Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Anyone got a link to this story? Doubtful as "UK press will hardly even mention it" but worth a shot.

All I can see is something on the British Tory Broadcasting Corporation, saying we have shared confidential documents with the EU.
 
WensleyMU said:
Anyone got a link to this story? Doubtful as "UK press will hardly even mention it" but worth a shot.

All I can see is something on the British Tory Broadcasting Corporation, saying we have shared confidential documents with the EU.
Click to expand...

According to the BBC's Brexitcast last night, this is just a collection of ideas for the EU to mull over... presumably before they reject them!
 
nickm said:
Click to expand...


Maugham makes an obvious point, the time to revoke A50 has passed, there is no time to arrange anything in terms of a deal acceptable to parliament, delay is possible if Boris does what he's told, other than that its a 'no deal'

Will Boris lie down in front of the Parliament tanks on his lawn?
 
Maticmaker said:
Maugham makes an obvious point, the time to revoke A50 has passed, there is no time to arrange anything in terms of a deal acceptable to parliament, delay is possible if Boris does what he's told, other than that its a 'no deal'

Will Boris lie down in front of the Parliament tanks on his lawn?
Click to expand...

Say he doesn’t come up with a new WA by the 19th Oct deadline. Which is extremely doubtful as of now. The real question is: Will there be enough time for a VONC, a temp Govt, an application for extension and a ratification of it by the HoC.. before the 31st?
 
Pretty sure Johnson will resurrect May's deal, and Brussels will agree to a proposal that solves the backstop issue.
Then it'll probably be defeated again in a parliament vote, as it's not leaving the EU, and is worse than our current arrangement as EU members.
 
MadMike said:
Say he doesn’t come up with a new WA by the 19th Oct deadline. Which is extremely doubtful as of now. The real question is: Will there be enough time for a VONC, a temp Govt, an application for extension and a ratification of it by the HoC.. before the 31st?
Click to expand...

The suspicion is that if Boris gets away with Proroguing Parliament because the Supreme Court ruling is that the reason for proroguing is entirely the prerogative of the PM and hence is strictly a 'Political' issue, then to stop any VONC, Temp Government, application for extension/ratification, etc. he will Prorogue again and again...

If Supreme Court finds that he told lies to the Queen (note not to parliament ) then he should go to the Tower to await her majesty's pleasure. There will then be an unseemly struggle for power, which all so takes up the time, and its still No Deal!
 
nickm said:
I think you were seeing things that aren't there. Words like "tone" and "deflecting" and "dismissing" and "implying" are all your interpretations that not everyone shares. I think you genuinely don't comprehend what she was actually doing, and have drawn the wrong conclusions as a result. But anyhow, I'm not going to convince you now. I said at the start of this the BBC would chuck these complaints in the bin, and they have, because they do comprehend what she was doing.
Click to expand...
If you don't comprehend what Kuenssberg was doing then you've not been paying attention to her output the last few years.
 
Maticmaker said:
The suspicion is that if Boris gets away with Proroguing Parliament because the Supreme Court ruling is that the reason for proroguing is entirely the prerogative of the PM and hence is strictly a 'Political' issue, then to stop any VONC, Temp Government, application for extension/ratification, etc. he will Prorogue again and again...

If Supreme Court finds that he told lies to the Queen (note not to parliament ) then he should go to the Tower to await her majesty's pleasure. There will then be an unseemly struggle for power, which all so takes up the time, and its still No Deal!
Click to expand...

The two things, Boris lying to the Queen and this being a matter for the legal courts or not, are separate things. Boris has lied to the Queen. He has already compromised her neutrality once. There's documents that prove that, hence the courts in Scotland ruled against him. His only hope is that the Supreme Court deems it's not a matter for the legal courts to adjudicate on, like the English court decided. But if they deem it is for them to adjudicate, there's 0 doubt that he will be found guilty in weight of the evidence.

