Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[grasshopper]

35 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

May is not going to be told what to do by Corbyn, by not entering talks he is tipping the balance towards the ERG. 

 

Well, as Thehowler outlined with his usual precision upthread (wish I was clever enough to do multiple quotes) I do not think there is any intention as yet by the PM to consider in a serious way a  CU.

Until she resolves this issue with her colleagues on the Conservative right there will be little or no progress to be made with talks with the Labour party.

JC's red line of asking her to take, a no deal Brexit off the table has both tactical and strategic elements i.e to spread further division and distrust withinside the waring factions of the Conservative party.

Strategically, it place's the Labour party in the position of being able to point the finger firmly at the Conservative Party for any disruption and economic damage that may be caused by a disorderly withdrawal.

There is probably a majority withinside the HoC for ruling out a no deal,  as you, yourself have previously stated. But it needs the polical will to do so.

It is a Conservative Party Brexit and they have to own it.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by grasshopper

[ebull]

Just now, pig said:

Lol - you guys are just a complete joke.

Thanks for admitting you were mistaken.

[see my post on name calling further up this thread]

[Bruce Banner]

17 minutes ago, ebull said:

AFAIK It's within our control to revoke A50 and then immediately submit a new A50 letter meaning we kick the can down the road exactly 2 years without needing anyone's agreement.

Would require a very thick skin [think we know she has that] and huge cojones to do it though. Would love to be a fly on the wall next time she meets Merkel, the alcoholic and co after that had happened.

Would also IMO be hugely damaging to UK plc. It just creates 2 more years of uncertainty and wasn't it [any delay] one of her red lines as tweeted yesterday?

Ken Clarke said that in the Commons a couple of days ago and was politely corrected by Cox, the AG.

Clarke said that he hadn't practised law for 40 years and would bow to Cox's opinion.

Who was correct? I don't know, but as I understand it, Cox was.

[ebull]

Just now, grasshopper said:

Well, as Thehowler outlined with his usual precision upthread (wish I was clever enough to do multiple quotes) I do not think there is any intention as yet by the PM to consider in a serious way a  CU.

Until she resolves this issue with her colleagues on the Conservative right there will be little or no progress to be made with talks with the Labour party.

JC's red line of asking her to take, a no deal Brexit off the table is both a tactical manovere i.e spread further division and distrust withinside the waring factions of the Conservative party.

There is probably a majority withinside the HoC for ruling out a no deal,  as you yourself have previously stated. But it needs the polical will to do so.

Strategically, it place's the Labour party in the position of being able to point the finger firmly at the Conservative Party for any disruption and economic damage that may be caused by a disorderly withdrawal. 

It is a Conservative Party Brexit and they have to own it.

 

 

To be fair to JC, avoiding a media circus where the torys could claim he was a part of the mess is a sensible and reasonable move.

To be fair to TM, if she does a deal with Labour she wouldn't need all the rebels in her party.

There may well be a majority within parliament [made up of the 200 who voted for the awful deal on Tuesday plus 100 lab/snp] for some compromise.

It won't happen if talks happen around a media circus or with preconditions. So both are at fault. Quiet, private talks with guarantee of no leaks would maybe work.

Personally not want I want. No deal is far preferable. And what 58% of 288 members of this site voted for in the poll on this page - you wouldn't guess that from this thread. A good example of how the peoples vote and bremoaner folk are so vocal.

[ebull]

Just now, Bruce Banner said:

Ken Clarke said that in the Commons a couple of days ago and was politely corrected by Cox, the AG.

Clarke said that he hadn't practised law for 40 years and would bow to Cox's opinion.

Who was correct? I don't know, but as I understand it, Cox was.

So which bit is not allowed? I thought ECJ had recently ruled that we could unilaterally revoke A50 already [which is more important at present than what our AG says].

Perhaps the A50 process has a time limit before it can be re-started? Or perhaps the AG was wrong?

[kzb]

5 minutes ago, ebull said:

AFAIK It's within our control to revoke A50 and then immediately submit a new A50 letter meaning we kick the can down the road exactly 2 years without needing anyone's agreement.

<EDIT>

Not so fast, the ECJ needs to be convinced we are revoking in good faith and most definitely not for these purposes !

