Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Yes because Brexit was the headline issue, and there was a slim majority in parliament.

Now that there is a large majority in the Commons the issue of course is less spectacular because Johnson can easily pass the legislation he needs.

Your response to blinding shows that you have an incredibly revisionist understanding of recent history. Can I remind you that it was pro-remain MPs who forced an extension by passing a law? It was pro-remain MPs who were trying to thwart Brexit from the start. The electorate punished them in so far as Labour has the worst result since the 1930's.

Hopefully the government will finish the job off in December. Preferably with an arrangement, or worst case scenario without one.

Dead-in-a-ditch Johnson didn't have to run off begging for an extension. He could have resigned and stuck to his word!

Not only that, is it not the case that they can withdraw from the extension period at any time? They haven't done so yet!

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Dead-in-a-ditch Johnson didn't have to run off begging for an extension. He could have resigned and stuck to his word!

He was legally obliged to because remainer MPs forced him to by a law change. That detail seems to escape you and because it does you are dishonest with recent history.

You seem obsessed with the DUP and the ERG. The reason they have dropped from the headlines is pretty obvious. Johnson no longer has problems with electoral arithmetic.

Every mention of the DUP and ERG was because they were needed in a parliament with a slim majority. You're right their importance is less important after December because Johnson doesn't have an arithmetic problem.

It is still really clear. The Government aren't keen on the Norway option. Heck, even Norway aren't massively keen on the Norway option.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

He was legally obliged to because remainer MPs forced him to by a law change. That detail seems to escape you and because it does you are dishonest with recent history.

You seem obsessed with the DUP and the ERG. The reason they have dropped from the headlines is pretty obvious. Johnson no longer has problems with electoral arithmetic.

Every mention of the DUP and ERG was because they were needed in a parliament with a slim majority. You're right their importance is less important after December because Johnson doesn't have an arithmetic problem.

It is still really clear. The Government aren't keen on the Norway option. Heck, even Norway aren't massively keen on the Norway option.

Hi Theo,


The law did not state the "Boris Johnson and only Boris Johnson must ask for an extension". Johnson said that he would rather be dead in a ditch than ask for an extension. As I said, he could have resigned. " That detail seems to escape you and because it does you are dishonest with recent history."



I have posted 2-3 posts on the ERG in response to blindings position that the UK now has a more hardline anti-EU government (Apparently that internal UK matter is a defeat for the EU somehow, but ignoring that for the minute). I simply pointed out that the most extreme hardliners appear to have since been sidelined. If you want to consider that an obsession then that is up to you but I think it would be a bit weird to do so. If you are a particular fan of the ERG, or perhaps very fond of the DUP, I could imagine that you might be ultra sensitive to anything that you might perceive as a negative comment towards them. I was merely pointing out that the influence they appeared to have up to say Sept, is now apparently not there.



And yes, while the law meant that they should ask for an extension, the extension that they received had a provision where they could unilaterally exit from the transition period. There is no law preventing that being done. That is fact. Not revisionism. If the hardliners held power, I am fairly certain that the UK would have exited by now. Do you disagree?

Joe_ Public

"Can I remind you that it was pro-remain MPs who forced an extension by passing a law?"

Many of whom, including the likes of Oliver Letwin, Ken Clarke and others, had already voted three times in favour of Brexit and merely objected to a form of leaving that the 2016 referendum had never endorsed. Rewriting history indeed! The reason brexit hadnt happened by then was the consequence of those purportedly in favour of it not actually voting for it.

blinding

eagle eye wrote: »

I voted for Lisbon both times. I'm not talking about myself. It was defeated and that should have been the end of it. That didn't happen though, it was a full on scare the crap out of everybody and get it in no matter what.
Unlike a lot of people in this thread I don't get upset if something doesn't go as I wish. I get upset by things being done that shouldn't be done like a second Lisbon treaty referendum.
As far as Brexit is concerned the person at fault is David Cameron. He didn't need to have a referendum when he did, he didn't do research to see how it would go and then threw his toys out of the pram and ran away when the unexpected result arrived. People can talk about Boris Johnson and the ukip idiots all they want but Cameron is the clown that caused Brexit.

