RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:I just don't know what May is hoping to accomplish.

I doubt she does either.

Olly Robbins is running the show

Puja wrote:I just don't know what May is hoping to accomplish.

Nobody ever did, including himself. He's got a lot better this season though - unlike our PM who's decided that the best way out of a hole is to keep digging downwards.

It's frustrating what May's doing but it's getting hard to see how it doesn't work given the MPs keep passing up opportunities to deny no deal and/or take control for parliament

The choice between no deal and May's deal is depressing in the extreme but there’s only one possible choice if MPs let it get that far

Ian Dunt on excellent form - http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/02 ... -comes-tum

"There is really no government. It exists only on a formal level. As a functioning entity, it has ceased to exist. Its deal was demolished. Its negotiating mandate, which never had any content anyway, was rejected. It is a wisp of smoke, a lingering smell from somebody dreadful who already left the room.

Now, finally, MPs have to take back control. The fact that this even needs saying, that it did not happen weeks ago, should be a source of eternal shame to this parliament. But even if they did not have the spine then, they must discover it now.

This is where myth-making and fairytales get you: precisely nowhere. We need a concrete, meaningful plan to stave off disaster, with a firm and realistic timetable. That begins with a mechanism - not a principle, a mechanism - for extending Article 50. If they don't secure that soon, we're all going the way of the government"

Puja wrote:

cashead wrote:Oh, and Theresa May lost the motion to approach the EU to renegotiate their exit, 303 to 258. Some outlets say it's a blow to her credibility and authority. Funny, I didn't realise she had any of either left.

This bit is the best bit from the BBC article: "Downing Street blamed Mr Corbyn for the defeat, saying he had "yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest" by voting against the government's motion."

How dare the opposition vote against a motion endorsing the government's policy when they oppose it! It's just partisan considerations!

I just don't know what May is hoping to accomplish. Her plan doesn't have a majority by a long distance, but her only idea is to keep pushing it and hope enough people decide, "Fuck it, at least it's not no deal," before the deadline comes.

Puja

Labour don't oppose the policy though; and the backstop agreement is pretty much their exit scenario. They may have other ideas- unworkable and a bit unicorny- on how to do it, but they are committed to a leave policy, even in an election scenario.

May's plan is exactly as you describe. There is no form of Withdrawal Agreement that can command a straightforward majority from the Tories/DUP alone, except maybe a time limit on the backstop, which is what she is trying to get.

Leaving is fcking stupid, but since Labour dare not oppose it (and in Corbyn and McDonnell's case welcome it) for fear of an even worse collapse in popularity, there is little to no chance of stopping it now; the Withdrawal Agreement is the only thing that will stop a no deal disaster on 29th March, unless some extension is somehow enacted (and the EU would have to agree; parliament has also opposed this once already), or a revocation of A50 (unlikely, I'd say).......so her strategy IS running down the clock. Frankly, there are worse options than kicking the can down the road a bit more, which is what the WA does. Tragic mess though, and a metaphor for how aimless and rudderless we are as country.

fivepointer wrote:Ian Dunt on excellent form - http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/02 ... -comes-tum

"There is really no government. It exists only on a formal level. As a functioning entity, it has ceased to exist. Its deal was demolished. Its negotiating mandate, which never had any content anyway, was rejected. It is a wisp of smoke, a lingering smell from somebody dreadful who already left the room.

Now, finally, MPs have to take back control. The fact that this even needs saying, that it did not happen weeks ago, should be a source of eternal shame to this parliament. But even if they did not have the spine then, they must discover it now.

This is where myth-making and fairytales get you: precisely nowhere. We need a concrete, meaningful plan to stave off disaster, with a firm and realistic timetable. That begins with a mechanism - not a principle, a mechanism - for extending Article 50. If they don't secure that soon, we're all going the way of the government"

Its a fairytale in its own right though. For a start, the MPs are utterly divided between Remain and Leave, and subdivisions between them. Within that, there is an utter lack of intellect and leadership ability. To rely on parliament is kind of an admission that we are fckd...ergo, we are. There was a start of a mechanism for extending A50, which in any case needs the EU's consent- so no control there- and this has already been rejected. My big problem is that most of the talking heads and soundbites out of Westminster demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of process in and out of parliament, a lack of understanding of what the WA represents or its content, a lack of understanding of MPs roles as legislators, and a complete lack of brainpower. Idiots everywhere you look, left and right.

Digby wrote:It's frustrating what May's doing but it's getting hard to see how it doesn't work given the MPs keep passing up opportunities to deny no deal and/or take control for parliament

The choice between no deal and May's deal is depressing in the extreme but there’s only one possible choice if MPs let it get that far

Correct. Though May's 'deal' isn't really a deal- it does protect a lot of 'stuff' til dec 2020 and beyond- but really an agreement to try and agree something on trade before that date.

