Current Events > Breaking: House of Commons passes bill preventing no-deal Brexit

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sackgurl posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The "default" was rejected 3 separate times, though. The whole reason people are trying to get an extension is because when faced with choosing either May's deal or no deal, they chose no deal.

no

when faced with may's deal they said no

that's not the same

It is unless when the EU themselves say that the deal May offered was their final deal and they would not renegotiate, and given a looming deadline that presumably was not going to get extended again.
---

s0nicfan posted...

It is

it isn't

let them vote it again

they'll say "remain"
---

Sackgurl posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It is

it isn't

let them vote it again

they'll say "remain"

s0nicfan posted...

It is when the EU themselves say that the deal May offered was their final deal and they would not renegotiate

---

It still leaves me incredulous that something as impactful as Brexit was left to a simple majority vote
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

It still leaves me incredulous that something as impactful as Brexit was left to a simple majority vote

That's because the person who introduced it was confident that they would overwhelmingly vote remain. The whole thing started as a political charade designed to shut people up who are unhappy with the EU, and then when it backfired tremendously they've been doing everything they can for literally years now to keep from executing on it because they don't want to admit they never intended to leave in the first place.
---

It wasn't even a binding referendum. Literally the only thing they would have needed to do is say "Nah, we aren't gonna do that."
---

s0nicfan posted...

Sackgurl posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It is

it isn't

let them vote it again

they'll say "remain"

s0nicfan posted...

It is when the EU themselves say that the deal May offered was their final deal and they would not renegotiate

Are you being purposely obtuse?

All that voting NO on May's deal is they don't accept May's deal. It does not imply they want a "Crash out of the EU, no deal Brexit" and trying to claim otherwise is just stretching reality. What is left now, unless the EU change their mind (and it's probably likely they will) is that the government have to either just scrap Brexit as it's not feasible, or... who the fuck knows. A general election was denied, no deal is off the tables now and no one can come to an agreement of what Leave means.
---

The Tories are gonna try for an election again

I don't think it's gonna happen

Even Sinn Fein went on record saying they'd be open to negotiating with the other parties over electoral candidates
---

Funkydog posted...

Are you being purposely obtuse?

All that voting NO on May's deal is they don't accept May's deal. It does not imply they want a "Crash out of the EU, no deal Brexit" and trying to claim otherwise is just stretching reality. What is left now, unless the EU change their mind (and it's probably likely they will) is that the government have to either just scrap Brexit as it's not feasible, or... who the fuck knows. A general election was denied, no deal is off the tables now and no one can come to an agreement of what Leave means.

It wasn't just "May's deal." It was the deal the EU said would be the only one that UK would get. The EU said they would not renegotiate. Stop trying to frame it as if this was just one person's plan that they rejected. They rejected the only plan the EU was going to offer. Unless you are actively trying to get brexit cancelled, then it was pretty clear what the options were going into that vote.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Funkydog posted...

Are you being purposely obtuse?

All that voting NO on May's deal is they don't accept May's deal. It does not imply they want a "Crash out of the EU, no deal Brexit" and trying to claim otherwise is just stretching reality. What is left now, unless the EU change their mind (and it's probably likely they will) is that the government have to either just scrap Brexit as it's not feasible, or... who the fuck knows. A general election was denied, no deal is off the tables now and no one can come to an agreement of what Leave means.

It wasn't just "May's deal." It was the deal the EU said would be the only one that UK would get. The EU said they would not renegotiate. Stop trying to frame it as if this was just one person's plan that they rejected. They rejected the only plan the EU was going to offer. Unless you are actively trying to get brexit cancelled, then it was pretty clear what the options were going into that vote.

You're the one trying to frame it as something it's not. No matter how much you try and claim they "want" a no deal brexit it simply isn't true.

If it was, then why the fuck was a motion passed banning a no deal brexit from happening? Why did some of the Tories rebel against Boris in seeing this come to be? At least use basic logic if you want to make some asinine point which isn't true.

All the rejections mean at this point is that nobody has a fucking clue what to do with Brexit.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Unless you are actively trying to get brexit cancelled, then it was pretty clear what the options were going into that vote.

that is the objective for most yes.

Funkydog posted...