[ebull]

Just now, Fromage Frais said:

He cannot compromise

because he cannot state what his position is.

I dont blame him better to wait until the other side splits under the pressure before his does.

Agree but ....

"Better" for whom? ?

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, kzb said:

Not so fast, the ECJ needs to be convinced we are revoking in good faith and most definitely not for these purposes !

That is how I understand it.

[Confusion of VIs]

 

38 minutes ago, ebull said:

AFAIK It's within our control to revoke A50 and then immediately submit a new A50 letter meaning we kick the can down the road exactly 2 years without needing anyone's agreement.

It isn't. A50 can only be withdrawn if it is done in good faith and the government is prepared to commit to ongoing membership of the EU (the on exception to this would be making it subject to a future referendum as the ECJ would not interfere with our democratic process).  If the government did what you suggest the EU could reject the A50, stating that the UK government was acting in bad faith and therefore not a credible negotiating partner.   

 

5 minutes ago, ebull said:

Personally not want I want. No deal is far preferable. And what 58% of 288 members of this site voted for in the poll on this page - you wouldn't guess that from this thread. A good example of how the peoples vote and bremoaner folk are so vocal.

The people on this thread probably know more than average about the impact of no deal. That's how it works the more you know the less you like it. 

[ebull]

Just now, kzb said:

Not so fast, the ECJ needs to be convinced we are revoking in good faith and most definitely not for these purposes !

Fair enough, that explains the AG reply.

But:

a. not how it was reported in MSM. Guess the full story didn't pass muster for the agenda.

b. how difficult is it to make an argument to present in court that revocation  needed due to no agreement in HOC is "good faith" [a very subjective criteria I would think]. Up to the court I guess whether a discussion of where Brit gov is at wrt starting A50 again afterwards or leaving at some point in the future is allowed as part of any challenge that revocation was not in good faith.

Absolutely any revocation could be argued to be in good faith and argued to be not.

c. once the revocation has been ratified as in good faith by the court, is there anything to stop us deciding to start A50 again?

[localhero1983]

3 hours ago, IMHAL said:

You claim to hold RW values dear and prescribe tough love

1. I would take a sledgehammer to welfare

2. Cut immigration to 10,000's within a year

3. self reliance and less government

4. A more aggressive free market capitalist system

5. Re introduction of the death penalty

6. Pro Poll tax and advocate of ID cards

7. More generous sympathetic welfare for British long term taxpaying nationals.

 

Now you explain what has any of that got to do with Brexit?

[thehowler]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

Kein Deal! Kien Plan! Keine Mahreit fur nix!

No Deal, No Plan, No majority for anything.  That's what I call ...leading the way...we must be the envy of the world by now.

 

That's right, IMHAL, everyone's talking about us.

[Fromage Frais]

13 minutes ago, ebull said:

Agree but ....

"Better" for whom? ?

They both have the same strategy.

Wait for the other side to fracture.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Fromage Frais said:

He cannot compromise

because he cannot state what his position is.

I dont blame him better to wait until the other side splits under the pressure before his does.

Just what is Labour's "a" customs union?  Do the EU know what it means and is there any chance they will invent a new CU for the UK?

Someone from labour was on R4 this morning.  The withdrawal agreement can't be changed now, but the political statement is still up for grabs.  So he maintained that going for "a" customs union and "maintaining close alignment with the single market" are viable options.

I am not so sure.  There is "the customs union" and "the single market".  But there are not bespoke versions of them just for the UK.  I think Labour's position is just fantasy, and the worst of it is the cleverer ones know this full well.  But they still keep spouting it on the BBC, and the BBC give them air time with no close questioning.

[Errol]

EU's Fear of a No-Deal Brexit Stench Is In The Air, but May Won't Seize Upon It

I’ve been in Strasbourg this week and the good news for Brexiteers and Mrs May is that the atmosphere was redolent with fear. Fear of a no deal.

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201901171071562766-eu-no-deal/

[localhero1983]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

JC offered to sit down face-to-face with Maybot four months ago and was rebuffed.