He did actually promise a referendum in the 2015 General Election Manifesto.

Maybe ye are surprised that a politician would do as he said:eek:;)

Me thinks that he did not actually expect to win that election and that he would have to have another coalition with the Lib Dems who would of course have stopped him having to full-fill the referendum promise = that would have been Handy:eek::eek:

So in essence David Cameron did not want his own party to have a majority so that he would not have to full-fill his manifesto commitments :eek::eek:

Gee these coalitions can be handy for Politicians ! ! !:eek::eek:

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Hi Theo,


The law did not state the "Boris Johnson and only Boris Johnson must ask for an extension". Johnson said that he would rather be dead in a ditch than ask for an extension. As I said, he could have resigned. " That detail seems to escape you and because it does you are dishonest with recent history."



I have posted 2-3 posts on the ERG in response to blindings position that the UK now has a much stronger anti-EU government (Apparently that's a defeat for the EU somehow, but ignoring that for the minute). I simply pointed out that the hardliners have since been sidelined.



And yes, while the law meant that they should ask for an extension, ralthe extension that they received had a provision where they could unilaterally exit from the transition period. There is no law preventing that being done. That is fact. Not revisionism. If the hardliners held power, I am fairly certain that the UK would have exited by now. Do you disagree?

I don't agree. The law said the PM had to request an extension and you are making it sound like it was a free choice. I'll drop the point because you're unwilling to understand it.

I'm much more interested in the future. The point about dropping out of the transition period implies that I want the UK to drop out of negotiations. I don't. I want the UK to come to a reasonable agreement with the EU. In the event that this is not possible by December I'm of the mind that the UK should leave on WTO terms. Not my first choice.

I'm slightly more reasonable than how you are painting my position right now. The only thing that is crystal clear for me is that the Norway option isn't acceptable.

Timberrrrrrrr

blinding wrote: »

He did actually promise a referendum in the 2015 General Election Manifesto.

Maybe ye are surprised that a politician would do as he said:eek:;)

Me thinks that he did not actually expect to win that election and that he would have to have another coalition with the Lib Dems who would of course have stopped him having to full-fill the referendum promise = that would have been Handy:eek::eek:

So in essence David Cameron did not want his own party to have a majority so that he would not have to full-fill his manifesto commitments :eek::eek:

Gee these coalitions can be handy for Politicians ! ! !:eek::eek:

Is there any need for all the stupid emojis? It makes your posts unreadable

blinding

Donald Trump wrote: »

Dead-in-a-ditch Johnson didn't have to run off begging for an extension. He could have resigned and stuck to his word!

Not only that, is it not the case that they can withdraw from the extension period at any time? They haven't done so yet!

80 seat majority in December. It pretty obvious who won those manoeuvres ! !

blinding

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is there any need for all the stupid emojis? It makes your posts unreadable

I like them sometimes:p

Timberrrrrrrr

blinding wrote: »

I like them sometimes:p

They make your posts look like they were written by a preteen and honestly unreadable

blinding

In essence for Worshippers of the Eu Deity, as the British have now become Apostates, they must be destroyed ! !

This smacks of a Fragility, Insecurity of belief as is often seen in Religions when the Apostates must be Destroyed ! ! !

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

I don't agree. The law said the PM had to request an extension and you are making it sound like it was a free choice. I'll drop the point because you're unwilling to understand it.

I'm much more interested in the future. The point about dropping out of the transition period implies that I want the UK to drop out of negotiations. I don't. I want the UK to come to a reasonable agreement with the EU. In the event that this is not possible by December I'm of the mind that the UK should leave on WTO terms. Not my first choice.

I'm slightly more reasonable than how you are painting my position right now. The only thing that is crystal clear for me is that the Norway option isn't acceptable.

