How long....

WARNING: This section may contain jokes or topics of an offensive nature.
Recommended for over 18's only. Send Admin a PM to request exclusion.

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Legal advice published

The Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has finally published his legal advice on the assurances brought back from Strasbourg last night.

He says the "legal risk remains unchanged" of the UK being stuck in the backstop.





IN OTHER WORDS, DEAL IS DEAD TONIGHT UNLESS CAN KICKED DOWN THE ROAD SOME MORE BY DELAYING 'MEANINGFUL VOTE' (AGAIN).
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
And if it wasn't dead with the above advice, it's certainly dead and buried now:


ERG legal advice advises member to reject deal tonight

Finally, the ERG's legal team known as the "Star Chamber" say they will call on MPs to vote down the deal.

Sir Bill Cash says: “In the light of our own legal analysis and others we do not recommend accepting the government’s motion today.”
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
The ERG were never going to back it. Their agenda from Day One has been to try and force no deal by rejecting everything. And that has severely hamstrung May who has been approaching the negotiations trying to keep the ERG happy rather in the interests of the U.K. or relations with the EU.

She should have told the ERG at the very start that No Deal was off the table and that as a hardline group which represents less than 10% of MPs she was not going to let them dictate terms.

Then she could have negotiated more positively and in the national interest.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Poor strategy then, if that was the case, because there was never going to be a consensus for 'no deal' within parliament, and now they are at risk of losing Brexit altogether if they don't back the deal on offer.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Johnsons Red Army wrote:Poor strategy then, if that was the case, because there was never going to be a consensus for 'no deal' within parliament, and now they are at risk of losing Brexit altogether if they don't back the deal on offer.
No Deal will be ruled out tomorrow.

Then one of three things will happen regardless of an extension or not:

- Labour call a No Confidence motion, backed by ERG, so a General Election is forced.
- May quits and Leadership campaign - which Boris started with his speech today - kicks off.
- ERG calls a No Confidence Vote, which they may or may not win.

Corbyn and ERG both want Brexit but want it on their terms. So a General Election is like a free hit. If one of them wins, they can say they have a mandate to Brexit however they want. If another hung Parliament then they are no worse off than they are now. Both will believe they can win.

Only the Cooper amendment can stop Corbyn/ERG if that is allowed to be attached to either the No Deal vote tomorrow or the Extension vote on Friday.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Apparently not as straightforward as that, as the motion put forward doesn't even take 'no deal' off the table, despite being promised that it would:

"That this house declines to approve leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework on the future relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this house and the EU ratify an agreement."


How can it be taken off the table and then remain the default option at the same time? It doesn't make sense.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1880
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
Hit me with it then, what makes a no deal so much worse than potentially being tied to the EU for life? Surely everything is then on our terms then?
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... is__1_.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That should answer your question. It also answers the question of why staying in the EU is the best option of all.
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
I'm with ctfc-fan, here... Can someone explain in simple terms why about 75% of the MPs and pretty much every economist in the land is saying that No-Deal is a disaster, we all need to stockpile everything, our life expectancy is going to drop to about 50, and we're all going to hell in a handcart? Having heard about the tariffs (or lack thereof) that we are planning on imposing it almost seems to be the next best option (after - a very long way after, mind - staying in the EU.) Is it something about not knowing what tariffs our trading nations will impose on our exports?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Tariffs are the least of the problems imo.

It is more to do with the ‘behind the scenes’ collaborations / legislations / agreements that will be threatened.

And non-tarrif barriers to trade are more disruptive than tarrifs. So if we adopt different standards these have to be audited and checked - hence fears of queues at ports, lack of licences for U.K. haulage companies to drive in Europe, etc. If we agree to keep the same standards as the EU then why leave?

A small example is pallets for forklift trucks/freight. Non-EU members have to use different pallets to EU members when transporting goods to the EU. Currently, nearly all of our pallets are EU-member ones and not much effort is being made to replace them. If we leave with No Deal, in theory any HGV heading to EU from the U.K. could be inspected and sent back if the pallets are not the right type.

That is a very low key example. When it comes to data, energy, medicines etc such things become more critical.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1880
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
How do all the other non-EU countries manage it then?

And what about the fact we potentially don’t have any say over some of our future?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
ctfc-fan wrote:How do all the other non-EU countries manage it then?