All the rejections mean at this point is that nobody has a f***ing clue what to do with Brexit.

lot of folks know what to do: re-vote with new information on exactly what 'leave' means, rather than what farrage pretended it meant.
---

Sackgurl posted...

lot of folks know what to do: re-vote with new information on exactly what 'leave' means, rather than what farrage pretended it meant.

"Look how painful we've made this process over the last few years by consistently sabotaging our own efforts. I bet you want to stay now, don't you"

If Corbyn didn't suck up to the remainers in labour and push the bill that forced the commons to vote on a deal in the first place, the UK would have left years ago.
---

the UKs best option is to have a re vote cause people would vote to remain now that they know what leaving actually means, and all of this would be over
---

Nobody knew Brexit would be so difficult.
---

This whole thing has made me read up on the British Parliament in a way I never have before. The House of Lords is pretty fucked up. It's still hereditary, title-based, connected to the Anglican Church, and for life appointment. From what I understand they have less power, but still.

It really makes you think. As horrible and appalling as America is, it's still the best thing we got regarding representative democracy. I mean, it's totally for sale and your vote doesn't mean dick, but at least we pretend it does.
---

nexigrams posted...

This whole thing has made me read up on the British Parliament in a way I never have before. The House of Lords is pretty fucked up. It's still hereditary, title-based, connected to the Anglican Church, and for life appointment. From what I understand they have less power, but still.

It really makes you think. As horrible and appalling as America is, it's still the best thing we got regarding representative democracy. I mean, it's totally for sale and your vote doesn't mean dick, but at least we pretend it does.

The US system of 3 branches, 2 chambers, multiple cross-branch checks and balances, and the whole court system is really quite elegant. The problem in the US isn't the system so much as it is civic engagement. Politicians in the UK really do listen to their constituents because they can and will vote your ass out if you don't, whereas in the US nobody votes and they sure as hell don't cross party lines.

If I had to make one change to the US system, it would be setting up congress, or at least the house, to be like european systems where seats are proportionally assigned based on votes, meaning small parties can form and larger parties will have to form coalitions to get stuff done.
---

yeah, stripping out the winner take all system of the US process would dramatically improve civic engagement, and also make a lot more votes matter in a lot more places
---

Sackgurl posted...

yeah, stripping out the winner take all system of the US process would dramatically improve civic engagement, and also make a lot more votes matter in a lot more places

Which is probably why it won't happen. The 2 major parties - and their patrons, have a good thing going. They'd fight it tooth and nail.
---

JE19426 posted...

Hicks233 posted...

The Commonwealth isn't a threat to the EU as such, but with the current administration in the US not being - shall we say, fond of the EU? It works out better for the US if the EU antagonises the UK.

You ignoring the fact the US House of Representatives have stated that they'd refusing to accept any deals with the UK; if the UK breaks the Good Friday Agreement, and the UK would have to do so if they leave on WTO terms with no article Article 24.

Johnson became PM, the leverage went back on the table and the EU started to blink. There was the potential for a renegotiation for a deal that could, maybe have gotten through the commons, but then Labour shit the bed and are now trying to remove the UK's leverage, which brings the situation back to something akin to the position that May was trying to negotiate from.

Are you going to present any evidence the EU was going to accept the UK leaving article 24?

The HoR would likely be lobbied by Agriculture groups and if the potential for sales outstrips the screeching of IRA fundraisers in Boston then they'll cave - money [for good or ill] talks. With an election soon to come, it's not going to go over too well that possible revenue streams are discarded because expats in Boston have a bee in their bonnet. That 17% approval rating isn't going to be done any good if Congress is presented as obstructionist to the possible increase in trade and income for the US' agricultural sector.

You're also asking me to present evidence of something that has only been hypothetically suggested about a set of negotiations that have only seen movement in the last two months? Something that if the EU were to acknowledge would weaken their negotiation position? If Labour hadn't dragged the rug out from under the negotiations then maybe we'd find out. If for some reason - perhaps the Benn bill isn't given Royal Assent - then we'll find out more about the possible invocation of Article 24.

You've having difficulty with this concept of using leverage in negotiations aren't you?