Now, on the subject of the 2nd prorogation. Boris has already prorogued once. It's custom to prorogue once a year and a record time had passed since the previous prorogation so he could swing this one prorogation as normal. But if he asks the Queen to prorogue a 2nd time in two months against any precedence or custom, after a historically lengthy prorogation, and on the back of it being already proven that he lied to her before... then not only has he irreversibly damaged her neutrality but the most neutral position (though neither is strictly neutral) for the Queen would be to reject that request as otherwise she's effectively enabling a dictatorship of the Executive. She'll be setting a precedence where she can't refuse any prorogation whatever the duration or frequency of the request.

If she acquiesces to that then the backlash, the demand for Republicanism and a written Constitution, will be unprecedented. We'd be in full constitutional crisis. There will be legally, and by virtue of precedence, nothing stopping the next Prime Minister from proroguing parliament for however long he wants, whenever he wants, back-to-back if it pleases them. So I'd like to think that whatever verdict the Supreme Court returns next week, in the event of a second request the Queen would simply tell him to feck off.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
You are making a way bigger deal of it than it should. Think about it, if they gave anything it is to the EU negotiator who works for the member states, everything said to him goes to the member states and they give him their individual position on top of the collective ones that have been or will be set. The only way to give sense to such request would be that the UK government is basically asking that the EU play along and stall the negotiations.
Click to expand...

I can't quite make sense of your first and last point here as they seem contradictory but i really don't think it's as simple as oh well if Barnier knows then it's fine he can pass the knowledge on. It's still the member states that vote and they'd need proper scrutiny to do that.

I know public is different to private but i know my organisation would never allow such poor governance on any project never mind something so big.
 
Smores said:
I can't quite make sense of your first and last point here as they seem contradictory but i really don't think it's as simple as oh well if Barnier knows then it's fine he can pass the knowledge on. It's still the member states that vote and they'd need proper scrutiny to do that.

I know public is different to private but i know my organisation would never allow such poor governance on any project never mind something so big.
Click to expand...

My point is that it's part of the "pretending to negotiate", Abizz took it a legitimate demand when it's not. It's a no deal move, there is nothing to scrutinize.
 
MadMike said:
So I'd like to think that whatever verdict the Supreme Court returns next week, in the event of a second request the Queen would simply tell him to feck off.
Click to expand...

You wont be on your own with that!

However if the Supreme court upholds the English lower courts verdict that its a 'political decision', not a legal one, Boris will have an opportunity to seek a second or even a third proroguing of Parliament.

As for Boris lying to the Queen, no one knows what he said to her precisely, except to seek her permission to prorogue. To be honest what PM's, any PM, (John Major included) say to HM on such occasions is not recorded anyway or divulged to anyone else, so its a moot point. Surely no one believes the Queen isn't sufficiently aware of what is going on and would act accordingly if she thought she was being lied to by her PM?

"Now look here Boris are you trying to pull a fast one, on one"?
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
If you don't comprehend what Kuenssberg was doing then you've not been paying attention to her output the last few years.
Click to expand...
I realise the left in particular has a problem with Kuenssberg and often appear to be looking for reasons to confirm it. But some group or other always has a problem with the BBC political editor, whoever they are.
 
Maticmaker said:
You wont be on your own with that!

However if the Supreme court upholds the English lower courts verdict that its a 'political decision', not a legal one, Boris will have an opportunity to seek a second or even a third proroguing of Parliament.

As for Boris lying to the Queen, no one knows what he said to her precisely, except to seek her permission to prorogue. To be honest what PM's, any PM, (John Major included) say to HM on such occasions is not recorded anyway or divulged to anyone else, so its a moot point. Surely no one believes the Queen isn't sufficiently aware of what is going on and would act accordingly if she thought she was being lied to by her PM?

"Now look here Boris are you trying to pull a fast one, on one"?
Click to expand...