Yep, and I find that an absolute disgrace, am amazed that all the main parties have not been sat around a table at various points in the last two years, even if it probably would have been a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, as much as I think JC would cause ten fold more damage than any  hard Brexit I think the Tories are as big a disgrace. Half decent politics ended with the likes of John Smith and Maggie Thatcher, two ends of decent right and left wing politics where both had views where it does what it says on the tin. Maggie was a cow at times, but she said what she was going to do and did just that, and she told the electorate if you don't like it remove me, Blair ruined that ideology.

[IMHAL]

6 minutes ago, localhero1983 said:

1. I would take a sledgehammer to welfare

2. Cut immigration to 10,000's within a year

3. self reliance and less government

4. A more aggressive free market capitalist system

5. Re introduction of the death penalty

6. Pro Poll tax and advocate of ID cards

7. More generous sympathetic welfare for British long term taxpaying nationals.

 

Now you explain what has any of that got to do with Brexit?

Uhhh??? You brought up your RW values in the context of Brexit.....not me... perhaps you can explain how Brexit will realise some or all of the above.

Anyway, thanks for the list....clearly a RW POV..... so what RW organisation do you belong to......?

[localhero1983]

1 minute ago, IMHAL said:

Uhhh??? You brought up your RW values in the context of Brexit.....not me... perhaps you can explain how Brexit will realise some or all of the above.

Anyway, thanks for the list....clearly a RW POV..... so what RW organisation do you belong to......?

Your the one that keeps probing posters for their "RW values", your the one that keeps suggesting posters belong to "RW groups" with zero evidence, your the one that keeps accusing posters of being racist, again with zero evidence.

Why do you keep asking posters or accusing posters of RW views if you are not bothered, you really are an odd little fellow

[ebull]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

 

It isn't. A50 can only be withdrawn if it is done in good faith and the government is prepared to commit to ongoing membership of the EU (the on exception to this would be making it subject to a future referendum as the ECJ would not interfere with our democratic process).  If the government did what you suggest the EU could reject the A50, stating that the UK government was acting in bad faith and therefore not a credible negotiating partner.   

  

The people on this thread probably know more than average about the impact of no deal. That's how it works the more you know the less you like it.  

So in the circumstance you describe we would leave immediately with no deal right? .... As WE are are not a credible negotiating partner . [LOL after the EU-Barnier joke of the last 2 years].

I am guessing it would end up as a court judged mess. Anyway good that it rules that out as an option.

Your opinion about who knows the most is not one I agree with. ?

Few examples. Do you hold the equivalent to O level language qualification as taken by native speakers in another EU language? Have you lived at least a decade in another EU country? Could you name some tax rules in at least 3 european countries? Have you lived a majority of your adult life outside the UK? Have you resided in several other countries for at least 2-3 years?

Sorry to bust your MSM-inspired idea that all leave votes are some sort of racist ignorant little-Englander.

They are not.

Many people I know who voted leave know plenty and have plenty of experience to draw on. They are however not vocal. One of the problems with the whole situation is the association of leave with the far right. MSM to blame IMO but not only is it inaccurate, it suppresses the voice of leave voters with plenty of knowledge which is sad [amongst other things].

Edited January 17, 2019 by ebull
typo and added word ignorant

[localhero1983]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

Kein Deal! Kien Plan! Keine Mahreit fur nix!

No Deal, No Plan, No majority for anything.  That's what I call ...leading the way...we must be the envy of the world by now.

 

Yes, we are a brilliant country, remain or leave we are the envy of the world, apart from small pockets of dross we could do without.

[IMHAL]

19 minutes ago, localhero1983 said:

Your the one that keeps probing posters for their "RW values", your the one that keeps suggesting posters belong to "RW groups" with zero evidence, your the one that keeps accusing posters of being racist, again with zero evidence.

Why do you keep asking posters or accusing posters of RW views if you are not bothered, you really are an odd little fellow

Well if you do keep on banging about your RW values and tough love, then you are going to get people who are curious to know what they are..... what do you expect? And, of course I am 'bothered' otherwise I would not have asked.

Also, I am curious what RW organisation you belong to....if it's not too much trouble? It's a question - you could say 'I don't belong to any'.....it's not too difficult.

Did I accuse you of being a racist? You have only been here for about 2 minutes, I barely know you.... you need to come clean if there is something on your mind...... either you are being cryptic or you are ridiculously bad at getting to the point. Maybe you should add another point to your list  8 - "cut the crap".