If the EU were to concede that there are options to smooth processes, even in the event of a WTO exit, it weakens their position - they're not going to do that unless they have to. So no, I cannot give you evidence of the EU deliberately weakening their own negotiating position, because the EU are not stupid.
---

ThyCorndog posted...

the UKs best option is to have a re vote cause people would vote to remain now that they know what leaving actually means, and all of this would be over

And if "Leave" won a second time?

Are the Remain lobbyists going to respect that outcome? Or are they going to piss their pants again and cry out "best of three"?
---

Hicks233 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

the UKs best option is to have a re vote cause people would vote to remain now that they know what leaving actually means, and all of this would be over

And if "Leave" won a second time?

Are the Remain lobbyists going to respect that outcome? Or are they going to piss their pants again and cry out "best of three"?

only one way to find out
---

Hicks233 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

the UKs best option is to have a re vote cause people would vote to remain now that they know what leaving actually means, and all of this would be over

And if "Leave" won a second time?

Are the Remain lobbyists going to respect that outcome? Or are they going to piss their pants again and cry out "best of three"?

Why, drag it out 3 more years, claim the people deserve a voice, and then vote again. And again. And again.
---

ThyCorndog posted...

Hicks233 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

the UKs best option is to have a re vote cause people would vote to remain now that they know what leaving actually means, and all of this would be over

And if "Leave" won a second time?

Are the Remain lobbyists going to respect that outcome? Or are they going to piss their pants again and cry out "best of three"?

only one way to find out

I'm going to assume, based on the past three years then, that they'd continue to whine like children and refuse to accept it.

It's reaching the point where it's like some kind of hysterical mental illness - watching and listening to ardent remainers. Would you want it to be binding/non-binding? If it gets a binding Leave result, I'm not sure whether the atmosphere could take the amount of Carbon Dioxide that would be pumped into it as remainers hyper-ventilate, it wouldn't be nice to do that to the environment now, would it?
---

Hicks233 posted...

I'm going to assume, based on the past three years then, that they'd continue to whine like children and refuse to accept it.

To the people who voted remain, this is not an issue of democratic process but one of existential survival. You should expect them to do anything and everything in their power to prevent brexit from occurring even if it involves violating every Democratic principle they have, because to them leaving is not something that should have ever been an option.

Just look at how things have preceded the last three years, and the number of flaming hoops and hurdles that people have been made to jump through to get approval to execute on brexit. Then look at how those same people who added those hurdles then voted no to prevent anybody from jumping over them.
---

Hicks233 posted...

That 17% approval rating isn't going to be done any good if Congress is presented as obstructionist to the possible increase in trade and income for the US' agricultural sector.

Firstly congress's apporval rating would do better if they stuck to their claimeded ethics and morales, then betraying them due to the money they could make.
Secondly congress has never given a damn about their apporval rating, congress as a whole isn't voted, only individual members are voted.

If the EU were to concede that there are options to smooth processes, even in the event of a WTO exit, it weakens their position - they're not going to do that unless they have to. So no, I cannot give you evidence of the EU deliberately weakening their own negotiating position, because the EU are not stupid.

You've repeatedly claimed the EU is begining to crack on it's position, now you're saying there is no evidence of such? That's an interest twist in your position.

wish the UK would just fuck off already, watching them squirm and wring their hands while they desperately try to figure out a way to keep suckling on the EU teat while also saving face with the people is frustrating as all hell

JE19426 posted...

Hicks233 posted...

That 17% approval rating isn't going to be done any good if Congress is presented as obstructionist to the possible increase in trade and income for the US' agricultural sector.

Firstly congress's apporval rating would do better if they stuck to their claimeded ethics and morales, then betraying them due to the money they could make.
Secondly congress has never given a damn about their apporval rating, congress as a whole isn't voted, only individual members are voted.

If the EU were to concede that there are options to smooth processes, even in the event of a WTO exit, it weakens their position - they're not going to do that unless they have to. So no, I cannot give you evidence of the EU deliberately weakening their own negotiating position, because the EU are not stupid.

You've repeatedly claimed the EU is begining to crack on it's position, now you're saying there is no evidence of such? That's an interest twist in your position.

