Jump to content

Big Boris, Our Prime Minister


shull
 Share

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Northern Ireland was always going to be a special case.

In what other way has the current deal fallen short of that promised? Boris has managed to obtain a deal which looks likely to pass parliament and he's done it in under 2 months. That seems pretty straightforward to me. It was May who f**ked about for 3 years. It looks like both sides are committed to a free trade agreement within the next 12 months. The only thing missing for me is free movement of people. Other than that, what exactly is missing from this Brexit deal that would still make it Brexit?

 

The current deal sees mainland UK out of the Customs Union which I don't remember being the case the majority of LEAVE campaigners were arguing for in the referendum although that's part of what I've said previously as both sides contained a variety of campaigners making different arguments and promises. The movement of the sections on Workers Rights & Environmental Protection to the non-binding section of the Withdrawal Agreement in anticipation of a post-Brexit "race to the bottom" are also issues which I don't remember being focussed on 3 years ago (for which I blame REMAIN) - I remember "£350M for the NHS" on the side of a bus and Nigel "NF" Farage's "Breaking Point" poster which he claims won the referendum. 

To go back to the current deal IIRC it's what the EU first offered and was deemed unacceptable by the TM & the Tories in general as it would mean a border in the Irish Sea (an opinion BJ also supported a year ago), JRM :P said he would follow the DUP on this issue, as did the ERG :rolleyes: - so to describe this deal as new, good or anything other than a sell-out by BJ & the Tories is well wide of the mark.

Who knows what will happen in the trade talks to come but again both sides are not committed to pursuing the same kind of agreement and I'm not the only one to suggest we'll be approaching the same cliff-edge next December - the threat of a backdoor No Deal Exit is still on if BJ is still in charge.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites


During the vote it was made very clear that we'd be out of the EU. No customs union, nothing. Nobody in charge of the Leave side was talking about remaining in that customs union as far as I can remember.

Couldn't care less what Farage said, did or wanted. He wasn't in charge of anything then and he's not in charge now.

I've addressed the £350m thing before. Workers rights and environmental policies will now be crafted in the UK although will almost certainly be aligned with those of the EU for trade reasons. Nobody on the Leave side is talking about removing or reducing any of these rights so I'm not with you on that.

I have no idea exactly what the EU offered originally and/or whether it compares exactly with what Johnson has agreed to now and neither do the rest of us.

The threat of a backdoor no deal is always going to be on unless this all gets sorted out but at least both sides are now talking the same game.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Boris has managed to obtain a deal which looks likely to pass parliament and he's done it in under 2 months. That seems pretty straightforward to me. It was May who f**ked about for 3 years.

May, while useless, was aiming to try and get some sort of decent deal with the EU. Johnson has his heart set on no deal, and if he’s managed to whip up a deal the EU were quick to agree with, that tells me it’s a great deal for the EU and a shocking deal on the UK end. My opinion is that he’s rustled up a shit deal, so that when parliament rejects it he can turn round and say “That was your last chance, so it’s No Deal now. Tough shit.”

Many Leave voters back him and this only helps his cause because many seem to believe the MPs who reject the deal are “traitors blocking Brexit” regardless of how looking into how shite the deal actually is. It’s win-win for Johnson, he’s played it perfectly to either make Brexit happen or force through No Deal.

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Couldn't care less what Farage said, did or wanted. He wasn't in charge of anything then and he's not in charge now.

While this is true, the sad fact is that Farage still did have a massive influence in forcing Brexit. He was key in pushing for a referendum (and succeeded when Cameron shat himself about losing voters to UKIP) and indeed played a key part with the lies and nonsense he spouted about the EU to help the Leave cause. He’s also been massive in creating the Little Englander mentality.

The man may not have ever held a position of significance, but he was a key reason behind all the shite that has happened in recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

During the vote it was made very clear that we'd be out of the EU. No customs union, nothing. Nobody in charge of the Leave side was talking about remaining in that customs union as far as I can remember.

Couldn't care less what Farage said, did or wanted. He wasn't in charge of anything then and he's not in charge now.

I've addressed the £350m thing before. Workers rights and environmental policies will now be crafted in the UK although will almost certainly be aligned with those of the EU for trade reasons. Nobody on the Leave side is talking about removing or reducing any of these rights so I'm not with you on that.

I have no idea exactly what the EU offered originally and/or whether it compares exactly with what Johnson has agreed to now and neither do the rest of us.

