Article 50 Discussion

[tobyjugg2]

 

 

 

The France24 (in English LOL) article summarised the knowledgable summary end of the issues in a little more detail than my English did

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20191126-johnson-no-deal-brexit-uk-elections-conservatives

 

Johnson/Gove says a great deal, the EU and Common sense says what!!!

 

and:

https://elexonic.com/2019/11/19/eu-uk-will-only-be-given-bare-bones-trade-deal-after-brexit/

 

The prime minister has insisted that the United Kingdom will leave the EU in January next year and have time to secure a comprehensive free trade deal by the end of the transition period in December 2020.

But Sabine Weyand, the EU’s Director-General for Trade, said there was only time to negotiate a “bare-bones” deal with the UK next year, as the transition period will give negotiators less than 12 months of talks."

 

Of course reality is:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/15/michael-gove-promises-brexit-trade-deal-with-eu-by-end-of-2020

 

Speaking to Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday, Gove said: “Quite a lot of the details that we need to negotiate is already laid out in the political declaration, so a lot of work has been done."

 

And as a number of people have pointed out, there are areas where the European Union’s interests and the United Kingdom’s interests are already closely aligned, so I’m confident that we will be able not just to leave the EU on January 31 but also to conclude all the details of a new relationship in short order.”

Asked whether this would be yet another broken promise, like Johnson’s pledge to take the UK out of the EU “do or die”, Gove simply said: “Nope.”

 

The stuff thats already aligned and is in the EU's interests, and stays aligned,  is the whole of the deal.

 

Articles are available which define whats likely included and what isnt - and services among a number of otehr things certainly isnt.

 

Its all nothing new

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/06/eu-distances-itself-boris-johnson-timetable-post-brexit-trade-dealhttps://elexonic.com/2019/11/19/eu-uk-will-only-be-given-bare-bones-trade-deal-after-brexit/

 

[Maharg1]

Are you never going to stop whinging, it's over, you lost, get over it and move on.

[honeybee13]

It isn't over though, negotiations are going to take years for anything but a bare bones agreement and several EU countries want the 11 months extended because they don't think anything can be agreed in the time that's left.

 

Don't take my word for it, I put up a link from the Institute for Government.

[tobyjugg2]

 

@Maharg1

Still waiting for you to define some real world benefits to brexit,

or any of those 'grate' international trade deals you carp on about without any real world references.

 

Go for it ...

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Thatcherite Tories must be laughing their socks off

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-corbyn-rebecca-long-bailey-emily-thornberry-a9247966.html

Edited December 16, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[fletch70]

I can not see any real world benefits from Brexit- well certainly not for us mere mortals.  Now what worries me is what will happen at the end of the transition period, of course BJ has said it will not be extended but there again he said he would rather be dead in a ditch than extend Brexit. 

 

IF and it is a huge IF , a trade deal is done in the next 12 months, the only option I can see is something that is already in place such as membership of the EEA or similar but that will come with freedom of movement etc. Of course the Government is entirely within its rights to tighten up rules about access to benefits etc.  Let's face it, we really do need EU migrants for many jobs, the Health service, agriculture , Social Care , hospitality and catering - all jobs that many people think are beneath them. 

 

 

[fletch70]

The Labour Party do need a leader who is, or at least is perceived as, being from a working class background. Maybe with a strong regional accent and possibly a Trades union background such as old Two Jags Prescott had. failing that, get someone like David Miliband back, he was much better than Ed (more pleasing to the eye as well (marginally)- sorry for being so shallow but it does make a difference).  Northern people are tired of having a country that is run by, and for the benefit of those in London and the Home Counties. I also think Labour supporters want to have MPs who are local and not dropped in on them. My fear of course is that as the leadership is voted on by the membership and Momentum seem to have a stranglehold on party activists, we could end up with another leader who is too left for public consumption- however much it suits me personally. I would rather have a centre Labour Government than any Tory one. 

[tobyjugg2]

but are being lined up to get corbyn mini-me and a continuation of the policies and attitude that got them the worst result in living memory, despite an opponent that should have guaranteed a majority Labour Government.

 

Perhaps they think they have nothing to lose for 5 more years?

They are wrong on that too.

Wait until they start losing all the councillors in local elections.