And what about the fact we potentially don’t have any say over some of our future?
Are you for real? Other countries manage it because they have never been in the EU. So their whole economic and regulatory system hasn’t been established based on being in the EU for 40 odd years!

Try asking a non-EU country how they will adapt to leaving the Customs Union, EMA, Nuclear standards, academic and R&D collaborations, etc, and they will answer “we haven’t been in it and our economy isn’t fundamentally based on and linked to it”.

As for a say in our future; this moment in time is probably the least say I have ever had in our future!
Last edited by RegencyCheltenhamSpa on 13 Mar 2019, 22:27, edited 1 time in total.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1880
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
ctfc-fan wrote:How do all the other non-EU countries manage it then?

And what about the fact we potentially don’t have any say over some of our future?
Are you for real? Other countries manage it because they have never been in the EU. So their whole economic and regulatory system hasn’t been established based on being in the EU for 40 odd years!

Try asking a non-EU country how they will adapt to leaving the Customs Union, EMA, Nuclear standards, academic and R&D collaborations, etc, and they will answer “we haven’t been in it and our economy isn’t fundamentally based on and linked to it”.
Yes I’m certainly real. Not a bot.

Serious question. So if you know it all, what does the deal that’s on the table mean for the UK? Are we tied to them for life? What’s the pros and cons?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
ctfc-fan wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
ctfc-fan wrote:How do all the other non-EU countries manage it then?

And what about the fact we potentially don’t have any say over some of our future?
Are you for real? Other countries manage it because they have never been in the EU. So their whole economic and regulatory system hasn’t been established based on being in the EU for 40 odd years!

Try asking a non-EU country how they will adapt to leaving the Customs Union, EMA, Nuclear standards, academic and R&D collaborations, etc, and they will answer “we haven’t been in it and our economy isn’t fundamentally based on and linked to it”.
Yes I’m certainly real. Not a bot.

Serious question. So if you know it all, what does the deal that’s on the table mean for the UK? Are we tied to them for life? What’s the pros and cons?
At the highest level, in my view:

Pros:
- two year transition whilst in the EEA.
- no hard border on island of Ireland.
- commitment to not lowering standards.
- control over our fisheries.

Cons:
- we pay in and follow rules for two years of transition with no representation.
- end of free-movement and more difficult for me to travel around Europe.
- less access to financial markets for UK firms.
- exiting Euratom.
- loss of access to customs union.

I don’t buy the backstop hype. We were never going to need the backstop in my view and it was just used by the ERG/DUP to try and force a No Deal.

I think a better deal can be had and I am glad it was voted down yesterday. Time for May to drop some of her red lines and form a panel of cross-party MPs, business leaders and other stakeholders to build a consensus agreement to go back to Brussels with.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1880
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
ctfc-fan wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: Are you for real? Other countries manage it because they have never been in the EU. So their whole economic and regulatory system hasn’t been established based on being in the EU for 40 odd years!

Try asking a non-EU country how they will adapt to leaving the Customs Union, EMA, Nuclear standards, academic and R&D collaborations, etc, and they will answer “we haven’t been in it and our economy isn’t fundamentally based on and linked to it”.
Yes I’m certainly real. Not a bot.

Serious question. So if you know it all, what does the deal that’s on the table mean for the UK? Are we tied to them for life? What’s the pros and cons?
At the highest level, in my view:

Pros:
- two year transition whilst in the EEA.
- no hard border on island of Ireland.
- commitment to not lowering standards.
- control over our fisheries.

Cons:
- we pay in and follow rules for two years of transition with no representation.
- end of free-movement and more difficult for me to travel around Europe.
- less access to financial markets for UK firms.
- exiting Euratom.
- loss of access to customs union.

I don’t buy the backstop hype. We were never going to need the backstop in my view and it was just used by the ERG/DUP to try and force a No Deal.

I think a better deal can be had and I am glad it was voted down yesterday. Time for May to drop some of her red lines and form a panel of cross-party MPs, business leaders and other stakeholders to build a consensus agreement to go back to Brussels with.
So the unelected in Brussels have said they won’t offer another deal. How do we get one? By pretty much taking a no deal Brexit off the table it’s given them the upper hand in any negotiating.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Tusk, other elected EU leaders etc and plenty of elected leaders of member states have said this week that if the U.K. comes back to the table with a new approach formed by consensus they will talk.

