Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

BREXIT

Old 23rd Oct 2019, 13:20
  #3501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by WB627 View Post
The price for the UK will be Bojo giving the SDP another referendum in return for their 35 votes
I doubt that Blowjo will need to promise the SNP anything. The other parties are so inept at getting a nation protecting message across that the popular vote and frustration will wash away the reality that it was the Tories which got us into this mess, gravely deepened social problems with austerity for those in need, and that they represent a continuing threat to the United Kingdom. Conservatives my arse.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 13:37
  #3502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
He wasn't the Prime Minister.

If you mean since he became Prime Minister then he has had 90 odd days to re-open and re-negotiate something that had taken 2.5 years to put together, which most people said was not possible, and which the EU originally said was not up for re-negotiation.
'No re-negotiation' as an EU mantra only really applied to the EU giving ground. UK offering up something that was a redline for 3 years was hardly a re-negotiation was it?

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 13:52
  #3503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Losing a vote on a Queens Speech is, historically, a vote of no confidence and, if phrased as such, could provide the means for Labour to trigger a general election.

Politico: QUEEN’S SPEECH: The defeat of the government’s Withdrawal Agreement Bill timetable and its current refusals to bring forward a new one means the queen’s speech is back on the agenda today, with the focus on the NHS. On Thursday we have the final day of the queen’s speech debate as well as the key votes.
That may well be so, but right now Labour know they will probably get a pretty thorough kicking with trying to frustrate Brexit, otherwise Jezza would have played that card quite some time ago.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 14:00
  #3504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
I was voting as were those I have asked to leave the EU period, we were not voting on how we left as the idea of a soft Brexit had never been mooted at that point, remember the monies that we pay to the EU would by the definition of the out campaign have been retained in the UK, the soft Brexit as they put it does not allow that, so that was never on the cards.
AND I WISH PEOPLE IN HERE WOULD STOP TELLING ME WHY AND HOW I VOTED TO LEAVE.
Are you seriously suggesting a Hard Brexit would avoid all these complications?

With regards to the monies; of the 350m a week on the Boris Bus, 189m of it is already returned to the UK in one form or another.
Admittedly that still leaves a deficit of 161 million per week which seems alot to us mere mortals but when compared to a weekly bill of 821 million for defence, 1.4 BILLION for education, 2.6 BILLION for the NHS and 3.6 BILLION for pensions it really is small fry.

And do you seriously think we would see the benefit?

I respectfully suggest Millionaire Mogg and the Bullingdon Boys Club would see the benefits long before any of us.
OilCan is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 14:21
  #3505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by charliegolf View Post
'No re-negotiation' as an EU mantra only really applied to the EU giving ground. UK offering up something that was a redline for 3 years was hardly a re-negotiation was it?

CG
That may be the case. My view is that from the EU's perspective "no re-negotiation" was really a mantra for "just push the existing deal through" as that was more advantageous to them than where the deal has ended up. Until it was obvious that wasn't going to happen there were no discussions about anything else. Depending on your point of view you can argue that there are other significant differences between May's deal and Johnson's deal around ECJ oversight, FTAs amongst others.

If it wasn't a re-negotiation then MPs argument that it was very different from May's deal and so needed months of Parliamentary scrutiny would be spurious wouldn't it?

Last edited by Groundbased; 23rd Oct 2019 at 14:38.
Groundbased is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 15:04
  #3506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
If it wasn't a re-negotiation then MPs argument that it was very different from May's deal and so needed months of Parliamentary scrutiny would be spurious wouldn't it?
There are about 100 pages + a 300 page annex in the agreement, only imbeciles would pretend 3 days is enough.
How long did it take to ban wild animals from traveling circuses ?

A few weeks for "technical study" will suffice.

And BTW, an honourable poster here was right, it seems : Merckel will support the extension, while Macron would only allow a few weeks technical extension.

Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 17:55
  #3507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 908
oil can
189m of it is already returned to the UK in one form or another
I thought the point of the quote on the bus was the fact that that 189m was allocated by the EU, & not available to be spent how the UK may want, e.g the NHS.
IcePack is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 18:09
  #3508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by OilCan View Post
You're quite right wiggy, I was merely trying to highlight the guff spouted by an 'honourable gentleman' during yesterdays debate. (post 3439)
"guff"? - but you yourself said the MP in question was quoting correct figures?
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 18:13
  #3509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by IcePack View Post
oil can
I thought the point of the quote on the bus was the fact that that 189m was allocated by the EU, & not available to be spent how the UK may want, e.g the NHS.
No, the point of the sign on the bus was to suggest that the NHS would benefit by the £350 million.

[Yes, we know it didn't specifically say exactly that in so many words]

Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 18:17
  #3510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
That may be the case. My view is that from the EU's perspective "no re-negotiation" was really a mantra for "just push the existing deal through" as that was more advantageous to them than where the deal has ended up. Until it was obvious that wasn't going to happen there were no discussions about anything else. Depending on your point of view you can argue that there are other significant differences between May's deal and Johnson's deal around ECJ oversight, FTAs amongst others.

