Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
For not coming straight out for a referendum presumably?

I'm not sure those expecting him to do as such have really thought this through. Same as when loads of you demanded he did a VONC before Mays deal was even voted on, yeah that would have gone well wouldn't it.

I want this and he's not doing what i want is what I'm mainly hearing. If he'd come out before Mays vote for a referendum as some suggested Mays deal would probably have passed.
You're right, those folk that said he was "playing a blinder" by calling a confidence vote on the PM instead were far closer to the money.

I mean, we've only lost a month out of three and got exactly the same result, what's not to love.
 
So the immigration authorities in Portugal will benefit at the expense of the tour operators and hotel owners in Portugal.

That will mostly happen. And the sad part is that they have "the law" behind them. The money will probably end in some offshore.

I guess the same will happen in UK, and mainly London which is one of the most touristic cities in the world, or do UK authorities will not charge the 65 pounds (if my memory serves me right) of visa costs?
 
755.png
714.png


Corbyn's such a prat that I'm starting to agree with May
 
He's playing a pretty poor hand incredibly badly... Will be interesting to see the next round of polling

Any Leader of the Opposition with some character, intelligence, leadership and charisma would have slaughtered the government but at the moment he looks more incompetent and more likely to be replaced than a PM who has lost a vote by 230. Incredible. How the hell does he think he's going to gain votes even if there were an election?
 
I actually dont think O'Brien came across very well in that interview. I completely understand why he adopted the attitude he did but I wish he had tried to be a bit more constructive.

I don't think a presenter is there to be constructive. He's there to extract the truth.
 
Yep, we could veto long term budgets, but annual budgets can be passed with a qualified majority.

If we were playing hardball with the EU the approach now would be:
1. Formally revoke A50
2. State publicly that we consider May’s deal to be the opening Brexit offer and need for renegotiation
3. The EU will state that the deal cannot be renogtiated, and certainly not without A50 being triggered
4. We generally cause mayhem inside the EU, vetoing budgets and such, until they agree to renegotiate the deal, ahead of us retriggering A50 without the 2 year no-deal deadline gun to our head.

It would probably all end up back at the ECJ, who would side with the rest of the EU that Britain is behaving unlawfully. Or the rest of the EU would gang up to pass legislation that screws Britain, for example in the financial sector.

that will help Britain's reputation with the rest of the world wouldn't it?
 
You're right, those folk that said he was "playing a blinder" by calling a confidence vote on the PM instead were far closer to the money.

I mean, we've only lost a month out of three and got exactly the same result, what's not to love.

I don't think anyone said that, it was always doomed to fail but he had no choice it was dictated my membership and am opposition who didn't table a VONC after that defeat would be a shambles.

My point stands, people have strong opinions (that i share) on the direction but they completely overlook any negative consequences. It would have been detrimental to push a referendum a month or 6 months ago as it needed and still does need to come from a place of desperation rather than plotting.

The last thing any remainer should want is pushing Tories into supporting Mays deal. Ideally the push towards a referendum is Tory led so they don't have to be seen to side with Corbyn.
 
Corbyn is a chancer who talks a good game, but that is all. He is in this for himself and bugger the people.
You might want to pause the Bill Hicks video your watching.


For decades Corbyn has had literally no power in the Labour Party, he did'nt even want to run for leadership in 2015, in fact he had to be forced by the rest of the labour left. Under his leadership it's easier to deselect MPs e.g. people like him. Not to mentioned the personal abuse all MP get from the public and the press(Worth mentioning for the millionth time that a far right thug who drove into a crowd of Muslims literally said he was hoping that Khan and Corbyn would have there)
 
Out of pure curiosity, I would like to see that one. You will never get a trade deal or any sort of deal though simply because you'll be considered as highly untrustworthy which is key; the interesting part is how the 27 would wiggle out of it.

What I think would happen is that they would take most decisions as a qualified majority, further isolating the UK out.
 
Any Leader of the Opposition with some character, intelligence, leadership and charisma would have slaughtered the government but at the moment he looks more incompetent and more likely to be replaced than a PM who has lost a vote by 230. Incredible. How the hell does he think he's going to gain votes even if there were an election?
Hard to disagree with any of that.

Think he's banking on people disliking May and the Tories rather than actually preferring him.
 
Yep, we could veto long term budgets, but annual budgets can be passed with a qualified majority.