That's not what needs proving though. He probably didn't even speak to her directly, she was in Balmoral at the time and I doubt he called her. The "lying to the Queen" is in essence lying to the Nation. There's no need to corroborate their private chats. His stated reason in Parliament and in the media for the prorogation, was to set out his legislative agenda in a Queens Speech. I think it's been now proven by cabinet leaked documents/discussions that the real reason for the prorogation and its long duration was to reduce governmental scrutiny by Parliament. That's why the Scottish courts ruled against him.

He either lied to the Queen too, probably though his advisers, or he told her the truth and she decided acquiesce despite knowing what he had publicly said to the nation and parliament. In which case she willingly partook in a lie the PM sold the Parliament and did away with her neutrality. Something she'd never obviously admit to anyway, thus painting Boris as a liar to both the nation and Her Majesty.

I do understand that he'll have the opportunity to seek a second prorogation if the courts decide to stay out of it. But it's now well known that a manipulation took place to prorogue the Parliament in the first place and the Queen knows it. And thus if she agrees to a second prorogation, she's basically clearly favouring the PM over the Parliament against precedent and therefore publicly abolishing her own neutrality (something she'll have to do one way or another, if she's asked a second time). Things will only degenerate from there.
 
MadMike said:
I think it's been now proven by cabinet leaked documents/discussions that the real reason for the prorogation and its long duration was to reduce governmental scrutiny by Parliament. That's why the Scottish courts ruled against him.
Click to expand...

Could he argue that he was lying to the cabinet, not to the public?
 
Thornberry calling for labour to back remain in any second referendum- why isn’t she getting the same kicking Watson got?
 
berbatrick said:
Could he argue that he was lying to the cabinet, not to the public?
Click to expand...

How does that work? One is a clandestine private meeting between working colleagues the other is televised to the whole nation. What court would buy that?
 


Oooh Jeremy Corbyn :lol:

EDIT: Don’t worry lads he’d be neutral in a referendum. Never mind that if we leave either on the 31st Oct or via People’s Vote, he could be the one who negotiates what our future relationship with the EU will be like. We don’t need to know his real position. He’ll negotiate for unicorns and get them, honest.
 
MadMike said:


Oooh Jeremy Corbyn :lol:

EDIT: Don’t worry lads he’d be neutral in a referendum. Never mind that if we leave either on the 31st Oct or via People’s Vote, he could be the one who negotiates what our future relationship with the EU will be like. We don’t need to know his real position. He’ll negotiate for unicorns and get them, honest.
Click to expand...


At this point there is no point being pro-leave or pro remain and in his case whatever the answer he will be on the wrong side from a political standpoint.
 
JPRouve said:
At this point there is no point being pro-leave or pro remain and in his case whatever the answer he will be on the wrong side from a political standpoint.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t look like he’s winning by sitting on the fence either, not based on the polls. Which by the way is totally what he’s doing, he just can’t be honest about that either.
 
MadMike said:


Oooh Jeremy Corbyn :lol:

EDIT: Don’t worry lads he’d be neutral in a referendum. Never mind that if we leave either on the 31st Oct or via People’s Vote, he could be the one who negotiates what our future relationship with the EU will be like. We don’t need to know his real position. He’ll negotiate for unicorns and get them, honest.
Click to expand...

David Miliband is starting to look like the brother who should have been chosen all that time ago. What a weird world we live in.
 
JPRouve said:
At this point there is no point being pro-leave or pro remain and in his case whatever the answer he will be on the wrong side from a political standpoint.
Click to expand...

It's also fecking stupid. He's on record saying several times over the past year he'd vote remain so the answer is obvious but for some reason they think this is a journalistic gotcha question to ask.
 
MadMike said:
Doesn’t look like he’s winning by sitting on the fence either, not based on the polls. Which by the way is totally what he’s doing, he just can’t be honest about that either.
Click to expand...

Surely being neutral is the definition of sitting on the fence?
 
