RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:So JRM has been saying today that if parliament tries to block no deal, May should cancel Parliament...

We need to take back control...
Sovereignty of parliament...
Something something throwback

twitchy wrote:The mental gymnastics involved in brexit supporters defending dyson moving to singapore is some thing to behold. At what point will the penny drop? It's just getting embarrassing now.

James Dyson - he may not have invented it, but he's certainly perfected the moral vacuum!

Ian Dunt giving everyone a thoroughly deserved kicking - http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01 ... everywhere

Wherever you look, the same godawful spectacle. People with no imagination, repeating the same ideas which didn't work last time. The same old misplaced fears, about the same old referendum result. The same shocking degree of irresponsibility from Cabinet ministers. It's like watching a video of muddy water swirl down a drain, every hour of every day, for months on end.

Even an election wouldn't sort this out. What would be the Tory policy? May's deal or no-deal? It wouldn't make any difference. You couldn't get her MPs on side for either. So even if she got a majority, which she probably wouldn't, she still couldn't pass her bill. Corbyn's Brexit policy is just as demented as hers, but even more vague. Even if he got a majority, he'd be in the same position. An election solves nothing.

There is no fire escape. We are trapped in unconscionable circumstances by people who were warned that this would happen and did it anyway. The only escape route, and it is a desperate one, is for Cooper's amendment to stretch the time and Grieve's amendment, which hands MPs six government-free days in the Commons, to sort out what they're going to do. But even this basic, uncontroversial, bog-standard initiative is being sabotaged by government ministers, the Labour front bench, and MPs' own petrified, self-interested inadequacies.

What an abysmal godforsaken shower. They really don't have a single thing to recommend them.

To be fair to Mark Francois he has brought a new idea to the party.

Mellsblue wrote:To be fair to Mark Francois he has brought a new idea to the party.

Is he the one who looks like a fat Penfold?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:To be fair to Mark Francois he has brought a new idea to the party.

Is he the one who looks like a fat Penfold?

Ha, yes it is!! Brilliant comparison. Given his outburst on TV, I’d imagine Penfold will not be happy with the comparison.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: You are conflating separate issues. At its most basic, the principal issue is one of national sovereignty. The UK is withdrawing from the EU simply by sticking an article 50 notice in and leaving. Scotland cannot withdraw from the UK by giving notice to the Act of Union. Once this basic issue is resolved, the other things like who Scotland enters a trade partnership with, or which economic/political unions it joins/leaves can be discussed and voted on by the Scottish people. In the meantime Scots just have to suck it up and do what the English decide.

Independence for Yorkshire, cos we have to suck up what everyone else decides. Also, independence for the south-east as they subsidise everybody else. Finally, independence for every region because they either have to suck up decisions made by everyone else - whilst actually getting most of what they want - or subsidise everyone else. It’ll be the biggly-est, most stable genius independence policy ever.

Typical English arrogance, belittling the Scottish nation by comparing them to Yorkshire. Not so different to Putin saying that Ukraine isn't a real country.

It’s a matter for the people of Yorkshire to come to terms with. I really couldn’t care less one way or the other. If there is a significant proportion of the people of Yorkshire who feel that way, then they can deal with it in the way they see fit.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:To be fair to Mark Francois he has brought a new idea to the party.

Is he the one who looks like a fat Penfold?

Ha, yes it is!! Brilliant comparison. Given his outburst on TV, I’d imagine Penfold will not be happy with the comparison.

I feel bad now, for Penfold, I can't imagine anyone feeling bad for Francois

Digby wrote:Still no confirmation article 50 is getting delayed, and as I understand for a while now if today (or for a while) we accepted no deal or voted to accept May's deal we wouldn't have time for parliament to vote all the necessary legislation anyway. So either they might as well admit we have to change the time remaining or we have to accept parliament would have to vote on hundreds of items without ever looking at them and certainly without debate or amendment

Maybe they'd get it done with vast use of the sunset clause? But given the process would anyone trust the executive wouldn't slip in god only know what?

