The Brexit Thread

[aaid]

3 minutes ago, antidote said:

John McNally’s mother died a couple of days ago. 

I was sure there would be some reason he wasn't present.

[ParisInAKilt]

5 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Cool, so capitalists like poor people, Labour parties like poor people and governments like poor people. That'll be why there's so many poor people then I guess.

Capitalism bad 

[aaid]

Looks like what they are going to do is bring back the withdrawal agreement only for a vote and not the political declaration part.

This might actually work as while the ERG and DUP don't like the Withdrawl agreement because of the Irish backstop and it's not Brexity enough for them, Labour - insomuch as there is a settled Labour position - are generally okay with the Withdrawl agreement, it's the political declaration they don't like.

Even if Labour abstained, they'd probably just be able to sneak this over the line.

[Eisegerwind]

13 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Capitalism bad 

Should really be in unpopular opinions but Animal Farm was a shit book and 1984 was wrong about everything.

[Ally Bongo]

19 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

1984 was wrong about everything.

Early days

Maybe just got the year wrong

Nostradamus was given plenty of slack ....

[hampden_loon2878]

5 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Bizarre. Ask her which democracy should Nicola believe in? The Scottish one that voted remain, or the UK one that voted leave. Then remind her Nicola is a Scottish nationalist. 

Her mindset is it was a UK vote, i have tried  putting forward that angle and regaoof what anyone says the issue is not black and white and i can actually see it from both angles, 

Edited March 28, 2019 by hampden_loon2878

[Mark frae Crieff]

3 hours ago, aaid said:

Looks like what they are going to do is bring back the withdrawal agreement only for a vote and not the political declaration part.

This might actually work as while the ERG and DUP don't like the Withdrawl agreement because of the Irish backstop and it's not Brexity enough for them, Labour - insomuch as there is a settled Labour position - are generally okay with the Withdrawl agreement, it's the political declaration they don't like.

Even if Labour abstained, they'd probably just be able to sneak this over the line.

Looking at JO Monaghan QC twitter he thinks that you can't have 1 without the other as that affects A13..

It is well above my knowledge base so will defer to his expertise. 

[aaid]

59 minutes ago, Mark frae Crieff said:

Looking at JO Monaghan QC twitter he thinks that you can't have 1 without the other as that affects A13..

It is well above my knowledge base so will defer to his expertise. 

That seems to be the case but it looks like they're going to give it a go.  Mind you judging by the tone of the business motion it doesn't look like there's much chance of it getting through.

[antidote]

9 minutes ago, aaid said:

That seems to be the case but it looks like they're going to give it a go.  Mind you judging by the tone of the business motion it doesn't look like there's much chance of it getting through.

May is only putting half of her bill through tomorrow, the withdrawal part. 

The backstop part will come at a later date. 

Confused?

I’m very much so. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by antidote

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, antidote said:

May is only putting half of her bill through tomorrow, the withdrawal part. 

The backstop part will come at a later date. 

Confused?

I’m very much so. 

The backstop is in the Withdrawal Agreement.  That covers three parts - the money, citizens rights and the Irish border.

[antidote]

6 minutes ago, aaid said:

The backstop is in the Withdrawal Agreement.  That covers three parts - the money, citizens rights and the Irish border.

Yes, but it looks as though they’ve taken out the backstop part for the time being to get the other part through. 

Some are calling it Theresa May withdrawal bill part 2.5.  

[Eisegerwind]

7 minutes ago, aaid said:

The backstop is in the Withdrawal Agreement.  That covers three parts - the money, citizens rights and the Irish border.

Could you or someone explain what this means for the hard of understanding. What's the 'political declaration'? If the withdrawal agreement is passed is there another vote on the 'political delaration'?

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Could you or someone explain what this means for the hard of understanding. What's the 'political declaration'? If the withdrawal agreement is passed is there another vote on the 'political delaration'?

There's two parts to what has been agreed between Theresa May and the EU.  The first part is the Withdrawal Agreement and essentially covers the terms of the UK leaving the EU.  In summary it covers the amount of money the EU will pay to honour its existing commitments, guarantees on EU citizens rights in the UK and vice versa and a commitment not to impose a hard border in Ireland - and importantly contains the backstop clause should it not be possible to come up with and alternative solution.   This will be a legally binding international treaty between the UK and the EU and is the sort of thing that serious countries do not break.    The EU consistently says that the Withdrawal agreement is complete and cannot be reopened.  Going into the two year transition period is dependent upon the WIthdrawal Agreement being passed by Westminster - and also the EU parliament and all member states.

The Political Declaration which goes along side this is a separate document and essentially contains a commitment for the EU and UK to seek close co-operation on trade, security, etc., etc.,  At present there is not a lot of detail in this as the expectation is that this is something which will develop as the future relationship between the EU and the UK is negotiated and agreed during the transition period.     This is not legally binding and can be changed.   

The Withdrawal Agreement is 599 pages long, the Political Declaration is 26.

 

Labour types who "want to respect the result of the referendum" don't like this as it leads to the so-called "blindfold brexit" where you are effectively giving the government a free hand in negotiating this.   They like it even less since the chances of any even more hardline Brexit PM being in place to lead these negotiations.

There's been a complete stooshie over whether it will be enough for the government to pass the Withdrawal Agreement only to get the May 22 extension from the EU and whether - under UK law already enacted - it will actually be legal to do that.   

 

[Eisegerwind]

Thanks aaid.

[ParisInAKilt]

6 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Should really be in unpopular opinions but Animal Farm was a shit book and 1984 was wrong about everything.

Give it time. 

[antidote]

2 hours ago, antidote said:

Yes, but it looks as though they’ve taken out the backstop part for the time being to get the other part through. 