 

Perhaps they think they don't have to change until a week or two before the next general election - and just add even more stupid extreme policies that they are certain that the UK electorate really want whatever those voters might say - like this one

 

 

Is Dominic Cummings secretly behind corbynite labour?

Edited December 16, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

It seems corbynistas are still claiming they 'got it right' and 'won the arguments'

 

NO YOU DIDN'T

 

You stayed in the 'middle' (no mans land) ground on brexit

So lost leavers and Remainers

 

and to top the cake, just when Corbyn had only reduced it to a 'non majority for Johnson'

- Open door policy immigrant and benefits policy

after every poll showed immigration was the biggest issue driving the referendum result.

 

Couldn't get much stupider.

 

 

and they are blaming coming out in favour of a second referendum - which Brexiters would be dead against anyway.

 

 

Must admit the Libdems didn't do a lot better, but at least she's just thrown herself on her sword, rather than the Corbynistas throwing anyone else on their sword.

 

PHHHUUUUTTT

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Jase1982]

Any chance you could just concede a little in your vigorous condemnation of anything Corbyn....

 

Labour still managed over 10 million votes, which is around the same as the Blair era from 2001 onward.  So I don't see how anyone can argue that the policies weren't popular.

 

I still think that Ed Miliband wasn't left enough and that a left leaning government can win if the message is clearly understood, and something such as Brexit isn't evident as the overriding voter motivation.

 

I don't see what would have been different had Labour come out with a stronger Brexit position.  They'd have lost votes regardless, and in all honesty, what was misunderstood was that the position they took was a remain position.  They were only offering a choice to people who voted one way or the other to establish whether this thing is still in the best interest of all the people.  Surely that's democracy?  Again, where's the democracy in all this.

[fletch70]

Jase

I disagree with you on some points. Don't get me wrong, I do think Labour won some of the arguments, nationalisation and the NHS. I think they did make a mistake on Brexit because what they proposed was just more agony of potentially months with no outcome in sight. If this election had happened a year ago they might have won but people just want closure. The tories won the argument on getting it done and these promises to spend billions on the health service- something that they will not be able to afford to do without significant borrowing should Brexit end up being a no deal. The Tories also won because all but one of the mainstream print media was for them and peddled lies . 

 

I also think they need to take a social democrat position on the economy and social policy , a leftwing government at the moment just won't work and it hurts me to say that. Once Brexit is done and dusted then maybe a socialist government will work particularly as the Tories really start to alienate 'Workington man' . 

 

I just hope that Farage will now sink without a trace as what he did in this election was dreadful and gave the Tories victory although how anyone can see a vote for them as more palatable than Johnson is beyond me.

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, Jase1982 said:

Any chance you could just concede a little in your vigorous condemnation of anything Corbyn....

 

Labour still managed over 10 million votes, which is around the same as the Blair era from 2001 onward.  So I don't see how anyone can argue that the policies weren't popular.

 

I still think that Ed Miliband wasn't left enough and that a left leaning government can win if the message is clearly understood, and something such as Brexit isn't evident as the overriding voter motivation.

 

I don't see what would have been different had Labour come out with a stronger Brexit position.  They'd have lost votes regardless, and in all honesty, what was misunderstood was that the position they took was a remain position.  They were only offering a choice to people who voted one way or the other to establish whether this thing is still in the best interest of all the people.  Surely that's democracy?  Again, where's the democracy in all this.

 

Jase

Sadly the perfect example of Corbynista head in the sand, its all somebody elses fault not ours attitude that has killed all chances of stopping Johnson and the ERG

 

I'm not even going to bother pointlessly ripping those feeble excuses apart and just ask:

 

So what part of Worst result since 1935 / before the second world war / since political dinosaurs roamed Westminster

- don't you and Jezebel and the Corbinista student soap box loons get?

 

Perhaps the one and only thing Cameron got right - For the good of the country - 'For heavens sake man GO!!!'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHIQAnUGhIQ

 

(link also quite interesting given Corbyns ineffectiveness against anti-semitism, and pitiful general student soap box performance)

[Jase1982]

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Jase

Sadly the perfect example of Corbynista head in the sand, its all somebody elses fault not ours attitude that has killed all chances of stopping Johnson and the ERG

 

 

You do misunderstand me slightly because I don't disagree that part of it is Corbyn, but I was merely making the point that his policies were popular, and that it's a combination of issues.  It was only the worst result in years because they failed to win a race in multiple constituencies.

 

It was the worst result since 1935, agreed.  However, surely that again just highlights the issue with first past the post.  I personally think that a whole load of Labour voters that voted leave, have felt let down by numerous Labour parties, and haven't voted for a long time tipped the balance in key constituencies.  Coupled with the Brexit party taking what votes they could from Labour.  It still doesn't detract from the fact that 10 million people voted Labour.  For me, the fact they lost so many MP's highlights the need for electoral reform.

 

Johnson has announced his withdrawal bill will be put to the vote on Friday, but what's the point,  What is the point of having a multi party democracy if one party can control parliament so astonishingly.

[tobyjugg2]

37 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

For me, the fact they lost so many MP's highlights the need for electoral reform.

 

 

For Gods sake - own your failures and get Corbyn and his sycophants out of dodge before the Labour party is destroyed utterly if it hasn't been already.

 

I wish it wasn't but turned out it was a two horse race and despite being against a lying toerag, with a sick child on the floor of a hospital, who any half way competent and electable labour leader should have trounced and walked in with a majority to make some real world changes for the better for the people of these nations ...

 

... Corbyn failed MISERABLY and has actually damaged the labour cause more than anyone in its history

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

1 hour ago, Jase1982 said:

 

I was merely making the point that his policies were popular,

 

SOME of Corbyns stated policies/intents might have been 'popular

but so are some of Johnsons stated policies/intents

 

Of course, you might claim but Corbyn means it

as would Johnsons supporters of Johnson and his policies

 

.. back in the real world ......

 

 

 

* People believed Johnson when he said he would 'get Brexit done'

* People believed Corbyn when he said he would renegotiate Remain and Leave and then offer a referendum on something or other on the other side of that

- waffle and obfuscation - although few (myself included) seemed to have any clarity on what actually would be offered other than A Leave and A Remain option blah blah blah.

 

... So Remainers were NOT offered remain, and Leavers didn't want any new negotiations or referendums

 

So No-one for Remainers to vote for and Leaver Corbyn seemingly just catering for Labor Leavers

- and what do you think those Labour Leavers and many other Labour voters thought thought when:

 

 

 

* People believed Corbyns last minute self-castration of the labour partys hopes when he said he would implement a full open door policy, giving everything away to anyone, including  ISIS and Somalian immigrants with no skills other than rape and murder .... He was believed.

* People believed Johnson wouldn't

- and THAT says it all - unelectable AND No-one will EVER believe that will change whatever is claimed by Corbynistas now - especially given the sort of responses you give Jase.

 

Just ***s [Edited - HB]

Reinvigorated all the Vote Leave rhetoric about immigrants which so many of us worked so hard to combat showing the value of EU migrants and immigrants ( and vetted others) over the last few years.

 

and again - the simple fact that Corbyn lost against  a lowlife toerag like Johnson means Corbyn and all his sycophants NEED to go back into the wilderness - NOW.

Back your bags and just follow Dain Ironfoots suggestion -which starts 

"How aaare we all?"

For the good of the Labour movement and the country

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[honeybee13]

TJ, I've edited a word that I think is a bit much even for the Bear Garden. HB

[tobyjugg2]

yes HB - I thought they got piers Morganed

and thanks for marking it as such

Edited December 16, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Jase1982]

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

For Gods sake - own your failures and get Corbyn and his sycophants out of dodge before the Labour party is destroyed utterly if it hasn't been already.

 

 

Mate, you're being a bit hysterical.  Hysterical points of view do lead to extremities.  I haven't yet said anything about Labour partly failing because of voters such as yourself who have become fanatical in their hatred of anything Corbyn.  I think some of the blame should be placed at the door of Labour voters who turned their back on the Labour movement in their darkest hour.

 

See, again for me, it's very complex.  There are a number of different things going on here.

 

14 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

SOME of Corbyns stated policies/intents might have been 'popular

but so are some of Johnsons stated policies/intents

 

Of course, you might claim but Corbyn means it

as would Johnsons supporters of Johnson and his policies

 

.. back in the real world ......

 

I'm not sure why you're talking about Johnson.  Johnson and his team adopted the same tactic Trump did, where they were pretty much of the opinion that they could easily "shoot someone" and voters would still vote for them.  Their policies were just background noise because people were voting to "get Brexit done".  The Labour party, however, campaigned extensively on anything BUT Brexit.