If we were playing hardball with the EU the approach now would be:
1. Formally revoke A50
2. State publicly that we consider May’s deal to be the opening Brexit offer and need for renegotiation
3. The EU will state that the deal cannot be renogtiated, and certainly not without A50 being triggered
4. We generally cause mayhem inside the EU, vetoing budgets and such, until they agree to renegotiate the deal, ahead of us retriggering A50 without the 2 year no-deal deadline gun to our head.

It would probably all end up back at the ECJ, who would side with the rest of the EU that Britain is behaving unlawfully. Or the rest of the EU would gang up to pass legislation that screws Britain, for example in the financial sector.
Most likely the EU will make some unofficial rules and just ignore UK. It is 5 times bigger than UK, they hold all the cards. Doing those things will only make UK looking like a banana republic.
 
What I think would happen is that they would take most decisions as a qualified majority, further isolating the UK out.

That's how the budget is voted anyway, qualified majority in the EU council and simple majority in the parliament. As far as I can tell, and I just checked, there are no veto during the procedure, so it wouldn't be an "official" stance, though obviously if a country publicly say that they veto something, the others will take note and you can't really force anyone to ultimately send the money.
 
No one can blame Jeremy and his Brexit policy to appease his racist base at any cost. It wasn’t like he promised anyone new politics or anything like that.

On the bright side the younger voters who backed Corbyn got to see him almost immediately pursue a Brexit policy that is completely at odds with their best interests. The sense of apathy and helplessnes this creates will serve them well as they spend the rest of their lives toiling in the Tories' underground sugar caves.
 
that will help Britain's reputation with the rest of the world wouldn't it?
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn’t seriously suggesting this would be a good or realistic idea. Just that it would be technically possible, if we wanted to be utter cnuts about it.
 
That's how the budget is voted anyway, qualified majority in the EU council and simple majority in the parliament. As far as I can tell, and I just checked, there are no veto during the procedure, so it wouldn't be an "official" stance, though obviously if a country publicly say that they veto something, the others will take note and you can't really force anyone to ultimately send the money.
That’s not quite right, as I understand it.

Long term budgets have to pass the EU Council unianimaously. In fact, Cameron once threatened to veto the budget: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKBRE89604720121007

It set off thinking in the EU about how to operate on annual budgets, which can be passed on qualified majorities, even if very far from ideal from a practical point of view. https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu...ys-to-bypass-britain-s-eu-budget-veto-threat/
 
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn’t seriously suggesting this would be a good or realistic idea. Just that it would be technically possible, if we wanted to be utter cnuts about it.

No worries mate. Honestly I thought of that option myself. However, it wouldn't really work. First of all the ECJ had made it clear that revocation of article 50 will need to be done in good faith + in line of the country's constitution. If the UK play dirty then the EU will wiggle out of it through either the former or through the latter (the UK has no constitution). Secondly what would happen is that the UK would piss off everybody which means that the UK risks to be punished under Article 7. Finally businesses would be absolutely terrified by the UK threatening an entire continent. If the UK can put a gun at Europe's head then imagine what they can do to them.
 
Good news that come with Brexit:
- Portugal airports are considering to hire a lot of people for visa checking. A Visa in Portugal costs 60 to 95€ and local authorities expect to make about 20M€ in Visas fees during a year if UK tourist flux remians the same.

You guys are going to pay more for a Visa than for a Ryanair flight when travelling to Algarve :lol:

Do you know how this would affect someone like myself?

I have a property in Portugal, Portuguese bank account, fiscal no etc but no citizenship as the property isn't worth over 500,000 euros.

If this god forbid does happen, do I pay the same tourist visa charge or are there concessions/exclusions for a property owner.
 
I am pleased that you are feeling so positive.
This sort of snarky comment is part of the problem I have with Leave voters. No solutions, just an incredibly naive and/or arrogant opinion of "oh we'll be fine, get on with it".

Utterly useless drivel.
 
Like a game of pass the bomb between Labour and Conservatives now.

The bomb being No Deal or No Brexit. Be the one holding the bomb when it goes off and that's you and party done for.

Corbyn quite content to leave the Conservatives holding the bomb knowing it plays into his 'look at what the Conservative-elite have done now'.

