BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…12351236123812401241…2110

Comments

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 wrote:
    At the next general election assuming it happened tomorrow we would have the following choices ignoring all other factors than Brexit.

    Tories = No deal with lets sort out the situation afterwards.
    Labour = Broker a deal whilst telling the other party that you intend to put the deal to the people so if they want us to remain they had better make it a bad deal. SM and CU access presuming no future say on regulations, no ability to sign trade deals outside the EU and freedom of movement continuing.
    SNP/LD & Greens = Remain with A50 cancelled.

    I can see how the bottom group get some additional votes. The middle group appear unhinged and it is a big risk voting for them as lets face it when they get their rubbish deal the UK public might stick two fingers up and vote for it for a laugh. I actually think the Tories are onto a winner as crazy as that sounds. It is going to be really hard to sell Labours position to the remainers because it is risky and to the brexiteers as they get all of the downsides and non of the upsides of leaving.

    Who in their right mind would vote for a political party purely on the grounds of Brexit?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Longshot wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    At the next general election assuming it happened tomorrow we would have the following choices ignoring all other factors than Brexit.

    Tories = No deal with lets sort out the situation afterwards.
    Labour = Broker a deal whilst telling the other party that you intend to put the deal to the people so if they want us to remain they had better make it a bad deal. SM and CU access presuming no future say on regulations, no ability to sign trade deals outside the EU and freedom of movement continuing.
    SNP/LD & Greens = Remain with A50 cancelled.

    I can see how the bottom group get some additional votes. The middle group appear unhinged and it is a big risk voting for them as lets face it when they get their rubbish deal the UK public might stick two fingers up and vote for it for a laugh. I actually think the Tories are onto a winner as crazy as that sounds. It is going to be really hard to sell Labours position to the remainers because it is risky and to the brexiteers as they get all of the downsides and non of the upsides of leaving.

    As it stands right now, I would agree in that there is only a cat in hell's chance that the Tories don't win a GE.

    How are you defining victory? how many seats? overall majority?

    I refuse to believe that the average northern Joe is going to switch from Labour to Tory.

    I think Tories will get hammered at the next election, losing seats in London/Scotland and failing to win new ones in Midlands/North.

    Seeing no way out of the hole they could well split.

    Boris and the ERG do not belong in the Coinservative Party and should fvck off.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Slowbike wrote:
    Could it not be the case that the vote for A50 was responded to in good faith - ie that the government would knuckle down to it and get a "good deal" whatever that may be. Over time, it's become apparent that there are some significant sticking points and MPs have changed their minds that A50 was a good idea because basically, there is no "good deal" to be had.

    Not wanting the poisoned chalice may not be a good way for MPs to be - but what other option do they have LDs don't have anywhere near enough MPs - and have been burnt with coalition with the Tories before - so they'll be reluctant to join forces with others to try and form a government anyway. Labour can't decide if they want Brexit or not - anyway they don't want the sort of Brexit that's been negotiated - and nobody will help them get into government even if they did.

    I can see why they didn't do the VONC or GE vote before the proroguing - because it would just run the clock down even further. JC has said - give a fixed date for GE (and an extension) and we'll vote for it.... what he's not prepared to do is say to the Tories - yes, go ahead, organise the next biggest event in UK recent history, but do it when you want ... giving them cart blanch to time it so we "crash out" on the 31st Oct come what may - and the inevitable tory claim "We delivered Brexit as promised" ...

    The only way you'd get me to be PM now (not that I'd want to be ever anyway) would be on the basis that this is all a crock of shoot, we can't decide anything on here - so time to re-question the electorate.

    Then, assuming it's still "Brexit please" (pref with a 2/3rds majority rather than a 50/50 split), form a cross party team to sort out the mess and get it through.
    It sounds simple and it wouldn't be ... but that's the way I'd go ...


    As the status quo at the mo is we've voted Leave, good luck with getting a 2/3 majority to reverse that.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Could it not be the case that the vote for A50 was responded to in good faith - ie that the government would knuckle down to it and get a "good deal" whatever that may be. Over time, it's become apparent that there are some significant sticking points and MPs have changed their minds that A50 was a good idea because basically, there is no "good deal" to be had.

    Not wanting the poisoned chalice may not be a good way for MPs to be - but what other option do they have LDs don't have anywhere near enough MPs - and have been burnt with coalition with the Tories before - so they'll be reluctant to join forces with others to try and form a government anyway. Labour can't decide if they want Brexit or not - anyway they don't want the sort of Brexit that's been negotiated - and nobody will help them get into government even if they did.

    I can see why they didn't do the VONC or GE vote before the proroguing - because it would just run the clock down even further. JC has said - give a fixed date for GE (and an extension) and we'll vote for it.... what he's not prepared to do is say to the Tories - yes, go ahead, organise the next biggest event in UK recent history, but do it when you want ... giving them cart blanch to time it so we "crash out" on the 31st Oct come what may - and the inevitable tory claim "We delivered Brexit as promised" ...