What would have happened had Boris Johnson resigned two weeks before the deadline and JRM for example been elected PM.

Would Boris have been the one locked up for not asking for an extension? Even though he would not have possessed the power to do so?

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

What would have happened had Boris Johnson resigned two weeks before the deadline and JRM for example been elected PM.



Would Boris have been the one locked up for not asking for an extension? Even though he would not have possessed the power to do so?

Why would he have resigned when the extension wasn't his fault? I think most of the people who voted for the Tories in December (myself included) understand that the only people who were thwarting Brexit were the remainer MPs. The electorate punished them for their opposition in December.

The past is the past. The future remains before us.

blinding

theological wrote: »

Why would he have resigned when the extension wasn't his fault? I think most of the people who voted for the Tories in December (myself included) understand that the only people who were thwarting Brexit were the remainer MPs. The electorate punished them for their opposition in December.

The past is the past. The future remains before us.

And the Irish have to accept the British Democratic decision to Brexit and get on with it.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Why would he have resigned when the extension wasn't his fault? I think most of the people who voted for the Tories in December (myself included) understand that the only people who were thwarting Brexit were the remainer MPs. The electorate punished them for their opposition in December.

The past is the past. The future remains before us.

He should really have done it on principle if he was sticking to his word.



Nobody made him make that threat. I think he shouldn't have made it. But once he made it, it made him look a bit silly not to back it up.



In any ways, if he was honourable person who stuck to his word, the fact that such a vote would have been passed - leading him to resign - would have had to have been a vote of no-confidence in his leadership anyway

theological

OK - this thought experiment is obviously only interesting to you. I understand who was actually at fault for extending last autumn. What matters to me is that the government actually deliver on ending the transition period.

Donald Trump

blinding wrote: »

And the Irish have to accept the British Democratic decision to Brexit and get on with it.

They do. Hence the title of the thread.


There wouldn't be much talk of politics if people couldn't give opinions on votes that had been passed or people elected.


If you happen to think politician X is a bollix, you can say it. Saying it doesn't mean that you don't accept it. We had a few people mentioning Lisbon Treaty referendums on here a few posts back. If someone brings those up are they not accepting democracy? Are they not accepting the "Irish Democratic decision" if they mention it or have an opinion on it?

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

OK - this thought experiment is obviously only interesting to you. I understand who was actually at fault for extending last autumn. What matters to me is that the government actually deliver on ending the transition period.

Unless I misunderstand, can they not do that today?


If they actually wanted their "WTO deal" they can unilaterally achieve that today - no?

First Up

Donald Trump wrote: »

They do. Hence the title of the thread.

Ireland and everyone else in the EU. Its the UK's problem to deal with.

Blinding etc. seems to want to keep fighting a battle already won - most probably because they know they are going to lose all the others.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Unless I misunderstand, can they not do that today?


If they actually wanted their "WTO deal" they can unilaterally achieve that today - no?

Again, attributing a position to me that I don't hold. Can you read the post further up where I deal with this exact remark?

I won't repeat myself on things I've already been clear on.

Leroy42

Blinding, I really don't understand your point.

Brexit has happened, nobody has stopped it. The delay was caused by infighting in the UK. The EU published its options almost immediately after the vote.

Nobody stopped anybody leaving. Nobody forced Johnson to accept the WA. It was all done willingly by democratically ellected representatives.

So, given al of that, what do you think should happen now. If, for example, you suggest No Deal is the best option, then the quesion is why did the UK public vote for a WA which was a gateway to a deal? If No deal was really what they wanted, there was no need to break NI away from Britain, no need for the UK gvenrment to agree to be responsible for ensuring NI adheres to all current and future EU rules.

Why has the UK government continued to rule out an extension, when it negotiated its provision as part of the WA, the WA upon which the people gave their approval in the recent GE?

On what basis can the UK government claim that people do not want an extension.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

OK - this thought experiment is obviously only interesting to you. I understand who was actually at fault for extending last autumn. What matters to me is that the government actually deliver on ending the transition period.