 

I will offer up something and say that the Labour leadership team failed to strategise well at all.  There were quite extensive campaigns to de-seat existing Tory MP's such as Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson because their majorities had fallen, and it was perceived that they could be won over and wouldn't that be hilarious...  Not realising of course that they could still retain their seats and at the end of the election Labour would lose and those MP's would still be alright.  There didn't appear to be any thought put into the seats Labour actually had and that cost them dearly.

 

They also relied heavily on the almost god like nature of their manifesto , expecting it to do the talking for them.  There wasn't a coherent argument put forward as to why things are rubbish now, and what we should be doing in order to improve the lives of voters.  Much the same as the remain campaign; they just weren't coherent, the messages weren't simple and easily understandable to the electorate.  I don't believe that enough effort was put into explaining the nationalisation programme, which I understand is a difficult one to put forward to the electorate.  Most people pay their bills and believe that's how much something costs and not paying them is bad - Simple as that.  Explaining to them that we pay for things several times over, and it's fuelling homelessness, poverty and inequality is a harder message to get through than "get brexit done".

 

31 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

and again - the simple fact that Corbyn lost against  a lowlife toerag like Johnson means Corbyn and all his sycophants NEED to go back into the wilderness - NOW.

Back your bags and just follow Dain Ironfoots suggestion -which starts 

 

I agree, it is a sad state of affairs that we couldn't even beat Johnson.  But, again, I would suggest that the election wasn't really a vindication of Boris Johnson and all he stood for.  It was more a vote to "get Brexit done", and the fact a lot of voters had simply been put off by Corbyn and his treatment by the media.  That's the reason why we saw him travelling north the day after the result.  The key for him now will be to see how much he can bribe those Labour voters to retain their vote in 5 years ... or however long the Tory's decide we have to wait for another election.  They may even say we've had too many elections and to keep it consistent, and to make sure Brexit gets done, and all the trade deals are completed, lets have one in ten years - They could easily do that.

[tobyjugg2]

11 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

Mate, you're being a bit hysterical.  Hysterical points of view do lead to extremities. 

 

I haven't yet said anything about Labour partly failing because of voters such as yourself who have become fanatical in their hatred of anything Corbyn.

 

LOL

Want an Ostrich gif for your avatar?

 

 

 

 

[honeybee13]

Is this the first step towards a no deal exit? As was said yesterday, many people think 11 months isn't long enough to negotiate anything but a bare bones deal and now no10 seem to want no wriggle room.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/16/boris-johnson-will-amend-brexit-bill-to-outlaw-extension

[brassnecked]

If they looked at EEA/EFTA properly, it would cure most of his ills, rid of 75% EU red tape, removes Irish problem, and allows an orderly withdrawal, its a process not an event. Ironically due to EU competition law, Corbyn's mass nationalisations would likely  have needed Brexit, many Utilities being owned by EU based companies.

[tobyjugg2]

Corbyn didn't need brexit to do that, he just wanted Brexit. Always has, always will

 

 

His 'a remain option' probably would have been something like that - as would his 'a Leave option'

 

... which are vastly inferior to the deal we have, but arguably better than Johnsons leave.

Edited December 17, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Jase1982]

1 hour ago, brassnecked said:

Ironically due to EU competition law, Corbyn's mass nationalisations would likely  have needed Brexit, many Utilities being owned by EU based companies.

 

Yeah, that's another fallacy.  It's not something that is prohibited, but would have been something that wouldn't have been legally easy to achieve.  It would have taken time to acquire franchises etc on the rail.  I think the wider nationalisation programme would have been harder to achieve, but most EU countries keep public services in house because that's how they benefit all the people, rather than a minority of shareholders.

[fletch70]

It is a fallacy to say the EU stops nationalisation. I think it stops subsidies but not nationalisation. Look at Jadrolinija in Croatia, state owned. 

[honeybee13]

Interesting tweet from George Peretz QC.

 

'If you think that a commitment in legislation not to extend the transition period means anything, look at the fate of s.55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which prohibited the Government from putting Northern Ireland into a separate customs territory from GB..

15 minutes ago, fletch70 said:

It is a fallacy to say the EU stops nationalisation. I think it stops subsidies but not nationalisation. Look at Jadrolinija in Croatia, state owned. 

 

French railways, SNCF, are state-owned.