The EU were insistent that there would be no negotiation on the withdrawal agreement. That the backstop was non-negotiable. Now - at least until Labour fucked up, there was movement on the backstop and alternatives being open to being considered - once the threat of leaving on WTO terms was back on the table in negotiations.

You can try and weasel as much as you like with this. You wanted evidence of weakening on Article 24, there's been no evidence of that as there isn't enough threat of it yet. The EU aren't going to offer/just give it to the UK as it would mean them voluntarily surrendering the money they want for nothing in return. There has been weakening on the position of the backstop however, with the potential to have that continue with other areas, [including the potential invocation of Article 24] it would require that the UK's negotiations weren't crippled by Labour's actions however.

Kaiganeer posted...

wish the UK would just fuck off already, watching them squirm and wring their hands while they desperately try to figure out a way to keep suckling on the EU teat while also saving face with the people is frustrating as all hell

Check to see how much the UK pays in compared to how much it gets back from the EU: https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ [2017 figures]

If paying in 8.9 billion [the amount after rebates are removed] is sucking on titty, then that's paying a shit load for the privilege. Kind of like having a prostitute pay to fuck you, the customer.

I too wish that the UK could just "fuck off already", unfortunately we have a portion of the population and government that really, really want to continue to pay to suck on the EU's tit and not get much milk for the trouble. They have difficulty accepting that they lost the referendum.
---

I am getting such a kick out of people insisting that this is anti-democratic
---

The most hardcore of British leavers seem to believe that if they crash out of the EU, the UK is going to magically get better trade deals than what they had with the EU. What they don't seem to understand is the UK is just an isolated island nation without the EU and that the likes of the US, the other Commonwealth, etc nations are going to ass rape the UK in any trade negotiation as the UK no longer has the clout of the EU behind it and is therefore in a much weaker negotiating position.

---

SpudForce posted...

The most hardcore of British leavers seem to believe that if they crash out of the EU, the UK is going to magically get better trade deals than what they had with the EU. What they don't seem to understand is the UK is just an isolated island nation without the EU and that the likes of the US, the other Commonwealth, etc nations are going to ass rape the UK in any trade negotiation as the UK no longer has the clout of the EU behind it and is therefore in a much weaker negotiating position.

And what others are struggling to realise, is that for many of those people, living standards are already shit - particularly in the North. They just want to be out of the EU, regardless of how it upsets corporate interests, or the chattering classes in London.

There is a good case to be made for Corporate and Finance interests in the UK to desire a WTO exit. It means that the UK would not be bound by financial regulations due to be brought in by the EU which would tighten standards. They'd get to continue being cowboys in this instance. Desirable? No, not for the general population, but very desirable for a 1%.

The UK is still one of the top 10 largest economies in the world, that's unlikely to change. The UK has neglected the Commonwealth for far too long and has had a dismissive attitude towards them in favour of the EU - up until the referendum vote. The UK has only itself to blame for how it has [dis]regarded the Commonwealth nations and really ought to make amends with this.

If the UK takes advantage of the opportunities present to it, while still showing humility and gratitude to those other nations - given that there is a whole WORLD outside of the EU - something that the most ardent remainers seem unable to realise, there could be good progress with interest already from Israel, South Korea, Japan, Australia and the US.

With the EU attempting to railroad Switzerland, there is also the possibility for greater co-operation in financial markets between the UK and Switzerland, joined over a spirit of "Fuck the EU". Will it happen? I don't know, I don't have a time machine.

The fisheries available to the UK are negotiating leverage with the EU - given the importance of them to French and Spanish fishing fleets. They would also be a good thing to negotiate with in good graces with nations such as Iceland and Norway. Again, there is a world outside of the EU.

Without the animosity that exists towards the EU in negotiations with other nations, there is the possibility for healthier negotiation. Is the UK going to have to accept that it is not a big-shot world power? Absolutely. It ought to have done that over 50 years ago. Does it still have a chance at making a good future outside of the EU? Yes.

Would it have been preferable to have a healthy and happy EU with the UK in it? Yes and no. The EU was unwilling to reform, is still unwilling to reform and is unlikely to reform. It should come as no surprise that the UK voted to leave the EU, as for some people, there is more to life than money.

Just remember, no matter what happens, the rich will get richer and the rest of us plebs will remain plebs - no matter what flag you like to wave.
---

SpudForce posted...

The most hardcore of British leavers seem to believe that if they crash out of the EU, the UK is going to magically get better trade deals than what they had with the EU.

That is what's mind boggling to me. It's wishful thinking at best.
---

brestugo posted...

SpudForce posted...

The most hardcore of British leavers seem to believe that if they crash out of the EU, the UK is going to magically get better trade deals than what they had with the EU.

That is what's mind boggling to me. It's wishful thinking at best.

The less doom and gloom counter point to that, would be to say that when the EU negotiates, it is negotiating on the behalf of 28/27 nations. All of these have their own demands and requirements. There are going to be conflicts and differences of opinion, variances in goals and desires for each of them. The EU needs to get all of them to agree before it can propose arrangements with the nation it is looking to negotiate with. Then the offer that is made needs to be agreeable to all those nations. Complicated no?

A single nation has only its own agenda to consider.

Does that mean that a single nation [in this case the UK] is going to get an advantageous outcome? No. It makes it a damn sight simpler though. If both parties have something that the other wants then there is a good chance of progress. If three of those twenty-seven quite like part of a deal, another eight hate it, six of them don't care because they don't produce or buy anything related and the rest are too busy dealing with migrants on their borders to pay attention then it's going to be harder to come to a consensus.

What I really don't get is this terminal misery and negativity that is expressed. What is wrong with you all?? You'd think the world was ending at the prospect of leaving the EU, that everyone's ass will explode with super-aids and that Desperate Housewives is going to get a remake. Why are you all so scared and miserable? We had the "great recession" and we got through that, we had the '70s and got through that. We had the '50s and somehow got through that as well. Go further back and you have two world wars. We got through them also. What makes you think that we'll be unable to get through leaving the apron strings of Nanny-EU??

The referendum campaign was full of this shit. They were obsessed with trying to scare people and make them miserable. If the EU is so wonderful, why didn't they push that aspect, iInspire, enthrall and encourage a population? People are not going to be inspired by misery or negativity.

Stop being such miserable sods and try being optimistic for a change.
---

---

Hicks233 posted...

The EU aren't going to offer/just give it to the UK as it would mean them voluntarily surrendering the money they want for nothing in return. There has been weakening on the position of the backstop however, with the potential to have that continue with other areas, [including the potential invocation of Article 24] it would require that the UK's negotiations weren't crippled by Labour's actions however.

So you don't actually think the EU would agree to Article 24, but they should keep pushing it just because?

What is wrong with you all?? You'd think the world was ending at the prospect of leaving the EU, that everyone's ass will explode with super-aids and that Desperate Housewives is going to get a remake. Why are you all so scared and miserable? We had the "great recession" and we got through that, we had the '70s and got through that. We had the '50s and somehow got through that as well. Go further back and you have two world wars. We got through them also. What makes you think that we'll be unable to get through leaving the apron strings of Nanny-EU?

Just becuase we think something is a stupid idea doesn't mean we think the world is ending, that's a monumentally stupid suggestion.

Hicks233 posted...

brestugo posted...

SpudForce posted...

The most hardcore of British leavers seem to believe that if they crash out of the EU, the UK is going to magically get better trade deals than what they had with the EU.

That is what's mind boggling to me. It's wishful thinking at best.

The less doom and gloom counter point to that, would be to say that when the EU negotiates, it is negotiating on the behalf of 28/27 nations. All of these have their own demands and requirements. There are going to be conflicts and differences of opinion, variances in goals and desires for each of them. The EU needs to get all of them to agree before it can propose arrangements with the nation it is looking to negotiate with. Then the offer that is made needs to be agreeable to all those nations. Complicated no?

A single nation has only its own agenda to consider.

Does that mean that a single nation [in this case the UK] is going to get an advantageous outcome? No. It makes it a damn sight simpler though. If both parties have something that the other wants then there is a good chance of progress. If three of those twenty-seven quite like part of a deal, another eight hate it, six of them don't care because they don't produce or buy anything related and the rest are too busy dealing with migrants on their borders to pay attention then it's going to be harder to come to a consensus.

What I really don't get is this terminal misery and negativity that is expressed. What is wrong with you all?? You'd think the world was ending at the prospect of leaving the EU, that everyone's ass will explode with super-aids and that Desperate Housewives is going to get a remake. Why are you all so scared and miserable? We had the "great recession" and we got through that, we had the '70s and got through that. We had the '50s and somehow got through that as well. Go further back and you have two world wars. We got through them also. What makes you think that we'll be unable to get through leaving the apron strings of Nanny-EU??

The referendum campaign was full of this shit. They were obsessed with trying to scare people and make them miserable. If the EU is so wonderful, why didn't they push that aspect, iInspire, enthrall and encourage a population? People are not going to be inspired by misery or negativity.

Stop being such miserable sods and try being optimistic for a change.

'Brexit: not as bad as super aids'

So you don't actually think the EU would agree to Article 24, but they should keep pushing it just because?

You're doing this deliberately now aren't you?

The EU would be more inclined to agree to the invocation of Article 24 in the case of a WTO exit, if it prevents damage to the German and French, and by extension the Eurozone's economies - avoiding recession and giving breathing room to then carry out trade negotiations - of which the divorce bill would likely be a prerequisite and UK fishing grounds a piece of leverage.

If the EU doesn't think it would be damaged, then it would likely not support an Article 24 implementation. After three years of media hysterics over how brexit is worse than super aids though... there would be pressure from business and state to have "as orderly a transition as possible" - Article 24 allows that breathing space while the negotiators get to squabble some more. If brexit isn't worse than super-aids, then the EU and the media look like idiots for spending three years screaming that it is.

The EU however would not be the ones to volunteer Article 24 support as part of negotiations as it is to the UK's benefit [avoiding paying that divorce fee] and not the EUs.

Again, the EU wants the money from the UK to maintain their budget plans. Without those funds, they either need to cut back their budget - its the EU they have difficulty with the concept of restraint, reduce the amount that other nations receive in development funds, or they'd then need to pressure EU nations to increase their contributions - which would entail those nations making cuts in their budgets, or raising taxes - something sure to increase a favourable view of EU yeah...?

Are you from the UK? Are you Scottish?

We've had three years of what has become known as "Project Fear" where there has been such a hysteria whipped up over how initially the world may as well be ending by the UK leaving the EU, then how not only would the world be ending - but that super-aids infected flying badgers will be a portent of dooooooom at the prospect of the UK leaving without a deal. This has gone on day in, day out for three years to the point that a big chunk of the public I think it is fair to say is fed up of it. Trying to scare or bully people doesn't inspire them. The message communicated was one of: "Shut up, do as you're told, you're all racist xenophobes for not wanting to be in the EU".

The very thought of saying: "we're leaving, that's what was voted for, we'll respect it, [even if we disagree] let's see what we can do and make the best of the opportunities available" doesn't seem to have entered their [the media and political class'] minds. Instead we got three years of a shit Pvt. Fraser from Dad's Army impression, going: "we're doooooomed".

I'm amazed that the country hasn't curled up in the foetal position in pools of their own urine at roadsides, nervously panicking at the prospect of not being in the EU... oh wait, most people have just gotten on with their lives and are tired of parliament dragging its heels, an obsessed segment of the remain vote that refuse to accept they lost, and an increasing antagonism towards journalists and celebrities that refuse to accept they lost and proceed to shit on the country.

Again, rather than sulking about having lost, why not accept the result, look to the future and work to make it as good, if not better than could be hoped for? Is it not possible to aspire to something better than giving the EU billions and cravenly slurring out "Thank you master..." There's a big world out there, let's say hello to it without Nanny EU scolding us for not taking into account whether Spain wants to sell oranges, or picking up Junker's bar tab.
---

I'm rooting for Boris.

Hicks233 posted...

You're doing this deliberately now aren't you?

Doing what? Asking you to explain your position that seems to keep shifting? Yes I am doing that.

The EU would be more inclined to agree to the invocation of Article 24 in the case of a WTO exit, if it prevents damage to the German and French, and by extension the Eurozone's economies - avoiding recession and giving breathing room to then carry out trade negotiations - of which the divorce bill would likely be a prerequisite and UK fishing grounds a piece of leverage.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim of yours?

Are you from the UK?

Yes.

Are you Scottish?