Just come across this: Inside Europe: Ten years of turmoil

Anyone seen it?

They’ve been struggling, in various guises, for years. Unfortunately, Brexit is just a convenient excuse for a number of failing and struggling companies at the moment, and, in this case, is one of a number of factors, as set out in the body of the article once you get past the headline.
Ironically, the EU Commision setout the plan for continued flights on Friday.

Mellsblue wrote:They’ve been struggling, in various guises, for years. Unfortunately, Brexit is just a convenient excuse for a number of failing and struggling companies at the moment, and, in this case, is one of a number of factors, as set out in the body of the article once you get past the headline.
Ironically, the EU Commision setout the plan for continued flights on Friday.

Yeah, any airline that goes under now will blame brexit when it's their mismanagement that caused it.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:They’ve been struggling, in various guises, for years. Unfortunately, Brexit is just a convenient excuse for a number of failing and struggling companies at the moment, and, in this case, is one of a number of factors, as set out in the body of the article once you get past the headline.
Ironically, the EU Commision setout the plan for continued flights on Friday.

Yeah, any airline that goes under now will blame brexit when it's their mismanagement that caused it.

It's not wholly an unfair part of their struggles. We have sort of similar problems in a different field, and trying to secure long term plans/deals in or involving Europe is bloody problematic when you don't know what the situation specifically will be

Brexit is more than a convenient excuse

There was a chap on the radio earlier who manufactures high end beds (mattresses) and an important part of his supply chain is horse hair coming out of South America, but he's got issues with brexit as the hair is shipped to Switzerland and then treated and made into ropes before coming by road to his workshop

It nicely illustrates just how global and connected supply chains are, and in his instance he's spent a fortune stockpiling materials so he knows his workers will be able to carry on production should transport become a problem. And that latter nicely illustrates what will emerge as still further drop in production rates with a focus on stockpiling and associated costs therein rather than investment and employment, as that plays out across the economy it'll represent huge losses and huge lost opportunities

The leave lunatics deserve hell for saying we had this idea without any idea how to actually do it and now it's for society to fix, as I don't believe in a literal hell I'll have to settle for a metaphorical one. And if I do encounter one of the bastards on fire I'll not be wasting any piss looking to help them out

Digby wrote:There was a chap on the radio earlier who manufactures high end beds (mattresses) and an important part of his supply chain is horse hair coming out of South America, but he's got issues with brexit as the hair is shipped to Switzerland and then treated and made into ropes before coming by road to his workshop

It nicely illustrates just how global and connected supply chains are, and in his instance he's spent a fortune stockpiling materials so he knows his workers will be able to carry on production should transport become a problem. And that latter nicely illustrates what will emerge as still further drop in production rates with a focus on stockpiling and associated costs therein rather than investment and employment, as that plays out across the economy it'll represent huge losses and huge lost opportunities

The leave lunatics deserve hell for saying we had this idea without any idea how to actually do it and now it's for society to fix, as I don't believe in a literal hell I'll have to settle for a metaphorical one. And if I do encounter one of the bastards on fire I'll not be wasting any piss looking to help them out

No they simply don’t get it. What’s really sad is that those poor mugs who got conned into voting for this daft venture will be the ones who get burnt the most.

Their argument will be that someone in Britain can do what the Swiss company currently does, but this takes time.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:They’ve been struggling, in various guises, for years. Unfortunately, Brexit is just a convenient excuse for a number of failing and struggling companies at the moment, and, in this case, is one of a number of factors, as set out in the body of the article once you get past the headline.
Ironically, the EU Commision setout the plan for continued flights on Friday.

Yeah, any airline that goes under now will blame brexit when it's their mismanagement that caused it.

It could well be the final straw for a lot of companies, although some will use it as the primary excuse.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:They’ve been struggling, in various guises, for years. Unfortunately, Brexit is just a convenient excuse for a number of failing and struggling companies at the moment, and, in this case, is one of a number of factors, as set out in the body of the article once you get past the headline.
Ironically, the EU Commision setout the plan for continued flights on Friday.

Yeah, any airline that goes under now will blame brexit when it's their mismanagement that caused it.

It could well be the final straw for a lot of companies, although some will use it as the primary excuse.

It of course doesn’t help, but the headline blames Brexit and it’s been used for all sorts things. John Lewis tried to blame Brexit despite consumer spending holding up. Everyone tried to blame Brexit for Nissan not opening their new production plant when it was just that the market for diesels has contracted.
It is being used as a convenient excuse for troubles elsewhere.