Edited January 17, 2019 by IMHAL

[Fromage Frais]

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Just what is Labour's "a" customs union?  Do the EU know what it means and is there any chance they will invent a new CU for the UK?

Someone from labour was on R4 this morning.  The withdrawal agreement can't be changed now, but the political statement is still up for grabs.  So he maintained that going for "a" customs union and "maintaining close alignment with the single market" are viable options.

I am not so sure.  There is "the customs union" and "the single market".  But there are not bespoke versions of them just for the UK.  I think Labour's position is just fantasy, and the worst of it is the cleverer ones know this full well.  But they still keep spouting it on the BBC, and the BBC give them air time with no close questioning.

He does not have to do anything at all.

He has no position as he is a Brexiter with a party who wants to remain with a good chunk of them second ref die hards.

He wants a GE so to get that he can already see the Grieves of this world starting to go rogue.  

Just sit there dont fall into the trap the lib dems did and prop the tories up.

Wait till the pips squeak and then the temptation of a VONC to stop article 50 maybe too much.

He is cornered in now 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Fromage Frais

[localhero1983]

12 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Well if you do keep on banging about your RW values and tough love, then you are going to get people who are curious to know what they are..... what do you expect? And, of course I am 'bothered' otherwise I would not have asked.

Also, I am curious what RW organisation you belong to....if it's not too much trouble?

Did I accuse you of being a racist? You have only been here for about 2 minutes, I barely know you.... you need to come clean if there is something on your mind...... either you are being cryptic or you are ridiculously bad at getting to the point. Maybe you should add another point to your list  8 - "cut the crap".

You have asked several times after ONE fleeting mention about the RW by me what are my views which as usual I treated with contempt as I do with most of your dross posts. You then get exactly what you want after mentioning it so many times and then fly into a completely odd little rant about "why are you talking about the RW", you really are damaged?

And then again last night or it could have even be this morning you asked yet again another poster the very same thing you have asked countless of other posters including me "what are your RW views, you are obsessed with it.

 

PS   Also never been part of any RW group , as you already know and have been told after again asking several times, but it's irrelevant as you will still ask again and then rant as to why I am going on about it?

Edited January 17, 2019 by localhero1983

[jonb2]

17 hours ago, aheadofthecurve said:

I don't understand your point. I can't be British because I don't agree with the NHS? The NHS is socialism's answer to healthcare. It's an outdated idea no longer suitable for the modern world. Look at any service that is provided on the NHS and you'll see that it has only ever gotten more expensive over the years. Whereas something like Laser eye surgery which is (under most circumstances) not provided on the NHS has only gotten cheaper and more effective. That's what competition and free market pricing can do.

So here's your 'free market' in action. Your Ayn Rand fantasy nirvana.

So privatisation is a good thing is it?

A testament to how well US healthcare works

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/u-s-near-bottom-of-health-index-hong-kong-and-singapore-at-top

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mother-fights-for-lower-insulin-prices-after-sons-tragic-death/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/health/sacklers-purdue-oxycontin-opioids.html

USA has third world poverty, and it's increasing. For most Americans, it's a Hell hole

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/privatizing-poverty-phillips-fein

 

BTW, Ayn Rand died in poverty and was a benefit scrounger

http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html

 

 

 

[cock-eyed octopus]

5 minutes ago, localhero1983 said:

You have asked several times after ONE fleeting mention about the RW by me what are my views which as usual I treated with contempt as I do with most of your dross posts. You then get exactly what you want after mentioning it so many times and then fly into a completely odd little rant about "why are you talking about the RW", you really are damaged?

And then again last night or it could have even be this morning you asked yet again another poster the very same thing you have asked countless of other posters including me "what are your RW views, you are obsessed with it.

 

PS   Also never been part of any RW group , as you already know and have been told after again asking several times, but it's irrelevant as you will still ask again and then rant as to why I am going on about it?

The first time I came across this guy was when I was musing on the analogy of adiabatic & isothermal expansion to explain the effects of immigration. he seemed to be entering into the spirit of the discussion at first, but it rapidly became clear he was trying to paint me as a right wing xenophobe nutjob.

I've tried to avoid him since. I think he's got problems.