MadMike said:


Oooh Jeremy Corbyn :lol:

EDIT: Don’t worry lads he’d be neutral in a referendum. Never mind that if we leave either on the 31st Oct or via People’s Vote, he could be the one who negotiates what our future relationship with the EU will be like. We don’t need to know his real position. He’ll negotiate for unicorns and get them, honest.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why his position is seen as confusing nor why it would prevent him from negotiating a deal in the highly unlikely event that he is in a position to do so. In a situation like this I actually find his nuanced position refreshing. It is, obviously, going to be electorally unpopular.
 
Smores said:
It's also fecking stupid. He's on record saying several times over the past year he'd vote remain so the answer is obvious but for some reason they think this is a journalistic gotcha question to ask.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest with you, I strongly believe that politicians are pathological liars, so this type of claims have no value to me. But if I put myself in his boots, I get why he said what he said in that interview, he isn't a labour kamikaze.

MadMike said:
Doesn’t look like he’s winning by sitting on the fence either, not based on the polls. Which by the way is totally what he’s doing, he just can’t be honest about that either.
Click to expand...

He may not be winning but he rightfully doesn't go out of his way to effectively lose.
 
Smores said:
Surely being neutral is the definition of sitting on the fence?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. The tweets says: “He says he’s NOT sitting on the fence”. When his stance is the definition of fence sitting. He can’t be honest about that either.
 
Can't be comfortable having a fence post up your backside for so long now. Imagine the splinters.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I don't understand why his position is seen as confusing nor why it would prevent him from negotiating a deal in the highly unlikely event that he is in a position to do so. In a situation like this I actually find his nuanced position refreshing. It is, obviously, going to be electorally unpopular.
Click to expand...

It’s not a nuanced position, for me. It’s a dishonest position. Not only because he doesn't say what he thinks (no politician does anyway, if we're being honest) or take a strong position but because he claims he'll get his own deal, to quote Bender, with blackjack and hookers. He's claimed he'd get a Customs Union deal without freedom of movement which is despised by many Leavers, but also the UK would be able to have power of veto on future EU trade deals that might be damaging to us. That ain't happening.
 
Here's how I comprehend Corbyn's stance towards the EU and the Remain/Leave campaign through the years...

1. General Ideals: Against EU. An imperialistic, federalist, US-aspiring superstate, with a democratic deficit that doesn't care enough about the little people. Doesn't allow state aid or worker subsidies.

2. EU Ref: Cautiously pro-Remain for three reasons. One, his voter base is mostly pro-Remain. Two, his mission is to rebuild the welfare state destroyed by the Tories. Something which years of Brexit wrangling would distract from. Brexit might be the right cause, but the fight comes at the wrong time. Three, with the Tories in charge of Brexit, they are bound to screw the small people over even more. Those reasons trump his anti-EU beliefs.

3. WAB: Don't like it too much, but don't despise it too much either. Realises the real prise is the negotiations that follow Brexit. Voting it through would probably end the stalemate and end the nation's current misery, but he can't vote for it. That would be allowing the Tories to get scot-free with Brexit, dictate the next phase of EU negotiations and continue till 2022. Might even win the next GE. If it ends up a disaster, he could also share in the blame. Whereas keeping the pressure on the Tories could see them collapse and go to a GE sooner. Vote it down.

4. Current intention and People's Vote: Genuinely ambivalent. Leave with a deal would respect the first Ref, would perhaps heal the country and it also coincides with his ideals. Whereas Remain leaves open wounds for half the populace that could fester. However. Leaving even with a deal means a lot of the focus and energy of his Premiership would be on negotiating the future relationship with the EU instead of the social revolution. And that could also put a strain on his party like it did with the Tories and it would distract him from his most important work. Shit, this is a fecking mess. Sit on the fence, pledge to do whatever the people say.

That's the vibes I'm getting. Complete conjecture of course.
 
Last edited:
sglowrider said:
At least its British made regulations.
Click to expand...
By our very own unelected bureaucrat, who is being challenged by our elected MP's and in court, for suspending our parlimentary democracy. In a Conservative party who only gained power in the last election due to offering £1BN investment to the DUP.

Britain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.