Can anyone explain why the withdrawal agreement is so universally despised? I get that confirmed remainers don't want to hear anything that isn't a second referendum/revoke A50; I think leaving the EU is looney tunes, but can't see any way of avoiding it now, and I don't want no deal, obviously. However, only about 10% of the population have any truck with the WA, which is frankly pretty anodyne- it preserves much of what people like at the moment, and gives at least until Dec 2020 to stop a drive over a cliff. The backstop, which is essentially Labours policy, is clearly temporary for the EU, as its a marginally better deal for us.

So, assuming we have to leave, what is it that so offends people about the WA (and I don't mean the ERG and DUP loonies). I must be missing summat.

Banquo wrote:Can anyone explain why the withdrawal agreement is so universally despised? I get that confirmed remainers don't want to hear anything that isn't a second referendum/revoke A50; I think leaving the EU is looney tunes, but can't see any way of avoiding it now, and I don't want no deal, obviously. However, only about 10% of the population have any truck with the WA, which is frankly pretty anodyne- it preserves much of what people like at the moment, and gives at least until Dec 2020 to stop a drive over a cliff. The backstop, which is essentially Labours policy, is clearly temporary for the EU, as its a marginally better deal for us.

So, assuming we have to leave, what is it that so offends people about the WA (and I don't mean the ERG and DUP loonies). I must be missing summat.

Because the loons want a clean break, the sensible brexiteers want common access, and the WA does neither.

It's avoiding the big red lines of everyone. It's a terrible idea built upon the idea of May trying to accommodate 2 completely opposing views that are not compatible.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Can anyone explain why the withdrawal agreement is so universally despised? I get that confirmed remainers don't want to hear anything that isn't a second referendum/revoke A50; I think leaving the EU is looney tunes, but can't see any way of avoiding it now, and I don't want no deal, obviously. However, only about 10% of the population have any truck with the WA, which is frankly pretty anodyne- it preserves much of what people like at the moment, and gives at least until Dec 2020 to stop a drive over a cliff. The backstop, which is essentially Labours policy, is clearly temporary for the EU, as its a marginally better deal for us.

So, assuming we have to leave, what is it that so offends people about the WA (and I don't mean the ERG and DUP loonies). I must be missing summat.

Because the loons want a clean break, the sensible brexiteers want common access, and the WA does neither.

It's avoiding the big red lines of everyone. It's a terrible idea built upon the idea of May trying to accommodate 2 completely opposing views that are not compatible.

So what do you think a withdrawal agreement could contain- I'm intrigued, because arch remainer Ken Clarke said it was as good an agreement as you could get in the circumstances; my understanding is that nothing around trade deals is set in stone in the agreement, all it does is transcribe various technical bits and pieces into UK law, carry on as we are more or less until the big issues are sorted through the transition period. What have you read that contradict that?
Fact is, you can't leave the EU and expect to have the same customs or access arrangements, as they carry the same conditions of contribution, free movement, obedience to EU regulations, and only EU trade deals.

The whole thing is pointless though! Frankly, as you kind of point out, the negotiation was always paradoxical- Schrodingers Brexit made me laugh

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Can anyone explain why the withdrawal agreement is so universally despised? I get that confirmed remainers don't want to hear anything that isn't a second referendum/revoke A50; I think leaving the EU is looney tunes, but can't see any way of avoiding it now, and I don't want no deal, obviously. However, only about 10% of the population have any truck with the WA, which is frankly pretty anodyne- it preserves much of what people like at the moment, and gives at least until Dec 2020 to stop a drive over a cliff. The backstop, which is essentially Labours policy, is clearly temporary for the EU, as its a marginally better deal for us.

So, assuming we have to leave, what is it that so offends people about the WA (and I don't mean the ERG and DUP loonies). I must be missing summat.

Because the loons want a clean break, the sensible brexiteers want common access, and the WA does neither.

It's avoiding the big red lines of everyone. It's a terrible idea built upon the idea of May trying to accommodate 2 completely opposing views that are not compatible.

So what do you think a withdrawal agreement could contain- I'm intrigued, because arch remainer Ken Clarke said it was as good an agreement as you could get in the circumstances; my understanding is that nothing around trade deals is set in stone in the agreement, all it does is transcribe various technical bits and pieces into UK law, carry on as we are more or less until the big issues are sorted through the transition period. What have you read that contradict that?
Fact is, you can't leave the EU and expect to have the same customs or access arrangements, as they carry the same conditions of contribution, free movement, obedience to EU regulations, and only EU trade deals.

The whole thing is pointless though!

Free movement! About 30% want 0 movement and 60% want 100% movement. May's deal does neither. The only sensible solution is to say we fucked up, there's no brexit.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Because the loons want a clean break, the sensible brexiteers want common access, and the WA does neither.

It's avoiding the big red lines of everyone. It's a terrible idea built upon the idea of May trying to accommodate 2 completely opposing views that are not compatible.

So what do you think a withdrawal agreement could contain- I'm intrigued, because arch remainer Ken Clarke said it was as good an agreement as you could get in the circumstances; my understanding is that nothing around trade deals is set in stone in the agreement, all it does is transcribe various technical bits and pieces into UK law, carry on as we are more or less until the big issues are sorted through the transition period. What have you read that contradict that?
Fact is, you can't leave the EU and expect to have the same customs or access arrangements, as they carry the same conditions of contribution, free movement, obedience to EU regulations, and only EU trade deals.

The whole thing is pointless though!

Free movement! About 30% want 0 movement and 60% want 100% movement. May's deal does neither. The only sensible solution is to say we fucked up, there's no brexit.

Not sure, unfortunately it was free movement that triggered the big turnout. I agree with the latter, but can't see it being stopped- ironically, the best bet for stopping it is the ERG/DUP continuing to vote down the WA....I don't think parliament will allow a no deal.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:
So what do you think a withdrawal agreement could contain- I'm intrigued, because arch remainer Ken Clarke said it was as good an agreement as you could get in the circumstances; my understanding is that nothing around trade deals is set in stone in the agreement, all it does is transcribe various technical bits and pieces into UK law, carry on as we are more or less until the big issues are sorted through the transition period. What have you read that contradict that?
Fact is, you can't leave the EU and expect to have the same customs or access arrangements, as they carry the same conditions of contribution, free movement, obedience to EU regulations, and only EU trade deals.

The whole thing is pointless though!

Free movement! About 30% want 0 movement and 60% want 100% movement. May's deal does neither. The only sensible solution is to say we fucked up, there's no brexit.

Not sure, unfortunately it was free movement that triggered the big turnout. I agree with the latter, but can't see it being stopped- ironically, the best bet for stopping it is the ERG/DUP continuing to vote down the WA....I don't think parliament will allow a no deal.

Sorry, I meant MPs.

But even the population. The problem is a very small amount of people want a half in half out solution. The vast, vast majority want either fully out or free movement/fully in.

So Any WA was going to be hard to pass. There's just no support for any kind of deal. They want in or out, not anything in the middle.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Free movement! About 30% want 0 movement and 60% want 100% movement. May's deal does neither. The only sensible solution is to say we fucked up, there's no brexit.

Not sure, unfortunately it was free movement that triggered the big turnout. I agree with the latter, but can't see it being stopped- ironically, the best bet for stopping it is the ERG/DUP continuing to vote down the WA....I don't think parliament will allow a no deal.

Sorry, I meant MPs.

But even the population. The problem is a very small amount of people want a half in half out solution. The vast, vast majority want either fully out or free movement/fully in.

So Any WA was going to be hard to pass. There's just no support for any kind of deal. They want in or out, not anything in the middle.

well if you have to choose between no freedom of movement or no deal (which has no freedom of movement), what do you do? The WA does give you fully out, eventually .

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Not sure, unfortunately it was free movement that triggered the big turnout. I agree with the latter, but can't see it being stopped- ironically, the best bet for stopping it is the ERG/DUP continuing to vote down the WA....I don't think parliament will allow a no deal.

Sorry, I meant MPs.

But even the population. The problem is a very small amount of people want a half in half out solution. The vast, vast majority want either fully out or free movement/fully in.

So Any WA was going to be hard to pass. There's just no support for any kind of deal. They want in or out, not anything in the middle.

well if you have to choose between no freedom of movement or no deal (which has no freedom of movement), what do you do? The WA does give you fully out, eventually .

Well, that's why May's done what she's done... But it doesn't stop the fact it's something literally no-one wants...

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Sorry, I meant MPs.

But even the population. The problem is a very small amount of people want a half in half out solution. The vast, vast majority want either fully out or free movement/fully in.

So Any WA was going to be hard to pass. There's just no support for any kind of deal. They want in or out, not anything in the middle.

well if you have to choose between no freedom of movement or no deal (which has no freedom of movement), what do you do? The WA does give you fully out, eventually .

Well, that's why May's done what she's done... But it doesn't stop the fact it's something literally no-one wants...

I don’t think that’s true; I think literally a handful understand what the WA is; as literally no one who wants no deal (wto will be fine wtaf !!!) can understand what that means. What we have here is no one listening to any other point of view and thus not understanding.