They won’t talk again about the same agreement when it is clear there is no consensus in Parliament as that just results in the situation we are in now. If the U.K. can come up with a new and different option that Parliament votes on an approves then the EU will discuss that.

Time has gone for party politics and the petty rhetoric of ‘upper hands’. This needlessly confrontational approach has hindered us from the start.

U.K. and EU both want an agreement which:

- minimises the negative economic of Brexit to U.K. and EU
- ensures no hard border on Island of Ireland
- makes it easy to continue mutual arrangements in trade, research, security, data, travel etc

If the U.K. extends, forms a cross party group which also includes business, legal, academic and think tank leaders we can come up with a good plan which ensures the three things listed above. If the U.K. commits to not cutting our environmental standards and employment rights then the EU will likely agree.

Whatever the future is, it will still be the case that U.K. and EU share mutual economic interests and what benefits one will benefit the other. So viewing it as ‘us vs them’ or that they are trying to do us down or vice versa is counterintuitive.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Some interesting amendments chosen for tonight’s vote. Could be another interesting night and I thought yesterday was pretty hard to beat!

Amendment H on a second referendum (although I think this will fail at this moment in time) and Amendment J ruling out any futher Meaningful Votes look the most interesting in my opinion.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Well that was a bit of a damp squib then. Amendment H defeated as expected, but Amendment J withdrawn.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Johnsons Red Army wrote:Well that was a bit of a damp squib then. Amendment H defeated as expected, but Amendment J withdrawn.
The motion to allow indicative votes for MPs to vote on different options in indicative votes - the best way to find a consensus in Parliament - lost 314-312. Six Labour didn’t vote for it and only 15 Tories did.

How can Tory MPs vote to rule out No Deal but not vote to have a say on alternative approaches? Fear of the whip and rebelling? Even now self-preservation more important than national economic and business interest - but that defines a Tory so not surprising I guess.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
They are still trying to flog their dead deal. Third MV incoming surely (if not already confirmed), unless blocked by Bercow, which has been mooted recently.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Johnsons Red Army wrote:They are still trying to flog their dead deal. Third MV incoming surely (if not already confirmed), unless blocked by Bercow, which has been mooted recently.
Or May might f*ck off.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1880
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Johnsons Red Army wrote:They are still trying to flog their dead deal. Third MV incoming surely (if not already confirmed), unless blocked by Bercow, which has been mooted recently.
Or May might f*ck off.
Hope you don’t want Corbyn and Labour in??
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Corbyn is a total clown and, as a current Labour supporter, the sooner he goes the better.

That being said, it could be argued that he surely couldn't do any worse than Theresa May.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Johnsons Red Army wrote:They are still trying to flog their dead deal. Third MV incoming surely (if not already confirmed), unless blocked by Bercow, which has been mooted recently.
Or May might f*ck off.
One can hope.
User avatar
Sprout Picker
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:20
Johnsons Red Army wrote:They are still trying to flog their dead deal. Third MV incoming surely (if not already confirmed), unless blocked by Bercow, which has been mooted recently.
Hopefully Bercow will block it. It's simply ridiculous to be able to keep bringing back the same proposition over and over again when it has been so comprehensively voted down.

Either that or, as RCS says, May will do one.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
ctfc-fan wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Johnsons Red Army wrote:They are still trying to flog their dead deal. Third MV incoming surely (if not already confirmed), unless blocked by Bercow, which has been mooted recently.
Or May might f*ck off.
Hope you don’t want Corbyn and Labour in??
Sure don’t. I am one of the many who wanted to give Corbyn a chance a few years ago but have since seen him for the hapless shambles he is.

My favourite MPs from both sides are pretty much all in the TIG now. We have the generally anti-business, anti-society and anti-environment Tories on the one hand and the anti-Semitic, anti-tolerant Momentum nutters propping up Corbyn on the other hand.

Interesting to see how the Renew Party get on in Newport by-election in a few weeks.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1880
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
How would you say stories are anti business? Corbyn will be a disaster for businesses with him wanting to give employees so much power and paid time off at the expense of the business.