The government are still refusing to schedule the required primary legislation for no deal or May's deal and all the statutory instruments required. Whether because they're worried about more defeats or all the amendments they suspect would be attached they're simply not confirming in public

But how the feck is this supposed to happen if we can't even bring legislation before the house never mind pass it?

By any reasonable measure this is gross professional misconduct by the government, there are people building dams in Brazil with more competence than this

May is spinning in circles, and looking less likely to succeed than Don Quixote

Corbyn is criticising May for not listening to others whilst refusing to acknowledge one of his own MPs, probably because he knows full well she's going to tell him the Labour party MPs and members support a 2nd referendum, and Corbyn has been very clear that he doesn't want to listen to anyone who doesn't agree him.

Painful to watch. Both leaders are completely out of their depth. Parliament was an embarrassment at times this afternoon.

Think we ought to give WTO terms a bit more of focus. So it seems that we can either;

a) Impose 0% tariffs all around, which is what JRM has been advocating. This would indeed reduce prices of imported goods, but at the same time, ruin our economy by giving us a massive trade deficit.

or

b) Impose tariffs all around, which will mean that a lot of imported goods will substantially increase in price.

Obviously both are shit options. We should be staying well away from WTO terms of trade as much as possible.

Am I right in summarising the Brady amendment as basically rejecting the Irish backstop and sending May off to go get "something else" agreed with the EU? "Something else" remains completely unspecified, and the EU have already said, and been quite consistent about, that they're not interested in any deal than doesn't include the backstop or something functionally equivalent.

So, basically, May has managed to unite the Tories and DUP behind her going off to Brussels to get something that we already know we can't get, knowing full well that the whole mission is doomed from the start and it's just going to waste time.

She really is a consummate master of kicking the can down the road and dealing with problems tomorrow, isn't she?

Puja

That is pretty much what the amendment says, I believe. The EU have constantly asked what it is we want and we’ve finally got something through parliament so we can tell them. Obviously, it would’ve been just a little bit more useful to have done it a couple of months ago but we’re there now. Let’s see what happens in Brussels/Paris/Berlin/Dublin. Their united front over the border is slightly less united than it was a fortnight ago; though, obviously, a cagillion times more united than the school playground at Westminster.

Puja wrote: She really is a consummate master of kicking the can down the road and dealing with problems tomorrow, isn't she?

Puja

A] yes
B] no
She's had plenty of tomorrow's, and is yet to deal with 1 single problem

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote: She really is a consummate master of kicking the can down the road and dealing with problems tomorrow, isn't she?

Puja

A] yes
B] no
She's had plenty of tomorrow's, and is yet to deal with 1 single problem

Sorry, meant to say "pushing things away to be tomorrow's problem". Agreed that she has yet to deal with anything, but at some point, you just have to stand back and admire the mastery of the art of procrastination. I've seen 3rd year uni students less adept.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:That is pretty much what the amendment says, I believe. The EU have constantly asked what it is we want and we’ve finally got something through parliament so we can tell them. Obviously, it would’ve been just a little bit more useful to have done it a couple of months ago but we’re there now. Let’s see what happens in Brussels/Paris/Berlin/Dublin. Their united front over the border is slightly less united than it was a fortnight ago; though, obviously, a cagillion times more united than the school playground at Westminster.

The thing that amuses is that we still can't say what it is we want. All we've achieved today is a knowledge that Parliament apparently wants "Not That."

Puja

What I said, but better written: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01 ... nst-realit

Puja

I would do anything to leave.
Yes I would do anything to leave.
I would do anything to leave.
But I won't do that.
No I won't do that.

Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

Shit man, try the view from across the pond if you want useless and unreliable.

morepork wrote:Shit man, try the view from across the pond if you want useless and unreliable.

That pretty much sums up Brexit so far, no chance of rainbows and unicorns, no chance even of going back before brexit started to unleash its damage, but don't worry because things could be much worse

fivepointer wrote:Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja