How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)
Discussion
Ayahuasca said:
Daniel Finkelstein in the Times had a good idea - Teresa May should do a deal with Corbyn, in which Labour promises the support needed to get her deal though parliament, in return for her calling a general election shortly after Brexit.
Good idea, as in scr*w the country twice over?I'm not voting Tory if May's deal gets through and I would imagine there would be a fair few leavers who would feel the same. So we would have the worst possible outcome for leaving the EU plus a Labour government.
JagLover said:
Good idea, as in scr*w the country twice over?
I'm not voting Tory if May's deal gets through and I would imagine there would be a fair few leavers who would feel the same. So we would have the worst possible outcome for leaving the EU plus a Labour government.
Who else will you vote for?I'm not voting Tory if May's deal gets through and I would imagine there would be a fair few leavers who would feel the same. So we would have the worst possible outcome for leaving the EU plus a Labour government.
JagLover said:
Ayahuasca said:
Daniel Finkelstein in the Times had a good idea - Teresa May should do a deal with Corbyn, in which Labour promises the support needed to get her deal though parliament, in return for her calling a general election shortly after Brexit.
Good idea, as in scr*w the country twice over?I'm not voting Tory if May's deal gets through and I would imagine there would be a fair few leavers who would feel the same. So we would have the worst possible outcome for leaving the EU plus a Labour government.
to cover such things !!! , is the stupid t
t serious or is he as out of touch with the real world as most of the metropolitan elites and our politicians are ???Edited by powerstroke on Thursday 24th January 07:32
PurpleMoonlight said:
Who else will you vote for?
Anyone but the three main parties, or not bother.It is hard to exaggerate just how much May's deal, as long as it includes the backstop, is against the national interest. Moreover it seems to being pushed by May purely on the basis of what she believes is best for the Tory party politically.
We are then supposed to vote for her come a snap GE?, no thank you.
JagLover said:
Anyone but the three main parties, or not bother.
It is hard to exaggerate just how much May's deal, as long as it includes the backstop, is against the national interest. Moreover it seems to being pushed by May purely on the basis of what she believes is best for the Tory party politically.
We are then supposed to vote for her come a snap GE?, no thank you.
Exactly 100% ... we are going back to the 70's sIt is hard to exaggerate just how much May's deal, as long as it includes the backstop, is against the national interest. Moreover it seems to being pushed by May purely on the basis of what she believes is best for the Tory party politically.
We are then supposed to vote for her come a snap GE?, no thank you.
t governments union power and basket case economy...JagLover said:
Anyone but the three main parties, or not bother.
It is hard to exaggerate just how much May's deal, as long as it includes the backstop, is against the national interest. Moreover it seems to being pushed by May purely on the basis of what she believes is best for the Tory party politically.
We are then supposed to vote for her come a snap GE?, no thank you.
If she's true to her word (very big "if") she won't stay to fight another election as PM.It is hard to exaggerate just how much May's deal, as long as it includes the backstop, is against the national interest. Moreover it seems to being pushed by May purely on the basis of what she believes is best for the Tory party politically.
We are then supposed to vote for her come a snap GE?, no thank you.
Her "deal" without the backstop isn't really ideal either, but it at least kicks the can down the road to hopefully allow us to get someone with a bit more negotiating capability in the relevant seats.
Trouble is, if Farage is to be believed (not sure whether that's a bigger or smaller "if") suggestions are being made in EU circles to time limit it to 2025. I tend to agree with him that this is too long - 9yrs after the vote to leave.
If a satisfactory deal cannot be struck by two parties who are starting from the same position wrt the key aspects of trade (forget the political structures) well inside 6yrs then it never will be. To the end of the current budget cycle max. Get some focus on both sides, keep it clean.
Vaud said:
And if she had stepped down?
They should have knifed the stubborn hag in the summer!!! I don't trust any of the usual suspects ,just hoping some one up and coming is going to break through , but i think they will try to continue the death spiral for a little longer with someone toxic !!!
JagLover said:
Anyone but the three main parties, or not bother.
It is hard to exaggerate just how much May's deal, as long as it includes the backstop, is against the national interest. Moreover it seems to being pushed by May purely on the basis of what she believes is best for the Tory party politically.
We are then supposed to vote for her come a snap GE?, no thank you.
Wouldn't that increase the chance of a Labour Government though?It is hard to exaggerate just how much May's deal, as long as it includes the backstop, is against the national interest. Moreover it seems to being pushed by May purely on the basis of what she believes is best for the Tory party politically.
We are then supposed to vote for her come a snap GE?, no thank you.
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
The parliamentary session is due to run until the summer. The only ‘normal’ reason for the Govt to dissolve parliament would be to call an election.
The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
Unprecedented that is a good word ... where have I heard that before...Ah yes...The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
new statesman said:
What does John Bercow’s unprecedented action mean for Brexit – and for him?
The Speaker’s decision has no root in precedent but he is relying on the one rule that really matters in the British constitution.
I love how you think one unprecedented action is ok while another identical one is not, especially as it could be argued that the second is only a reaction to the first and therefore far more valid. The Speaker’s decision has no root in precedent but he is relying on the one rule that really matters in the British constitution.
As it stands, his actions have had no real impact on Govt strategy or Parliaments response to May's deal. In fact she continues to promote that deal regardless of Parliamentary opinion.