And Labour want to start throwing money around again so the national debt will just get bigger.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
ctfc-fan wrote:How would you say stories are anti business? Corbyn will be a disaster for businesses with him wanting to give employees so much power and paid time off at the expense of the business.

And Labour want to start throwing money around again so the national debt will just get bigger.
1. Tories favour large corporations, monopolies and oligopolies over small businesses. E.g. allowing foreign owned monopolies to charge huge rail fares which costs businesses huge sums of money. Or their love-in with the likes of G4S who end up costing the taxpayer more due to messing up contracts smaller businesses could have done better.

2. Tories don’t invest in education or innovation and seem to promote economic and educational inequality. This weakens the labour force. Especially when...

3. Combined with Tory anti-immigration stance preventing businesses easily recruiting people they need and want to hire.

4. You may have noticed that the CBI, British Chamber of Commerce, and FSB have been criticising the government for two years and are currently in despair.

5. Permitted Development Rights planning regulatio. This allows commercial property to be converted to residential without the need for planning permission. The commercial floor space lost in London boroughs like K&C and H&F, or places like Bath is substantial - landlords kick the businesses out because they can make more money turning the building in to flats to sell to Russians, Saudis or Chinese.

6. General lack of investment in public realm and public transport - key to attracting employees and customers.

7. Not setting a minimum wage and thus disincentivising innovation and productivity gains.

Those are the main ones off the top of my head, but the main one for me is the first point and their obsession with creating and encouraging monopolies and oligopolies - which are massive market failures. As I am a firm believer in free markets and enterprise this issue is intolerable to me.

Re: debt. I assume you are just regurgitating what the Mail wrote during election campaigns. I advise you to speak to economists and read papers like the FT. Or at least study Keynes and his response to the Great Depression.

Wikipedia (for ease) presents a nice chart, after the usual gentle ups and downs of past Tory and Labour governments, debt is going up and up since 2010.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ional_debt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1880
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
Not setting a minimum wage? Are you sure?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
ctfc-fan wrote:Not setting a minimum wage? Are you sure?
In my haste I didn’t finish my sentence. Should have read: “not setting a minimum wage thata is equivalent to a real living wage.”
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
The latest from @LedByDonkeys. Who remembers this one:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ByDonkeys/st ... 5173330945" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seriously, how do these people get to be running the country? Meritocracy my arse. Interested to know from any lawyers if there would be a case to sue Theresa May for appointing Bradley. On two occasions she has proven categorically she is in no way qualified for the role - so my case against May would be that appointing Bradley to this position is either negligence or corruption. How can anyone justify public money to fund such ignorant idiocy. Such a thick unknowledgeable moron should be nowhere near government. As voters and taxpayers we have to say enough is enough - come on, get people who know at least an iota of basic information about the subject to be ministers or secretaries. What an absolute pigshit country we are to allow this level of incompetence to have any influence over our lives.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1598
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may- ... l-11669533" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Speaker John Bercow has warned Theresa May he will veto a third vote on her Brexit deal unless it is "substantially" different from the previous two versions."

:lol:
kora
Posts: 573
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:55
Is she the stupidest PM we've ever had, this is our George Bush. Ed fecking Milliband would have been an improvement and he was a walking disaster area.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
kora wrote:Is she the stupidest PM we've ever had, this is our George Bush. Ed fecking Milliband would have been an improvement and he was a walking disaster area.
Still not as stupid as Cameron. Calling a referendum. Fixed term Parliament Act. Etc. Made too many decisions with a 6 month-1 year outlook to make it easier for him to keep the Partu together. People slag Major off but at least he was able to stand-up to minority but vocal elements in his own party and not leave the country in a sorry state on verge of fragmenting. He should just be grateful Scotland voted not leave on his watch otherwise he really would broken the country in two.

Was it a ‘coalition of chaos’ the Tory campaign said if Ed Miliband won? Couldn’t be much worse than May’s coalition of ERG, DUP and the odd spineless sycophant.

Isabel Hardman, a great journalist for the Spectator recently wrote a book on ‘Why we get the politicians we do’. I haven’t read it yet but seeing the current crop seem to have a record number of absolute clueless muppets on both sides I am increasingly curious to understand how this is possible.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29756
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
The shi!tshow just gets worse.
Post Reply