If it wasn't a re-negotiation then MPs argument that it was very different from May's deal and so needed months of Parliamentary scrutiny would be spurious wouldn't it?
I think it depends on how you look at it. I haven't see anything other than big picture headlines in the usual media outlets so don't know much of the detail (as a mere spectator without a vote I don't have to) You could, for instance argue that in agreeing that the UK can diverge from future employee protections then this will lead to lower employment costs in the UK and hence more productivity when compared to the equivalent EU employment cost. Since the EU must be very keen for the UK not to have any sort of cost advantage (level playing field and all that) then this must be considered a concession by the EU surely. Just saying and I have no view at the present time.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 18:17
  #3511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 122
IcePack

you're quite correct, that was the implication but as most of us outside the bubble know, the money had to go to Brussels first to be more fairly/sensibly distributed. The notion that the allocation would be the same direct from Westminster is one of the many deliberate deceits - in my view.
OilCan is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 18:18
  #3512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
Blowjo’s tactics are all designed to put him in the light of being true to the will of the people. He and his team knew full well that parliament would not back a rush through prior 31st October; the EU will grant an extension; there will be an election and the Torres will be back in with an increased majority due to astute crowd pleasing and Brexit fatigue. Which other party has anything like coherence of message to prevent this?

The price for the UK as England and Wales go boldly forth into that world of unfettered possibility will be felt in the coming years.
My bold. Vote Lib Dem and we will cancel Brexit. Possibly the most coherent message of all surely?
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 18:29
  #3513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
No, the point of the sign on the bus was to suggest that the NHS would benefit by the £350 million.

[Yes, we know it didn't specifically say exactly that in so many words]
According to some sources, the mere "preparation for Brexit" is already costing more than the 350 m on the bus.
What when Brexit will really have happened and consequences begin in earnest ?

Searching "Cost of Brexit so far" :
https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2019
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9157461.html

Brexit has already cost the UK economy almost £70bn – the equivalent of £440m a week or £840 for every household in the country each year – according to a new report from the Centre for European Reform released today.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 19:03
  #3514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
"guff"? - but you yourself said the MP in question was quoting correct figures?
his figures were correct, he just wasn't comparing like with like.

(my original post was at #3439 if you wish to refer back.)

Last edited by OilCan; 23rd Oct 2019 at 19:16. Reason: back ref
OilCan is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 19:24
  #3515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
My bold. Vote Lib Dem and we will cancel Brexit. Possibly the most coherent message of all surely?
singular yes, but not coherent. It cannot possibly encompass the breadth of political disaffection which underpins Brexit.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 20:49
  #3516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
singular yes, but not coherent. It cannot possibly encompass the breadth of political disaffection which underpins Brexit.
It’s all about getting elected or having considerable influence. If that’s the Libdem’s aim the message will be very ‘effective’ I’m sure we would agree? Whether it will be successful is another matter!
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 21:15
  #3517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
It’s all about getting elected or having considerable influence. If that’s the Libdem’s aim the message will be very ‘effective’ I’m sure we would agree? Whether it will be successful is another matter!
I dare say the Libdems will capture a reasonable share of the vote with their clear message, But even if I believe that it is in the best interests of the country, it is also equally divisive. And it will split and weaken the remain representation in other parties. The genius of Blowjo’s policy is that it will scoop leave votes from other parties and can also count on Conservative voters to vote, well Conservative. Because that’s what they do, time and time again. No matter how bad it gets.

As indicated recently, I have no party affiliation and see nothing very convincing out there. But as far as the Conservatives go, I am clear: They are rotten.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 22:09
  #3518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 62
Devil Operation Yellowhammer explained

Explained by First Dog on the Moon in The Guardian Australia - not sure if it hits the UK edition.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nfeasible-hair
artee is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2019, 05:22
  #3519 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,076
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2019, 06:05
  #3520 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,076
The Times:

....The EU is expected to grant a second extension to the Brexit deadline tomorrow. European leaders are split over the length of any extension, though, with President Macron of France pushing for Britain to be given no more than two additional weeks.

Mr Macron is believed to have told Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, that MPs need “a maximum of 15 days” to debate the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and that the new Brexit date should be set at November 15. The French president is concerned that a move by Mr Tusk to give a longer extension until January 31 will take the pressure off parliament and lead to prolonged deadlock without an agreement.

Amélie de Montchalin, the French European affairs minister, told her country’s senate that although Britain would not meet Mr Johnson’s “do or die” deadline of October 31, it should not be let off the hook. “We will see whether a purely technical extension of a few days is justified, so that the British parliament can complete its parliamentary procedure,” she said. “Outside of this perspective, an extension intended to win time or renegotiate the agreement is excluded. We have lost too much time. We have reached an agreement and we must now implement it without delay to stop an uncertainty that is hurting millions of citizens and businesses.”

There is scepticism in Downing Street over the French move, though. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is said to have made clear in a phone call with Mr Johnson yesterday that she opposed anything other than an extension until January 31, as set out in the Benn act.

Last night a compromise proposal of a short extension until November 30 was gaining ground at a meeting of EU ambassadors..........

ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.