No. I can understand why you want to know if I'm from the UK, but I don't understand why you care about what specific part of the UK, I'm from.

We've had three years of what has become known as "Project Fear" where there has been such a hysteria whipped up over how initially the world may as well be ending by the UK leaving the EU, then how not only would the world be ending - but that super-aids infected flying badgers will be a portent of dooooooom at the prospect of the UK leaving without a deal.

That's completely nonsense, outside of some comedians, nobody as claimed Brexit would be as bad as super-aids or the world ending.

The very thought of saying: "we're leaving, that's what was voted for, we'll respect it, [even if we disagree] let's see what we can do and make the best of the opportunities available" doesn't seem to have entered their [the media and political class'] minds.

Actually most of the political class have spend the last three years trying to implement Brexit.

Is it not possible to aspire to something better than giving the EU billions and cravenly slurring out "Thank you master..."

Yes of course it is, we can even stay in the EU without cravenly slurring out "thank you master...".

s0nicfan posted...

Sackgurl posted...

He said his party would back an election after the bill had been passed, but not before.

idk how you're reading that as "he won't hold an election"

And we're supposed to just take his word while actively assuming that everything Boris does is designed to be sabotage? If Boris promises he won't move the election date, would you believe that too?

Oh and what a shock, even AFTER the no-deal bill passes through lords, Corbyn is STILL refusing to allow an election even though he demanded it, because he's a lying snake:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49609677

UK opposition parties have agreed not to back Boris Johnson's demand for a general election before the EU summit in mid-October.

Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru say they will vote against the government or abstain in Monday's vote on whether to hold a snap poll.

Meanwhile, a bill designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit has been approved by the House of Lords and will pass into law.

---

Why would Corbyn agree to an election that would occur 2 weeks before a no deal Brexit? @s0nicfan
---

Doom_Art posted...

Why would Corbyn agree to an election that would occur 2 weeks before a no deal Brexit? @s0nicfan

Corbyn demanded an election when Boris was nominated.
Then when Boris offered one, he said not until after the no-deal bill was passed.
Now that the no deal bill is passed, he's saying not until after an extension.

The reality is that right now the Tories are +10 and Labour is like -5 in the polls, so Corbyn is stalling for time because he knows he fucked up by demanding an election. Now that the no-deal bill is approved, there's literally no risk to holding an election as soon as possible because whoever wins still has to abide by the results. Instead, minority parties at risk of losing ground to the Tories have decided "no, now's not the time" even after weeks to months of "Boris doesn't have the people's mandate" talks.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Corbyn demanded an election when Boris was nominated.
Then when Boris offered one, he said not until after the no-deal bill was passed.
Now that the no deal bill is passed, he's saying not until after an extension.

Right. Because he doesn't want to crash out of the EU and having an election 2 weeks before the 31st leaves no time to negotiate an exit.


---

Doom_Art posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Corbyn demanded an election when Boris was nominated.
Then when Boris offered one, he said not until after the no-deal bill was passed.
Now that the no deal bill is passed, he's saying not until after an extension.

Right. Because he doesn't want to crash out of the EU and having an election 2 weeks before the 31st leaves no time to negotiate an exit.

Corbyn's exact words:

He wants to table a motion for a general election, fine. Get the bill through first in order to take no-deal off the table.

I will be delighted when the election comes. Im ready for it, youre ready for it well take that message out there and above all we will win.

Labour wants to prevent a no-deal Brexit, and to have a general election, so we can end austerity and invest in our communities. I am confident we can have both, and weve been in discussions about a way to achieve this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/corbyn-to-support-snap-election-only-if-no-deal-brexit-is-blocked
---

Tbf, that was a dumb promise of Corbyn in the first place.

I'm glad to see he's seeing sense
---

Do you have any evidence to support this claim of yours?

My position has been quite clear. Maintaining the leverage of leaving on WTO terms gives the UK a better negotiating position. Labour seeking to remove that leverage weakens the UK's position. Article 24 allows breathing room for both group's respective economies, but is not going to be offered first by the EU as it weakens their position.

