UK's court with that.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Technically, it does not mean that. 'May be extended' allows that it also may not. Legally speaking, the word 'shall' is used where there is no discretion and 'may' where there is.

There are further articles in the bill that outline the extension but that is the main paragraph. You're right, legally they EU are not bound to the extension but listening to them, they are pretty clear it will be granted regardless of what really happens. It's in their interest to do so as it stops the "EU have forced us out" line from Britain. Eskimo was stating that progress must be made and that it was written in the bill, that is not the case.

Realistically, an extension is going to have to be sought if the UK want to avoid a hard Brexit. It's inconceivable that this can all be agreed by next June. Fisheries won't be agreed by then let along the entire trade portion of the negotiation nor a solution to the Irish border.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite clearly, if no progress has been made - then Johnson must either Leave on Dec. 2020, which he has stated he will

He said he would leave, deal or no deal, on Oct 31st.

He says a lot of things.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah and when johnson has been busy effectively purging the party of whimpish soft brexity types to replace them with hardcore leavers, you'd wonder what kind of options that would leave in the event of being returned to power. Looks well enough boxed in there to me.

Exactly. Plus the influx of Brexit party members now that party is irrelevant. When you have John Major urging people to vote against Tory candidates, you know they've lurched very much to the right

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's the implication that matters.

Quite clearly, if no progress has been made - then Johnson must either Leave on Dec. 2020, which he has stated he will, or if progress has been made and it appears that an arrangement may be agreed, then an extension will not be sought in June.

Cue johnson at the despatch box in april blathering on about constructive talks and significant progress being made. Will parliament choose to believe him, especially if vibes coming from other side suggest otherwise?

Not anyway that progress even suggests there's no need for an extension. Again that will be a judgement for the commons to make.

PopePalpatine

IAmTheReign wrote: »

It takes a special kind of delusion to think that Boris Johnson, the old Etonion, prime minister and leader of the Conservative party is in any way anti establishment.

A special kind topped up every weekday in red-top for 55p, or black-top for £2.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Cue johnson at the despatch box in april blathering on about constructive talks and significant progress being made. Will parliament choose to believe him, especially if vibes coming from other side suggest otherwise?

Not anyway that progress even suggests there's no need for an extension. Again that will be a judgement for the commons to make.

But that is why Corbin is losing in the polls.

It will either be Johnson stood there next year blathering or Corbyn. Corbyn’s plan is no different.

It comes down to who people think might actually break the deadlock and so far, they seem to think Boris will.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

But that is why Corbin is losing in the polls.

It will either be Johnson stood there next year blathering or Corbyn. Corbyn’s plan is no different.

It comes down to who people think might actually break the deadlock and so far, they seem to think Boris will.

I dunno, maybe i guess. Corbyns plan, it may well not be the best, i dont hear people coming out saying what his better alternative was. I'd be interested if you did outline what you think he should have alternatively done instead of just criticising which, of course, is your right. Should he have come out for remain or backed leave some time ago? They were his three options. Which one was best?

His plan is certainly different from johnsons, that much i am clear about.

bren2001

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dunno, maybe i guess. Corbyns plan, it may well not be the best, i dont hear people coming out saying what his better alternative was. I'd be interested if you did outline what you think he should have alternatively done instead of just criticising which, of course, is your right. Should he have come out for remain or backed leave some time ago? They were his three options. Which one was best?

His plan is certainly different from johnsons, that much i am clear about.

I think his plan is the best. Another referendum is the logical position to take. I have an issue with him sitting on the fence. He should have come out and said if he'd campaign for his deal (whatever it is) or remain in the referendum. He lacks credibility with his current stance.

Obviously he doesn't know what his deal would be but he wouldn't come back to parliament with one he wasn't willing to accept.

Strazdas

bren2001 wrote: »

I think his plan is the best. Another referendum is the logical position to take. I have an issue with him sitting on the fence. He should have come out and said if he'd campaign for his deal (whatever it is) or remain in the referendum. He lacks credibility with his current stance.

Obviously he doesn't know what his deal would be but he wouldn't come back to parliament with one he wasn't willing to accept.

Any type of 'no majority for Johnson' will kill Brexit stone dead. They are the Brexit party and Brexit has always been a Tory project. The referendum result would be a foregone conclusion, there's not a hope Leave could win if Johnson's Brexit was rejected by the same electorate.

Harry Palmr

The Telegraph should be written off as a news source, it's long since given up any pretence of being a heavyweight in the market - it's the Boris Johnson fanzine and little else now. I'd be shocked if they ran a single story that raised even half an eyebrow at the Tories policy platform or campaigning performance - which has actually been pretty poor as far as I can tell.