Conservatives going in hard on Corbyn and Co's socialist-vision in order to paint them as Brexit saboteurs. The invite to cross-party talks is essentially an invite to help diffuse the bomb, all whilst knowing that if it does go off, both parties are badly wounded.
 
That’s not quite right, as I understand it.

Long term budgets have to pass the EU Council unianimaously. In fact, Cameron once threatened to veto the budget: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKBRE89604720121007

It set off thinking in the EU about how to operate on annual budgets, which can be passed on qualified majorities, even if very far from ideal from a practical point of view. https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu...ys-to-bypass-britain-s-eu-budget-veto-threat/

There are no vetoes on the budget, the only time where unanimity is needed is regarding the adoption of its legal framework but even then:

Paragraph 4, Art.312 of the TFEU:

4. Where no Council regulation determining a new financial framework has been adopted by the end of the previous financial framework, the ceilings and other provisions corresponding to the last year of that framework shall be extended until such time as that act is adopted.

Then on the actual budget:

Art.314 of the TFEU
The Conciliation Committee, which shall be composed of the members of the Council or their representatives and an equal number of members representing the European Parliament, shall have the task of reaching agreement on a joint text, by a qualified majority of the members of the Council or their representatives and by a majority of the representatives of the European Parliament within twenty-one days of its being convened, on the basis of the positions of the European Parliament and the Council.

Art.315 of the TFEU - Failure to adopt the budget

If, at the beginning of a financial year, the budget has not yet been definitively adopted, a sum equivalent to not more than one twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding financial year may be spent each month in respect of any chapter of the budget in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations made pursuant to Article 322; that sum shall not, however, exceed one twelfth of the appropriations provided for in the same chapter of the draft budget.

The Council on a proposal by the Commission, may, provided that the other conditions laid down in the first paragraph are observed, authorise expenditure in excess of one twelfth in accordance with the regulations made pursuant to Article 322. The Council shall forward the decision immediately to the European Parliament.

The decision referred to in the second paragraph shall lay down the necessary measures relating to resources to ensure application of this Article, in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 311.

It shall enter into force thirty days following its adoption if the European Parliament, acting by a majority of its component Members, has not decided to reduce this expenditure within that time-limit.
 
Corbyn is a chancer who talks a good game, but that is all. He is in this for himself and bugger the people.

I think the bloke is a bit of moron and I definitely won't be voting for him but self-interested is one thing I'd never describe him as.
 
There are no vetoes on the budget, the only time where unanimity is needed is regarding the adoption of its legal framework but even then:

Paragraph 4, Art.312 of the TFEU:



Then on the actual budget:

Art.314 of the TFEU


Art.315 of the TFEU - Failure to adopt the budget
I presume it was the financial framework that Cameron threatened to veto and got everyone in a panic then.
 
Good news that come with Brexit:
- Portugal airports are considering to hire a lot of people for visa checking. A Visa in Portugal costs 60 to 95€ and local authorities expect to make about 20M€ in Visas fees during a year if UK tourist flux remians the same.

You guys are going to pay more for a Visa than for a Ryanair flight when travelling to Algarve :lol:
I am a bit lost with this subject. Will they need a visa to go on holidays to Schengen countries? I don't think It's a good idea.
I mean,the rule Will be with EU or every country can establish conditions with UK?
 
Corbyn is clearly engineering the situation so he can sit on his hands as much as possible whilst appearing to take a principled stance.

Thinks he’s some kind of master Machiavellian by trying to make a weak PM look even weaker with the aim of getting his hands on those levers of power.

No doubt he’ll be getting his fiddle out when the UK goes up in flames as he thinks May & the Tories will take all the flak thus benefitting Labour.

Well, culpable as the Tories are (and by god they are culpable) so too will Jeremy Corbyn be culpable for contributing feck all to the situation when asked.

Unbelievable that a man who has spoken in the past to some dubious organisations won’t cross the hall go and talk with the PM.

Hopefully the likes of Hilary Benn & Yvette Cooper ignore the Labour leadership and engage.

Clement Attlee will be turning in his grave.

Fecking hell, imagine if we had been stuck with May & Corbyn when we stood alone in 1940? Doesn’t bear thinking about does it?
 
The intention is to try to get cross party consensus using a series of indicative votes in order to more clearly identify what could and could not be acceptable.

The intention is for May to get her deal accepted wuthour delaying exit, revoking A50 or having another referendum. She is offering nothing meaningful to discuss.