    The only way you'd get me to be PM now (not that I'd want to be ever anyway) would be on the basis that this is all a crock of shoot, we can't decide anything on here - so time to re-question the electorate.

    Then, assuming it's still "Brexit please" (pref with a 2/3rds majority rather than a 50/50 split), form a cross party team to sort out the mess and get it through.
    It sounds simple and it wouldn't be ... but that's the way I'd go ...


    As the status quo at the mo is we've voted Leave, good luck with getting a 2/3 majority to reverse that.
    True ... although it was an advisory ref ... it was only our Parliament that "gold plated it" ... like they do with practically everything that comes their way ...
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    How are you defining victory?

    Winning
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    how many seats? overall majority?

    Dunno. Yes.

    The anti-Tory vote will be split between Labour and LDs. There was a forecast on here someone posted showing a big rise in overall voting for the LDs yet an significant increase in Tory seats. The LDs can't win and Labour have screwed themselves royally. Worst case for Tories is that the Brexit Party take a lot of seats off them and they have to backtrack and do some kind of deal with them.

    I've nearly always voted Tory (sometimes with reservations). I will not vote for the Tories if Boris (or JRM or similar) is in power. I will not vote Labour under any circumstances whilst Corbyn is in power. I probably won't vote Labour anyway. I'd rather die than vote for Farage. So, what does that leave me with? A protest vote. I feel truly represented.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,553
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Longshot wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    At the next general election assuming it happened tomorrow we would have the following choices ignoring all other factors than Brexit.

    Tories = No deal with lets sort out the situation afterwards.
    Labour = Broker a deal whilst telling the other party that you intend to put the deal to the people so if they want us to remain they had better make it a bad deal. SM and CU access presuming no future say on regulations, no ability to sign trade deals outside the EU and freedom of movement continuing.
    SNP/LD & Greens = Remain with A50 cancelled.

    I can see how the bottom group get some additional votes. The middle group appear unhinged and it is a big risk voting for them as lets face it when they get their rubbish deal the UK public might stick two fingers up and vote for it for a laugh. I actually think the Tories are onto a winner as crazy as that sounds. It is going to be really hard to sell Labours position to the remainers because it is risky and to the brexiteers as they get all of the downsides and non of the upsides of leaving.

    As it stands right now, I would agree in that there is only a cat in hell's chance that the Tories don't win a GE.

    How are you defining victory? how many seats? overall majority?

    I refuse to believe that the average northern Joe is going to switch from Labour to Tory.

    I think Tories will get hammered at the next election, losing seats in London/Scotland and failing to win new ones in Midlands/North.

    Seeing no way out of the hole they could well split.

    Boris and the ERG do not belong in the Coinservative Party and should fvck off.

    All Labour need to do is push Johnson past 31/10 without leaving and they know Farage will take votes from him. The question is how many votes he also takes from Labour.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    My bike is currently bent in half so not my problem - maybe they would have syed me from a vicious right hook

    Ouch, I hope you're in better shape than the bike.

    Cheers - shoulder is farked and needs an MRI to figure out what is wrong but overall got off lightly

    How is the shoulder these days? (see post 2780)
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,553
    Longshot wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    How are you defining victory?

    Winning
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    how many seats? overall majority?

    Dunno. Yes.

    The anti-Tory vote will be split between Labour and LDs. There was a forecast on here someone posted showing a big rise in overall voting for the LDs yet an significant increase in Tory seats. The LDs can't win and Labour have screwed themselves royally. Worst case for Tories is that the Brexit Party take a lot of seats off them and they have to backtrack and do some kind of deal with them.

    I've nearly always voted Tory (sometimes with reservations). I will not vote for the Tories if Boris (or JRM or similar) is in power. I will not vote Labour under any circumstances whilst Corbyn is in power. I probably won't vote Labour anyway. I'd rather die than vote for Farage. So, what does that leave me with? A protest vote. I feel truly represented.

    Forecasts from polls well out from an election are not remotely reliable. Look at the polling trackers for 2017 and you can see why May went for it and the big swings that meant she blew it.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Longshot wrote:
    Worst case for Tories is that the Brexit Party take a lot of seats off them and they have to backtrack and do some kind of deal with them.

    Worst case for Tories is Brexit Party taking votes from them in winnable seats.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Anyone post a link to the supreme court judgement where it says bojo lied? Isn't it legally poor to infer something from a judgement rather than it being explicit?

    AIUI the judgement deliberately fell far short of stating boris lied to the queen. It hadn't seen evidence proving that so didn't say it.