You're asking for evidence of something that isn't likely to be considered unless leaving on WTO terms is the default. I keep on explaining this to you but you insist on weaselling each time. Labour fucked the UK's negotiating leverage. Without the threat of leaving on WTO terms the EU has the upper hand in a negotiation. If the UK somehow leaves on WTO terms and the EU wants to maintain something relative to the status quo until a trade deal is negotiated [due to potential risk to relative national economies] then Article 24 allows something akin to that. The EU are not going to offer it to the UK though as part of these negotiations as it is saying that by default they would forgo the "divorce bill".

How are you going to weasel this time, I'm not sure how much clearer that can be?

Parliament voted for Article 50. Then they've spent three years dithering about, refused to vote the withdrawal agreement through three times and have now voted to remove the UK's best negotiation leverage.

So a question for you. Should Parliament have voted to remove the UK's best negotiation leverage [leaving without a deal and denying the EU the billions they want], or ought negotiation have been biased in the EU's favour from the beginning? a.k.a. are you more loyal to the EU, or the UK?

And a second question: Hypothetically, how do you propose that the UK gains better terms from the EU - were they to stay in the EU? As in, paying in less and getting back more? a.k.a. do you even want the UK to have a favourable position?
---

Hicks233 posted...

You're asking for evidence of something that isn't likely to be considered unless leaving on WTO terms is the default.

It's already the default, so you should have the evidence.

Should Parliament have voted to remove the UK's best negotiation leverage [leaving without a deal and denying the EU the billions they want], or ought negotiation have been biased in the EU's favour from the beginning?

Refusing to pay the money we've already agreed to pay the EU would make making future deals with anyone much more challenging in future. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the whole "ought negotiation have been biased in the EU's favour from the beginning".

a.k.a. are you more loyal to the EU, or the UK?

Neither.

Hypothetically, how do you propose that the UK gains better terms from the EU - were they to stay in the EU? As in, paying in less and getting back more?

I don't, I think the deal we already had were fine.

a.k.a. do you even want the UK to have a favourable position?

We already had a favourable position, we aren't part of the Schengen Area so we get control of our borders, and we are one of the only EU countries that doesn't have to implement the Euro, so we have control of our currency.

JE19426 posted...

We already had a favourable position, we aren't part of the Schengen Area so we get control of our borders, and we are one of the only EU countries that doesn't have to implement the Euro, so we have control of our currency.

But the BeNdY bAnAnAs!!
---

Funkydog posted...

JE19426 posted...

We already had a favourable position, we aren't part of the Schengen Area so we get control of our borders, and we are one of the only EU countries that doesn't have to implement the Euro, so we have control of our currency.

But the BeNdY bAnAnAs!!

I mean, the fishing and agricultural industries in the UK have been devastated by EU agreements, but nobody gives a shit about them.
---

Has the UK manage to find a viable and realistic alternative to the backstop yet?
---

It's already the default, so you should have the evidence.

WTO went on the table with Boris becoming PM. The backstop suddenly becomes open to alternatives when it went on the table. Taking WTO off the table with the Benn bill removes if from the default - it removes it entirely. If as is likely, the Benn bill receives assent then WTO ceases to be an option and the leverage it provided - and caused a shift in willingness to compromise on the NI backstop is gone.

So again, with Article 24 - let's see if you can understand it this time: the EU are not going to be the ones to put it on the table as an offer, as it means they surrender the divorce bill [which shall hereby be known as "Junker's Bar Tab". It remains an option to use, if needed or desired however.

Back to weaselling?

The money to the EU was part of the negotiation. Not paying it could indeed make future negotiations more difficult. That doesn't however reduce its validity as a negotiation tactic. If the UK wasn't, or isn't willing to use that leverage, then they are biasing negotiations in the EU's favour by the default - playing to loose from a deliberately weaker position. You seem quite happy with that however?

Which leads onto you claiming to be a neutral fence sitter that has an interesting tendency towards favouring giving the EU what it wants and weakening the UK's position. You're not in favour of the UK negotiating from a stronger position, or renegotiating its current terms to improve them and either pay less, or get more back, to gain judicial exemption or even shift to the Norway arrangement - but are still somehow neutral? That's not very neutral now is it?? You can drop that charade as it's not working.

If you are in favour of the EU, just say it. If you choose the EU over the UK, then just say it. Don't try to pretend other wise though.
---