The threat of a backdoor no deal is always going to be on unless this all gets sorted out but at least both sides are now talking the same game.

Leaving the Single Market & the 4 Freedom's - Goods, People, Services & Capital - the focus during the referendum was people which makes NFs poster totally relevant. The Customs Union was not mentioned frequently (see below).

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/

Perhaps you could reiterate what you said about the "£350M thing" as I missed it, I'm glad you're sanguine about Worker's Rights & Environmental policies in the case of a Tory government lead by BJ with members of Britannia Unchained in senior Cabinet positions. I'm not.

Quote

Or, indeed, Johnson himself, who declared that “the weight of employment regulation is now back-breaking”, singling out “the collective redundancies directive, the atypical workers’ directive, the working time directive and a thousand more”.

Quote

Around the same time that Beecroft delivered his report, Raab authored a pamphlet asserting that UK employment legislation represents a “straitjacket” for the economy. And like Beecroft, Raab proposed allowing employers to fire at will.

For the sake of the unemployed, he implored the government to “urgently reduce the burdens of employment regulations”.

As for no-one knowing "exactly" what they were it is clear that a border down the Irish Sea was proposed by the EU and rejected by TM in the summer of 2017, when BJ was Foreign Secretery  - the current deal could have been reached 2 years ago if the Tory Party had wanted it.

Quote

A post-Brexit border in the Irish sea was never really on the table – but a political solution must be

July 31, 2017 2.15pm BST

FFS man - it's barely two years!

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I'm glad you're sanguine about Worker's Rights & Environmental policies in the case of a Tory government lead by BJ with members of Britannia Unchained in senior Cabinet positions. I'm not.

 

Now now. Play nice. Don't put words in my mouth. You're not talking to an idiot. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Now now. Play nice. Don't put words in my mouth. You're not talking to an idiot. :D

You said….

Quote

Nobody on the Leave side is talking about removing or reducing any of these rights so I'm not with you on that.

As I then pointed out the PM has advocated removing these rights in a speech, the Foreign Secretary also as part of the Britannia Unchained manifesto, the Home Secretay Priti Patel was a co-author of BU and went further last year when she suggested the UK use the threat of food shortages to pressure the RoI in Brexit negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

You said….

As I then pointed out the PM has advocated removing these rights in a speech, the Foreign Secretary also as part of the Britannia Unchained manifesto, the Home Secretay Priti Patel was a co-author of BU and went further last year when she suggested the UK use the threat of food shortages to pressure the RoI in Brexit negotiations.

Stop deflecting.

You wrongly accused me of being sanguine about workers rights being eroded.

Cut it out. It's completely unnecessary.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As predicted Bercrow - he say no!

Quote

Bercow refuses to allow 'meaningful vote' on Brexit deal today

“My ruling is that the motion will not be debated today as it would be repetitive and disorderly to do so,” he told MPs.

It was an amendment to the Bill that was defeated on Saturday, BJs letter has gone to the EU and various Conservative MPs had indicated their intention to vote for the Bill today - I would've considered the circumstances to be different.

 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 9:21 AM, oaksoft said:

The point is that we didn't vote as 4 separate countries so your logical argument is completely invalid.

We voted as the UK. That's not semantics or a matter of opinion. It is a matter of solid fact. We are not yet an independent country.

It is certainly interesting that the voters in Scotland were resoundingly pro-Remain but in the context of a UK vote it is meaningless to make the argument you are making.

The point is we didn't vote as four separate countries; we are four separate countries, So in effect we did vote as four separate countries.

 

The separateness of N Ireland is recognized in the deal; why not recognize Scotland separateness 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 9:21 AM, oaksoft said:

The point is that we didn't vote as 4 separate countries so your logical argument is completely invalid.

We voted as the UK. That's not semantics or a matter of opinion. It is a matter of solid fact. We are not yet an independent country.

It is certainly interesting that the voters in Scotland were resoundingly pro-Remain but in the context of a UK vote it is meaningless to make the argument you are making.

This is irrelevant in the sense that we did not get a choice on voting as a nation. The UK parties are constantly inferring that we are equal partners in their union so, if that were true, we SHOULD HAVE been allowed to vote as a nation. So the referendum ended all square. Status quo should have been the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

As predicted Bercrow - he say no!

It was an amendment to the Bill that was defeated on Saturday, BJs letter has gone to the EU and various Conservative MPs had indicated their intention to vote for the Bill today - I would've considered the circumstances to be different.