    I await correction with a link and quote from the judgement.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Anyone post a link to the supreme court judgement where it says bojo lied? Isn't it legally poor to infer something from a judgement rather than it being explicit?

    AIUI the judgement deliberately fell far short of stating boris lied to the queen. It hadn't seen evidence proving that so didn't say it.

    I await correction with a link and quote from the judgement.

    They upheld the Scottish judgment. That's as close as it got.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Robert88 wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    My bike is currently bent in half so not my problem - maybe they would have syed me from a vicious right hook

    Ouch, I hope you're in better shape than the bike.

    Cheers - shoulder is farked and needs an MRI to figure out what is wrong but overall got off lightly

    How is the shoulder these days? (see post 2780)


    that is random - the shoulder froze and after an attempt to cure that with an injection (never agree to this) I went under the knife and (90%) solved the problem.

    5 figure insurance payout after using Strava to prove a witness was talking sh1t claiming I was going at least 30mph and never braked
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Anyone post a link to the supreme court judgement where it says bojo lied? Isn't it legally poor to infer something from a judgement rather than it being explicit?

    AIUI the judgement deliberately fell far short of stating boris lied to the queen. It hadn't seen evidence proving that so didn't say it.

    I await correction with a link and quote from the judgement.

    They upheld the Scottish judgment. That's as close as it got.
    Did that state in the judgement that he lied to the queen to get prorogation? I'm probably being fussy here but people still state he lied. There's plenty of proven cases of him lying but with the importance of this case i just think it's worth being accurate in such matters. Since it is in the legal arena such matters are likely to have been determined based on evidence.

    Am I being overly fussy in this desire for accuracy? It's not based on defending him, I'm planning to vote against my standing Tory mp at the upcoming GE because he's a party yes man and I want to get Boris out of number 10. As a lifelong Tory voter that's a big deal for me. I just want the record straight.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,553
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Anyone post a link to the supreme court judgement where it says bojo lied? Isn't it legally poor to infer something from a judgement rather than it being explicit?

    AIUI the judgement deliberately fell far short of stating boris lied to the queen. It hadn't seen evidence proving that so didn't say it.

    I await correction with a link and quote from the judgement.

    As previously posted, he didn't need to lie to the Queen as she was obliged to approve on the advice given. They may have told her exactly what the plan was.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    rjsterry wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Anyone post a link to the supreme court judgement where it says bojo lied? Isn't it legally poor to infer something from a judgement rather than it being explicit?

    AIUI the judgement deliberately fell far short of stating boris lied to the queen. It hadn't seen evidence proving that so didn't say it.

    I await correction with a link and quote from the judgement.

    As previously posted, he didn't need to lie to the Queen as she was obliged to approve on the advice given. They may have told her exactly what the plan was.
    so, he either:
    1 lied to the queen or,
    2 told the queen he was lying to parliament and the people.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Anyone post a link to the supreme court judgement where it says bojo lied? Isn't it legally poor to infer something from a judgement rather than it being explicit?

    AIUI the judgement deliberately fell far short of stating boris lied to the queen. It hadn't seen evidence proving that so didn't say it.

    I await correction with a link and quote from the judgement.

    They upheld the Scottish judgment. That's as close as it got.
    Did that state in the judgement that he lied to the queen to get prorogation? I'm probably being fussy here but people still state he lied. There's plenty of proven cases of him lying but with the importance of this case i just think it's worth being accurate in such matters. Since it is in the legal arena such matters are likely to have been determined based on evidence.

    Am I being overly fussy in this desire for accuracy? It's not based on defending him, I'm planning to vote against my standing Tory mp at the upcoming GE because he's a party yes man and I want to get Boris out of number 10. As a lifelong Tory voter that's a big deal for me. I just want the record straight.

    https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/defa ... f?sfvrsn=0

    " I have come to the
    conclusion that the only inference that can properly be drawn on an objective basis is that
    the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, wished to restrict debate in
    Parliament for as long as possible during the period leading up to the European Council
    meeting on 17-18 October and the scheduled date of Britain’s departure from the European
    Union."
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Why split hairs re-the lying?
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Why split hairs re-the lying?

    Boris does not care about being called a liar or exposed as a liar so a bit strange to care on his behalf.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Why split hairs re-the lying?

    Boris does not care about being called a liar or exposed as a liar so a bit strange to care on his behalf.

    Well yes.

    I mean, the guy may not have lied to the Queen (which is only a thing because of how the UK system works) - we'll never know - but he plainly said that the prorogation had nothing to do with brexit, and when it was cancelled, insisted that the cancellation would hurt brexit.

    So plainly in one of those statements he is lying, and we know reasonably which one it is.

    There are any number of lies he has said.

    My question is to people who still think BoJo could come up with a deal - what about his behaviour last night suggests he's trying to get people in parliament ready to swallow his deal? He's made it so personal to too many MPs and incredibly costly for anyone in the opposition to even think of giving him some kind of win.