I think this is a time where we need scrutiny over the Govts actions, Parliament is the only way to achieve that. If Grieves latest amendment, allowing Parliament to have a say in the order of business, is approved with a Parliamentary majority, then I suspect that history will put Bercow in the right.
JRM's 'plan' selects 'no deal' as the only option for the nation, which is not the policy of the Govt or the opposition or mandated by the referendum. Every man woman and child in the UK would be disenfranchised and forced to watch, as helpless passengers, as we leave the EU with no deal.
The reasons it will never happen are obvious. The chap is a prize plum for suggesting it.
Elysium said:
JRM's 'plan' selects 'no deal' as the only option for the nation, which is not the policy of the Govt or the opposition or mandated by the referendum. Every man woman and child in the UK would be disenfranchised and forced to watch, as helpless passengers, as we leave the EU with no deal.
The reasons it will never happen are obvious. The chap is a prize plum for suggesting it.
The referendum was to leave, it said nothing about a deal. Parliament voted to leave. So leaving without a deal is mandated by both. If no deal is available it's the only option mandated.The reasons it will never happen are obvious. The chap is a prize plum for suggesting it.
Dr Jekyll said:
Elysium said:
JRM's 'plan' selects 'no deal' as the only option for the nation, which is not the policy of the Govt or the opposition or mandated by the referendum. Every man woman and child in the UK would be disenfranchised and forced to watch, as helpless passengers, as we leave the EU with no deal.
The reasons it will never happen are obvious. The chap is a prize plum for suggesting it.
The referendum was to leave, it said nothing about a deal. Parliament voted to leave. So leaving without a deal is mandated by both. If no deal is available it's the only option mandated.The reasons it will never happen are obvious. The chap is a prize plum for suggesting it.
Lets see how the amendments go next week eh.
More positive news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46984229
Leicester Loyal said:
gooner1 said:
While I respect your opinion, the phrase "He publicly supports a second referendum"
a touch ambiguous. I'm of the opinion that Grieve, who has always been pro EU, wants
nothing more than to see the referendum overturned by any means necerssary.
He just won't admit it.
If Grieve can use Parlimentary shenanigans for his own causes, why, if it's legally ok,
cannot Mogg? At least with the latter, everyone knows why he may be prepared to do so.
Imo, of course.
Why is it that people like me and you can quite clearly see neither JRM, nor Grieve should be using Parliment, the Queen or any other group for their own causes and what they personally believe in. Yet people like Elysium, for some unknown reason defend Grieve, while blasting JRM. I genuinely see no logic. It's a scary thought what people are willing to overlook just because they agree with a stance. a touch ambiguous. I'm of the opinion that Grieve, who has always been pro EU, wants
nothing more than to see the referendum overturned by any means necerssary.
He just won't admit it.
If Grieve can use Parlimentary shenanigans for his own causes, why, if it's legally ok,
cannot Mogg? At least with the latter, everyone knows why he may be prepared to do so.
Imo, of course.
Grieve is arguing for more Parliamentary control and scrutiny. Which is not something I see as a bad idea. I never imagined that we would end up with a Govt that would try to force Parliament to accept a bad deal by using their control of the daily agenda as a mechanism to prevent challenge and debate.
Grieve is proposing an amendment, which will only happen if the majority of MP's want it. We elected them specifically to use their judgement on questions like this.
It's reasonable of course to express concern about his motivations and to suspect an ulterior anti-Brexit (rather than anti no-deal) motive. I am taking his actions at face value and in that case they don't appear to be all that concerning.
Dr Jekyll said:
Elysium said:
JRM's 'plan' selects 'no deal' as the only option for the nation, which is not the policy of the Govt or the opposition or mandated by the referendum. Every man woman and child in the UK would be disenfranchised and forced to watch, as helpless passengers, as we leave the EU with no deal.
The reasons it will never happen are obvious. The chap is a prize plum for suggesting it.
The referendum was to leave, it said nothing about a deal. Parliament voted to leave. So leaving without a deal is mandated by both. If no deal is available it's the only option mandated.The reasons it will never happen are obvious. The chap is a prize plum for suggesting it.
Running through the same old 'leave means leave' arguments is pointless.
May and ALL supportive conservative MP's are repeatedly telling us that they want a deal and that Parliament should approve May's deal. Almost all of them (Leadsom is the only exception I am aware of) refuse to comment on 'no deal' versus delay, saying that what they want is a deal.
Clearly - Govt policy is a 'deal'.
It's pretty obvious also that labour policy is to prevent 'no-deal'.
dasigty said:
Elysium said:
The parliamentary session is due to run until the summer. The only ‘normal’ reason for the Govt to dissolve parliament would be to call an election.
The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
Except the MPs are NOT representing their constituents, they are trying to overturn their vote. It is the MPs who are trying to frustrate democracy, they that are acting immoral by abusing the power bestrode on them by voters, by defying those same voters in order to ensure they have a cushy bolthole at the EU when kicked out of office by UK voters.The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
Most seem to be refusing to sign a 'bad deal' and trying to find a way to avoid no-deal in the face of an utterly uncooperative PM who is effectively refusing to renegotiate with the EU in any meaningful way.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Airbus Chief Executive said:
Please don't listen to the Brexiteers' madness which asserts that, because we have huge plants here, we will not move and we will always be here. They are wrong.
But what does he know?Airbus said:
Mr Enders said it was a "disgrace" that businesses could still not plan for Brexit.
May's handling of Brexit is an omnishambles. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff