Page 1 of 1
Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 7:02 am
by refitman
Morning all.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 9:53 am
by PaulfromYorkshire
Brexit latest news: Theresa May powerless to prevent Brexit delay if MPs back plan to extend Article 50, allies admit
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... n-leaders/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 10:01 am
by gilsey
Nationalisation!!!!
David C Bannerman
@DCBMEP
Expect super Project Fear today from @Airbus. Here we have a German CEO putting EU interests first before his own employees. A disgrace. As with Galileo UK should make plans to take over these plants and sell into the global marketplace with our own planes
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 10:03 am
by gilsey
May may be powerless to prevent it but the EU aren't, I've not seen any proper justification for an extension yet.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 10:08 am
by AnatolyKasparov
gilsey wrote:
May may be powerless to prevent it but the EU aren't, I've not seen any proper justification for an extension yet.
Though the EU do seem to be making more sympathetic noises on this front recently, it shouldn't be forgotten that they also don't want a no deal scenario.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 10:21 am
by gilsey
I'm not forgetting that but imo proponents of extension need to come up with something better than 'more time to fight like rats in a sack'.
Give the EU something to work with.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 10:34 am
by AnatolyKasparov
Oh dear, looks like Wee Eck is in a spot of bother.......
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 11:13 am
by Willow904
gilsey wrote:I'm not forgetting that but imo proponents of extension need to come up with something better than 'more time to fight like rats in a sack'.
Give the EU something to work with.
I've seen on Twitter that Sarah Wollaston is pulling her second referendum amendment because the Labour front bench won't support it, so they can't get the numbers.
An attempt to force a GE has failed and now the Libdems have ruled out supporting further no confidence votes this route appears closed.
These are the two reasons an extension may be granted for. If you don't want them, can't get a majority for them, why do you want an extension?
Perhaps to ratify a deal, but to ratify a deal, parliament has to vote for the WA on offer or change its red lines. Will Corbyn support remaining in the single market, is there a commons majority for that, can parliament force May to change her future relationship aims, would the EU re-open WA negotiations if she did, would there even be any point given the realities such as the GFA that shaped the WA will still be the same?
Labour can influence the outcome but are limited to how. They can help May leave the EU with a deal or they can force a new referendum. The longer they prevaricate the more likely no deal becomes.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 11:19 am
by HindleA
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 12:28 pm
by AnatolyKasparov
Willow904 wrote:gilsey wrote:I'm not forgetting that but imo proponents of extension need to come up with something better than 'more time to fight like rats in a sack'.
Give the EU something to work with.
I've seen on Twitter that Sarah Wollaston is pulling her second referendum amendment because the Labour front bench won't support it, so they can't get the numbers.
An attempt to force a GE has failed
and now the Libdems have ruled out supporting further no confidence votes this route appears closed.
Perhaps their bluff should be called on that.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 12:49 pm
by citizenJA
Good-afternoon, everyone
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 1:08 pm
by citizenJA
I don't understand the implications of the article (linked below)
gilsey posted on yesterday's thread even after having read
Willow's response to it.
I thought re-reading it today would clarify it for me but I'm still not getting it. I'm not blaming the article or anyone else for my comprehension failure. I'm having some trouble concentrating. It's an interesting article and I'd like to know more. If anyone can spare the time writing up an explanation, I'd be grateful. No worries if not.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 1:28 pm
by citizenJA
Where the hell is government taking the country and why?
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 1:38 pm
by citizenJA
JCB paid Boris Johnson £10,000 three days before speech
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ore-speech" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The payment was disclosed on the new register of MPs’ financial interests, which also shows that JCB – owned by Anthony Bamford, a pro-Brexit Conservative peer and donor – is paying the former Brexit secretary David Davis £60,000 a year as an “external adviser”.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 2:02 pm
by adam
citizenJA wrote:I don't understand the implications of the article (linked below)
gilsey posted on yesterday's thread even after having read
Willow's response to it.
I thought re-reading it today would clarify it for me but I'm still not getting it. I'm not blaming the article or anyone else for my comprehension failure. I'm having some trouble concentrating. It's an interesting article and I'd like to know more. If anyone can spare the time writing up an explanation, I'd be grateful. No worries if not.
Whatever is supposed to be timetabled to happen in March, the fact is that there is no parliamentary time for the legislative or administrative necessities to be in place, even if the recess in February is abandoned, unless parliament were to effectively roll on its back, wave its legs in the air and rush through absolutely everything on the nod. There are 9 substantive bills that need passing and around 600 pieces of regulation to pass or more minor legislation to consider amending - almost all of it contentious. Whatever they tell you parliament will not be able to deal with this workload in this time. Therefore there must be an extension to that March 29th deadline.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 2:43 pm
by AnatolyKasparov
citizenJA wrote:I don't understand the implications of the article (linked below)
gilsey posted on yesterday's thread even after having read
Willow's response to it.
I thought re-reading it today would clarify it for me but I'm still not getting it. I'm not blaming the article or anyone else for my comprehension failure. I'm having some trouble concentrating. It's an interesting article and I'd like to know more. If anyone can spare the time writing up an explanation, I'd be grateful. No worries if not.
I'm tempted to reply that its by Suzie Boniface, so you don't need to worry about it too much. However on this occasion, she does make some pertinent points.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 2:43 pm
by Willow904
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Willow904 wrote:gilsey wrote:I'm not forgetting that but imo proponents of extension need to come up with something better than 'more time to fight like rats in a sack'.
Give the EU something to work with.
I've seen on Twitter that Sarah Wollaston is pulling her second referendum amendment because the Labour front bench won't support it, so they can't get the numbers.
An attempt to force a GE has failed
and now the Libdems have ruled out supporting further no confidence votes this route appears closed.
Perhaps their bluff should be called on that.
Maybe, but the chances of the Tories and DUP voting themselves out of government remains remote and meanwhile choices need to be made regarding Brexit whether there is a GE or not.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 3:45 pm
by gilsey
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
I'm tempted to reply that its by Suzie Boniface, so you don't need to worry about it too much. However on this occasion, she does make some pertinent points.
She does, but I assumed it wasn't intended to be taken entirely seriously, much as I'd like to.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 4:42 pm
by citizenJA
Thank you, everyone
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 4:54 pm
by PaulfromYorkshire
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -secretary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
looking-for-brexit-answers-dont-ask-the-brexit-secretary
Crace
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 5:01 pm
by gilsey
Andrew Sparrow's thoughts on stopping no-deal:
Here are various things that could happen that would led to a no-deal Brexit on 29 March being stopped, roughly in order of how likely they seem. (Some of them might occur in combination.)
1) May and the EU agree to extend article just to buy more time. Both sides would be reluctant to do this, especially if there were no guarantee that delaying would help resolve the deadlock. But stopping the clock may seem preferable to going over the cliff. However, this does not necessarily avoid no deal. It might just postpone it.
2) Parliament forces May to apply for extra time. This is a variant of 1), but perhaps less likely because, even though MPs will probably vote for the Yvette Cooper amendment next week, it is a bit harder to see that leading to a bill successfully getting through both Houses of Parliament.
3) Mainstream Tories who voted against May’s Brexit deal earlier this month swallow their doubts and support her - panicked by the prospect of a no deal, and perhaps encouraged by some modest concessions from the EU. But there aren’t enough of them so you would also need ...
4) Some Labour MPs start to line up behind May, also horrified by the prospect of what a no-deal Brexit might mean for their constituents.
5) The EU blinks, and agrees to the key Tory Brexiter demand to abandon (or at least largely abandon) the backstop.
(By now we’re into the highly improbable. And, from her, it gets even more fanciful.)
6) A fundamental Conservative party split leads to May losing a vote of confidence, and a general election being called. (May could also decide to trigger one herself, although given that many of her candidates would refuse to commit to voting for her deal, it is very, very hard to see why she would.) But this would not necessarily avoid no deal forever, because it could just take us back to a hung parliament.
7) A government - perhaps May’s, or perhaps one that emerges from a confidence vote - agrees to pass legislation for a second referendum, as a means of resolving the impasse. (The chances of MPs voting for a second referendum are a bit higher, but without a government committed to implementing legislation - which would be complicated - a vote alone would count for little.)
8) May strikes a deal with Labour MPs (perhaps Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps leading backbenchers), and comes up with a plan for a softish Brexit acceptable to at least 326 centrist Tory and Labour MPs. A deal with Corbyn would be taking us into government of national unity territory.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 5:03 pm
by gilsey
Imo 5) is the least likely of all, even more so than May having a fit of doing the right thing and revoking A50.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 5:31 pm
by PaulfromYorkshire
Hard not to laugh at Sarah Wollaston, Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger organising a press conference to say they won't after all be tabling their Peoples Vote amendment because Corbyn.
Then Peoples Vote said the press conference was nothing to do with them and that MPs should pursue what amendments they wanted.
In fact the PV comms was noticeably more nuanced and compelling than it has been (IMHO). They are now saying they don't believe there is a majority in Parliament for a PV, but they want to continue the campaign so that the PV is seen as, to coin a phrase, a "backstop" if and when other avenues have proved fruitless.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 5:32 pm
by PaulfromYorkshire
'Theresa May To Woo Unions [...]'
Huff Post
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 6:06 pm
by PorFavor
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:'Theresa May To Woo Unions [...]'
Huff Post
Twit to woo?
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 6:08 pm
by citizenJA
gilsey wrote:Imo 5) is the least likely of all, even more so than May having a fit of doing the right thing and revoking A50.
I thought exactly the same
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 6:12 pm
by citizenJA
gilsey wrote:Andrew Sparrow's thoughts on stopping no-deal:
---
5) The EU blinks, and agrees to the key Tory Brexiter demand to abandon (or at least largely abandon) the backstop.
(cJA edit)
How on earth does this make it onto Sparrow's list?
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 7:30 pm
by PaulfromYorkshire
PorFavor wrote:PaulfromYorkshire wrote:'Theresa May To Woo Unions [...]'
Huff Post
Twit to woo?
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 8:59 pm
by citizenJA
Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 10:48 pm
by Sky'sGoneOut
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:In fact the PV comms was noticeably more nuanced and compelling than it has been (IMHO). They are now saying they don't believe there is a majority in Parliament for a PV, but they want to continue the campaign so that the PV is seen as, to coin a phrase, a "backstop" if and when other avenues have proved fruitless.
I don't think anyone's ever thought there was a majority in parliament for it, the only way it becomes feasible is if Corbyn makes it the official Labour party position, which he is bound to do by conference when all the rest of his nonsense has failed. Once he's finished dicking about trying to force an election then he'll have nowhere left to run. The Tories will never vote themselves out of government, May will never compromise, so what are we left with? No deal or another referendum. So a backstop's pretty accurate and there's no point playing their hand unless they think they have a chance of winning.
Anyway I do hope QT isn't as soul destroying as last week.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2019 11:51 pm
by RogerOThornhill
Sky'sGoneOut wrote:
Anyway I do hope QT isn't as soul destroying as last week.
It had Suella Braverman so yeah, it probably was. She is appalling.
I used to see her on the Education select committee when she was also Chair of Governors at every right winger's favourite Free School. All she did was try and score political points which is precisely what the majority of MPs try to avoid doing in select committee.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2019 12:36 am
by Sky'sGoneOut
Question Time report.
Winchester this week which voted 60% remain yet the audience was full of shouty brexit gammons once again. Quelle surprise.
For the Tories we had ex-Brexit minister Suella Braverman. If I was to talk to Suella I imagine she'd tell me brexit would make my hair grow back. She's completely round the bend. The Unicorns she's promising aren't just ordinary Unicorns, they can fly and shit gold and shoot beams out of their eyes that create jobs. It's little wonder May's deal was such a disaster when loonies like Braverman were working away in the background completely disregarding anything that didn't fit in with their Panglossian fantasy. And then she has the cheek to resign when what results isn't fantastical enough. She went down well with the brexiters though but then so would a chimp scrawling 'no deal' in its own shit.
For Labour we had John Healey. First time I've seen John and have to say I quite liked him. Calm, collected, lacking in any discernable charisma. My kind of politician. If things were left up to sensible people like John instead of the fruitcake above we wouldn't be in this mess.
From London radio we had Nick Ferrari. Nick is the kind of simpleton who uses his divorce as an anology for leaving a vast, complex political union. He plays the man of the people wondering why parliament can't work together while being shamelessly partisan with every one of his imbecilic utterances. Unsurprisingly the brexiters loved him.
From the Observer we had Sonia Sodha. Sonia was pretty good, she held her ground against the tide of gammon and made the case for another referendum while providing a sane counter to the mania of Braverman. She also called James Dyson out for being a colossal hypocrite which needed to be done.
From 'The City' we had Iain Anderson. Iain's a Scottish Tory who voted remain but now claims he's accepted Brexit. Despite his alleged PR talents I thought he came across as an exceedingly annoyed remainer. He admitted his business had set up offices in Ireland because of brexit and also slagged off Dyson. Like all Scottish Tories Iain was a bit creepy and weird.
Talking of creepy and weird Fiona Bruce had to turn to camera at one point and 'clarify' what she'd meant about the polls last week (she said Labour were 6 points behind I think) and explained that she'd only been referring to one single poll that day, while all the time maintaining exactly the same neutral smile on her face that seems to be her chosen expression for the entire programme.
It really was odd and I'm beginning to suspect my initial enthusiasm may have been slightly injudicious.
Re: Thursday 24th January 2019
Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2019 12:58 am
by Sky'sGoneOut
Indeed Roger, she's outsandingly obtuse while being simultaneously vacantly optimistic.
I achieve that by getting drunk and taking drugs.
For Suella it apparently comes naturally.