And that is fine to have as your position, but you cannot possibly say that it is what the majority of the UK want.

Extension was clearly written into the WA, a WA agreement that Johnson sold a vote for him and his party on.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Again, attributing a position to me that I don't hold. Can you read the post further up where I deal with this exact remark?

I won't repeat myself on things I've already been clear on.

I was actually asking on the technical question of whether they could leave "today" if they wanted to. Not asking for your preference.



My understanding is that they can end the period unilaterally whenever, or are there conditions to doing so (such as notice period etc.)

First Up

Donald Trump wrote: »

I was actually asking on the technical question of whether they could leave "today" if they wanted to. Not asking for your preference.



My understanding is that they can end the period unilaterally whenever, or are there conditions to doing so (such as notice period etc.)

They could walk away this afternoon and start on WTO terms as soon as all the fences have been built around ports.

There's still a few in the UK clinging to the "mutual recognition" fantasy. It might need Boris returning with a flea from Ursula in his ear before they finally wise up. Then they either flounce off into the WTO wasteland, or fold like a cheap suit as they have done on everything else so far.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why has the UK government continued to rule out an extension, when it negotiated its provision as part of the WA, the WA upon which the people gave their approval in the recent GE?

On what basis can the UK government claim that people do not want an extension.

The government is under no obligation to use the extension. I can see the argument that ending the transition at the end of the year will draw a line under the issue and allow the UK to move on on new terms.

Donald Trump

First Up wrote: »

Ireland and everyone else in the EU. Its the UK's problem to deal with.

Blinding etc. seems to want to keep fighting a battle already won - most probably because they know they are going to lose all the others.

In Ireland we have the parish pump politicians. Mr. Healy Rae tells the locals that their problems are all the fault of "them boyos up in Dublin". The locals don't seem to notice that, despite the oppressive actions of the anti-democratic people in Dublin, HR seems to be able to do quite well for himself in terms of gathering property and wealth in the area.
Anyway, anything that is wrong can be blamed on the Dublin boogeyman. But HR tells them they have to keep electing him to fight the oppression on their behalf. So they do. And he can distract and convince them that his own failings are due to the Dublin boogeyman.


What we saw across the water was this dynamic on a national scale.



Now imagine that HR had been even more extreme and shouted rhetoric about needing independence from the rest of the country. He's delighted as he thinks it would never happen. Suddenly the people of Kerry get the chance and after all the years of being told about the boogeyman, they vote to separate.



Now HR realises that his old schtick won't be able to save him in the future. He won't be able to blame the Dublin boogeyman for his own failings. Not only that, Kerry will be much poorer as a result. What can he do only try to drag it out a bit more to get a few more years out of it.

Donald Trump

First Up wrote: »

It might need Boris returning with a flea from Ursula in his ear before they finally wise up.

Maybe another phonecall from Manny in France to order him what to do again like he did when he ordered him to close the pubs......

blinding

Re; Irish People Respecting the Brexit Vote and the 2019 General Election Result.

There have been a few posters on here attempting to tell me Re-Mainers won the December General Election.

Now Their Delusion is strong ! !

blinding

Donald Trump wrote: »

Maybe another phonecall from Manny in France to order him what to do again like he did when he ordered him to close the pubs......

Manny isn’t exactly popular in his own Country. ! !

The fact that he is the Compromise Candidate because the French have a strong Left and a strong Right doesn’t help. People are Voting against the other and not for Manny.

Perhaps one of these days the French will go either Left or Right. Neither big Fans of the Eu ! ! !

Donald Trump

blinding wrote: »

Manny isn’t exactly popular in his own Country. ! !

The fact that he is the Compromise Candidate because the French have a strong Left and a strong Right doesn’t help. People are Voting against the other and not for Manny.

Perhaps one of these days the French will go either Left or Right. Neither big Fans of the Eu ! ! !

Kinda makes it a bit worse then that he was able to order Boris to do something Boris apparently didn't want to do himself!