    It's not like the EU can't see this either. They are worried he's gonna kick off at the summit in October and make a deal *even less likely*, on top of reducing the negotiating team by half and EU saying on multiple occasions that since BoJo's premiership, the negotiations have gone backwards.

    So they are not going to really believe BoJo can get any deal through parliament.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,405
    Pross wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    I thought one of the main pluses of Brexit was to bring back power to parliament?
    I know, waste of typing time. I know...
    But it hasn't happened yet...
    Good indicator of the direction of travel though...
    PS - Boris has only sat in parliament as PM for 7 days.
    Not really.

    Currently parliament is arguing over whether to leave/how to leave. Once we are past this and it is back to 'business as usual' then (assuming we do leave), clearly parliament will be taking more decisions than was the case when some of the decision making was given over to the EU.

    It looks more like the Government want control. They are trying to stop parliament making decisions and openly stating they will ignore doing the things parliament are deciding should be done. What makes you think that if they get their way they will start enacting the decisions of parliament rather than their own agenda?
    That's not my point - it was the general matter of the UK parliament making more decisions post Brexit which I don't think is in dispute. In any event, by time we are back to business as usual, who knows which party/parties will be in government?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    There will be no "business as usual" anymore.

    It will be more and more partisan and hostile for the foreseeable future.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,553
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    I thought one of the main pluses of Brexit was to bring back power to parliament?
    I know, waste of typing time. I know...
    But it hasn't happened yet...
    Good indicator of the direction of travel though...
    PS - Boris has only sat in parliament as PM for 7 days.
    Not really.

    Currently parliament is arguing over whether to leave/how to leave. Once we are past this and it is back to 'business as usual' then (assuming we do leave), clearly parliament will be taking more decisions than was the case when some of the decision making was given over to the EU.

    It looks more like the Government want control. They are trying to stop parliament making decisions and openly stating they will ignore doing the things parliament are deciding should be done. What makes you think that if they get their way they will start enacting the decisions of parliament rather than their own agenda?
    That's not my point - it was the general matter of the UK parliament making more decisions post Brexit which I don't think is in dispute. In any event, by time we are back to business as usual, who knows which party/parties will be in government?

    In what, 5 years?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,405
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    There will be no "business as usual" anymore.

    It will be more and more partisan and hostile for the foreseeable future.
    As mentioned above, at some point this stuff will die down. Foreseeable future maybe, but that's because we don't have a crystal ball.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,405
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    I thought one of the main pluses of Brexit was to bring back power to parliament?
    I know, waste of typing time. I know...
    But it hasn't happened yet...
    Good indicator of the direction of travel though...
    PS - Boris has only sat in parliament as PM for 7 days.
    Not really.

    Currently parliament is arguing over whether to leave/how to leave. Once we are past this and it is back to 'business as usual' then (assuming we do leave), clearly parliament will be taking more decisions than was the case when some of the decision making was given over to the EU.

    It looks more like the Government want control. They are trying to stop parliament making decisions and openly stating they will ignore doing the things parliament are deciding should be done. What makes you think that if they get their way they will start enacting the decisions of parliament rather than their own agenda?
    That's not my point - it was the general matter of the UK parliament making more decisions post Brexit which I don't think is in dispute. In any event, by time we are back to business as usual, who knows which party/parties will be in government?

    In what, 5 years?
    See my post above. Sadly I don't have the budget for a crystal ball.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    If the government had a solid majority, parliament would not be able to make these decisions. Boris is ploughing on as if he was in a strong position when he doesn't have the numbers.

    If PM Swinson leads a coalition with a decent majority, then she won't have the same issues.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,405
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    If PM Swinson leads a coalition with a decent majority, then she won't have the same issues.
    That's a revelation. How do you think she is going to get into that position? (I think Geoffrey Cox alluded to it yesterday...)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Sam Coates quoting someone in government saying the next election "would be one massive campaign of total abuse".

    Great.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    If PM Swinson leads a coalition with a decent majority, then she won't have the same issues.
    That's a revelation. How do you think she is going to get into that position? (I think Geoffrey Cox alluded to it yesterday...)

    "If" was doing the heavy lifting.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,553
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sam Coates quoting someone in government saying the next election "would be one massive campaign of total abuse".

    Great.

    Equally, lots of murmurs of dissent in the ranks. Talk even of attempting to ditch Johnson if he keeps on in this direction.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,405
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    If PM Swinson leads a coalition with a decent majority, then she won't have the same issues.
    That's a revelation. How do you think she is going to get into that position? (I think Geoffrey Cox alluded to it yesterday...)

    "If" was doing the heavy lifting.
    It's pretty obvious that anyone commanding a decent majority won't have these issues, isn't it.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]

Categories