 

Parliament decreed that the Brexit bill details had to be declared and debated before the DEAL, (not bill), could be voted on. This is effectively the repeat of the debate and vote.

ETA. The DEAL was a general overview of what the EU and BoJo's cronies had agreed. The bill is a far more involved document.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, stlucifer said:

This is irrelevant in the sense that we did not get a choice on voting as a nation. The UK parties are constantly inferring that we are equal partners in their union so, if that were true, we SHOULD HAVE been allowed to vote as a nation. So the referendum ended all square. Status quo should have been the outcome.

It's entirely relevant.

If Scots had wanted to make our own decision regarding EU membership as a  separate country we would have voted for Independence in 2014. We didn't and therefore accepted that our voice would be a UK voice come the EU referendum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

It's entirely relevant.

If Scots had wanted to make our own decision regarding EU membership as a  separate country we would have voted for Independence in 2014. We didn't and therefore accepted that our voice would be a UK voice come the EU referendum.

 

 

That’s not the case though.

In 2014 there was no EU referendum on the cards - simply the promise that “Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU.” The EU referendum debate only came when Cameron shat himself from losing voters to UKIP in 2015. By then we had already voted No and expected the promise about staying in the EU to hold.

Some Scots made their EU decision in 2014 due to being told leaving the UK meant being out of the EU. There was no plans for an overall EU referendum at that point and that’s where the relevance is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

That’s not the case though.

In 2014 there was no EU referendum on the cards - simply the promise that “Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU.” The EU referendum debate only came when Cameron shat himself from losing voters to UKIP in 2015. By then we had already voted No and expected the promise about staying in the EU to hold.

Some Scots made their EU decision in 2014 due to being told leaving the UK meant being out of the EU. There was no plans for an overall EU referendum at that point and that’s where the relevance is.

I cant recall the exact date when the EU referendum was called but we knew it would be 2016 well before the 2014 Indyref. 

I think it was announced in 2012 or 2013 but it might have been earlier.

One of the arguments against that argument about being out of the EU was that we might vote Leav in 2016 and be out as part of the UK wothdrawal anyway.

You've got your dates wrong CS.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I cant recall the exact date when the EU referendum was called but we knew it would be 2016 well before the 2014 Indyref.

I think it was announced in 2012 or 2013 but it might have been earlier.

I’m pretty sure it was an election promise Cameron made in 2015 to stave off the increasing threat of UKIP. 
 

I’ve just checked it up and it appears we are both right in a sense. There’s an article here dating back to 2013 where Cameron made the promise during PMQs on the basis they won the 2015 election. This referendum was dependent on winning the 2015 election though - had, say Labour come out on top, the referendum would never have been held as Miliband outright said he was against it.

You are right in the sense Cameron mentioned it in 2013, but the actual “sorting it out” was dependent on the 2015 election, which was after the Scottish referendum. So, I would say I’m not wrong in saying that in 2014, there was no immediate plan for an EU referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I’m pretty sure it was an election promise Cameron made in 2015 to stave off the increasing threat of UKIP. 
 

I’ve just checked it up and it appears we are both right in a sense. There’s an article here dating back to 2013 where Cameron made the promise during PMQs on the basis they won the 2015 election. This referendum was dependent on winning the 2015 election though - had, say Labour come out on top, the referendum would never have been held as Miliband outright said he was against it.

You are right in the sense Cameron mentioned it in 2013, but the actual “sorting it out” was dependent on the 2015 election, which was after the Scottish referendum. So, I would say I’m not wrong in saying that in 2014, there was no immediate plan for an EU referendum.

Yeah you are right about the requirement for a 2015 GE win but in fairness not a single person truly believed Labour were going to win that election. They were miles behind in the polls and despite drastically outperforming in the 2015 election were still absolutely miles away from winning in the end. It was a real shock that they denied the Tories a clear win. Interestingly, we'd have probably been out of the EU by now if the Tories had taken another few seats and got their increased majority. I don't remember any arguments about how an EU referendum would be avoided if Labour got in. It was being talked about as an inevitable Remain win (I remember being annoyed at that complacency) but that was it.

It was crystal clear to everyone that the Tories would win in 2015, that there would then be an EU referendum in 2016 and that there was a risk of Leave winning. People voted in 2014 with that risk in mind.

So I accept you have a small point here but there's a fair bit of straw clutching going on. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...