RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Thinking on May as she returns to parliament one might conclude old red eyes is back taking a mother's pride in the idea that after taking a little time she can move from saying I'll sail this ship alone and I hate you to noting of her deal here it is again, it's not merely a song for whoever and I think the answer's yes, the important thing of course is not merely being seen to carry on regardless

That's beautiful - very much a Southern viewpoint, but beautiful nonetheless

I'd intended to reference ten tracks as a nod towards the perfect 10, but now I look at it I can only see nine. This sort of ineptitude seems about par for the course, if I keep this up I could have Grayling's job

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Maybe- though the levels of ignorance about the WA everywhere I look remains surprising. It’s also been obvious for ages that they’d end up deciding between the WA and no Brexit/Brino

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Agreed. JRM is not stupid. He is a slippery, self serving fuck hole. He would love people to think this statement comes out of stupidity rather than one last attempt to thwart any revocation of article 50.

canta_brian wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Agreed. JRM is not stupid. He is a slippery, self serving fuck hole. He would love people to think this statement comes out of stupidity rather than one last attempt to thwart any revocation of article 50.

Either way he's is being stupid tbh. And my comment still stands, loads of people voting on and commenting on the WA don't understand what it is, what it contains, or its purpose.

Banquo wrote:Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit

Didn't Juncker or someone basically go "no backsies" already?

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote:Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit

Didn't Juncker or someone basically go "no backsies" already?

No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote:Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit

Didn't Juncker or someone basically go "no backsies" already?

No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

So we pretty much know what today's options for MPs are then. Not many suggestions have been put in to Bercow to pick his 6ish.


Which gives us:
B - Leave the EU without a deal April 12 - this may not be an option as parliament has already voted to remove it as an option, so on of the "Malthouse Compromise" options may get this spot
F&J - Leave the EU with a customs union
D - Common Market 2.0 / Norway+
G - Revoke article 50

L - Revoke article 50 in the event of a No Deal
M - Any withdrawal agreement must be put to a second referendum

Which we basically knew already; they just needed someone to actually propose them.
Interestingly, absolutely nobody has suggested May's deal.

I quite like option A if he'd included the original referendum, and set the 2/3 majority "rule" for any future constitutional changes / referenda

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/237819
Allow all British citizens to vote should there be a new referendum on Brexit.
When the referendum on leaving the EU took place in 2016, a large number of British Citizens were not allowed to register their vote for a series of reasons laid down by the government. Obviously this matter affects ALL British citizens equally, therefore they should all have an equal right to vote

More details
British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years can’t vote.
I was one of the 700,000 British people denied a vote in the first EU referendum – that's why we need another Brexit vote

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote: Didn't Juncker or someone basically go "no backsies" already?

No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

Mellsblue wrote:Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

I don't see anything there that couldn't be overcome by a fairly basic level of competence (possibly barring the leader of the opposition)

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:
No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

See Labour are once again missing the open goal

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

I don't see anything there that couldn't be overcome by a fairly basic level of competence (possibly barring the leader of the opposition)

Very true, but that doesn’t mean ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

They will moan and wail but, as recent data has proved, freedom of movement isn’t the reason for ‘high’net immigration. As EU migrant numbers have fallen their place has been taken by those from the rest of the world.
Tbh, you can’t really achieve a deep FTA without huge liberalisation of immigration policy anyway. (That May be the red herring you mean!)

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

They will moan and wail but, as recent data has proved, freedom of movement isn’t the reason for ‘high’net immigration. As EU migrant numbers have fallen their place has been taken by those from the rest of the world.
Tbh, you can’t really achieve a deep FTA without huge liberalisation of immigration policy anyway. (That May be the red herring you mean!)

That's why I said its a red herring. Its also a red herring in that previous govts could easily have managed immigration numbers but have chosen not too. But its a red herring that many many leave voters cleave to, irrespective of 'data' and 'experts'.

Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

They will moan and wail but, as recent data has proved, freedom of movement isn’t the reason for ‘high’net immigration. As EU migrant numbers have fallen their place has been taken by those from the rest of the world.
Tbh, you can’t really achieve a deep FTA without huge liberalisation of immigration policy anyway. (That May be the red herring you mean!)

That's why I said its a red herring. Its also a red herring in that previous govts could easily have managed immigration numbers but have chosen not too. But its a red herring that many many leave voters cleave to, irrespective of 'data' and 'experts'.

True, though free movement definitely impinges on that ability.
EFTA does allow for managing numbers but I believe it’s a pretty high bar to clear (no idea on the ins and outs). It’s also a compromise a lot of Brexiteer MP’s can use to climb down/accept as most are on record as saying they don’t see immigration as an issue/high priority. That said, there are quite a few who said leaving the EU didn’t mean leaving the single market. Sadly, for many reasons, May, unsurprisingly, has put ending free movement front and centre.

It really is the perfect storm of a shambles with blame spreading from ardent Remainers to ERG nutters.

All that said, I could’ve just typed FFS and saved myself five mins.

Banquo wrote:Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

Labour now whipping support of specific options. Couldn't make this up.

...is this what conference decided, or is he just making this up?
'LABOUR BREXIT LATEST: Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman explains that the party only supports a referendum on a "damaging Tory Brexit". If Labour takes power, he says, it will negotiate a better Brexit, which won't need a referendum.'

Banquo wrote:Labour now whipping support of specific options. Couldn't make this up.

Shami Chakrabarti was yesterday explaining Labour MPs would be free to vote for the correctly observed options. Which left me wondering what the previous Shami Chakrabarti I remember from Amnesty International would have to say that, I think that Shami would be pouring scorn and derision on this new version of herself