Some are calling it Theresa May withdrawal bill part 2.5.  

Nope, they haven’t taken out the backstop, the withdrawal is being voted on tomorrow. It’s the political statement that’s being delayed. 

Confused.com

[Ally Bongo]

 

[exile]

Did anyone spot how our Scots Tories voted in the recent indicative vote? 

Did they seek to protect jobs and the economy and integration and vote for the softest Brexit, as we'd expect Ruth D should passionately argue?

Did they vote to defend the precious precious union as we'd expect of those staunchly supporting the DUP's blood red lines?

Or did they meekly ditch both of those principled stances to fall in line with their party leader? 

Edited March 29, 2019 by exile

[antidote]

1 hour ago, exile said:

Did anyone spot how our Scots Tories voted in the recent indicative vote? 

Did they seek to protect jobs and the economy and integration and vote for the softest Brexit, as we'd expect Ruth D should passionately argue?

Did they vote to defend the precious precious union as we'd expect of those staunchly supporting the DUP's blood red lines?

Or did they meekly ditch both of those principled stances to fall in line with their party leader? 

I’m not a betting man, but if I were I’d put the house on it not being your first point.

The second and third yes. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by antidote

[Caledonian Craig]

There is a whole heap of reasons Brexit has been a disaster - the negotiating of it that is.

Firstly, the government has no over-whelming majority and to push things through has climbed into bed with the nutty DUP who want things that the government don't necessarily want.

Secondly, their are deep divisions across the Tory party with various factions and Labour is little better. The SNP and Lib Dems are fairly unified on what they want but do not have the political clout to be heard.

Thirdly, the UK is split on this as in England and Wales voted for it whilst Scotland and Northern Ireland did not but the Tories have a pro-union party in Northern Ireland arguing the case for Brexit which Northern Ireland did not vote for.

Fourthly, the Tories negotiating skills are non-existent as can be seen by red lines put up by May which she has refused to take down.

It made me laugh the other day, when after voting on other options and none got a majority, the Brexit Secretary claimed it was evidence that May's Deal was the option. Eh? The Customs Union missed out on a majority by a handful of votes whereas May's Deal has never got that close.

For me a good chance of breaking this deadlock would be to have a General Election. If it gave the UK a government with a majority then far better chance of a deal being agreed upon. 

[Ally Bongo]

If the vote today gets passed will the wee yin call Indyref 2 ?

[thplinth]

On 3/28/2019 at 8:46 AM, Lamia said:

No they don't - there are many who don't give a shit.

 

On 3/28/2019 at 8:48 AM, Lamia said:

Lots to be honest

 

On 3/28/2019 at 9:02 AM, Lamia said:

I had added that they usually think it is all poop people's fault for being poor so hell mend them. I will also give you a clue these people never have left of centre views on other issues

 

On 3/28/2019 at 9:46 AM, TDYER63 said:

For a start, what kind of person would stsnd in a party or  vote for a party who withdraw benefits for the poor whilst giving tax breaks to the rich ? Certainly not someone who wants to help the poor thats for sure.,

But its not just politicians or who dont give a fuck. They are just the people with power to actually do something long term to help, but they wont cos they are not really the people running the country.

And we can all take some responsiblity, how much money do we all piss up against a wall ? If people really wanted to help, instead of buying some shite you dont need , like the woman who spends 500 quid on a wee handbag she can barely fit her purse and lipstick into , to the likes of me who buys a fckin egg boiler that sits in the cupboard gathering dust.

Here’s an idea Mrs designer handbag, stroll along to M & S and spend 50 quid, and on your way  spend  the other 450 quid on the 20 beggars you pass on Argyle St. And Tidy, boil your egg in a pot like most people and spend the money you save on eggs for the poor. 

There is enough cash out there to ensure no-one is poor if people actually bothered to do something, but we dont. 

I have never met anyone who actively does not want poor peoples' lots to be improved. Sure there are some people who deserve to be poor as a result of their own actions just as there are people who deserve to be rich by their own actions. But take that out of the question and all sides of the political spectrum would say the same thing. They just disagree on how best to achieve it.

And of course the definition of poverty has been constantly raised as well. I wonder what the poor of a hundred years ago would think of the lives of the poor today and I dare say the 'poor' of hundred years in the future. It has become a purely relative term it seems.

I also get the direct impression socialism is now anti rich much more than pro poor. What you seem to want is equality of outcome for us all rather than equality of opportunity for us all.

I hope Corbyn and Bernie do get elected, people have forgotten... or rather the younger generations have never experienced it. 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, exile said:

Did anyone spot how our Scots Tories voted in the recent indicative vote? 

Did they seek to protect jobs and the economy and integration and vote for the softest Brexit, as we'd expect Ruth D should passionately argue?

Did they vote to defend the precious precious union as we'd expect of those staunchly supporting the DUP's blood red lines?

Or did they meekly ditch both of those principled stances to fall in line with their party leader? 

To be fair, Paul Masterston, the MP for East Renfrewshire has pretty consistently voted against the deal from the perspective of it being damaging to jobs and the economy.

[Mark frae Crieff]

So the deal is defeated again.. So old terry esse a  will be PM for eternity... 

So it seems that the marching bands etc that were there today haven't helped... 

Pity it wasn't the pied piper what with being so close to the river

[aaid]

Labour MPs that voted for the deal - Kevin Barron, Rosie Cooper, Caroline Flint, John Mann & Jim Fitzpatrick.  The latter one is interesting as he's a member of Poplar and Limehouse which would be a large remain constituency.

All Scottish Tory MPS voted for the deal.

34 Tory MPs voted against