Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

Pr4wn wrote:Chris Grayling is a cabinet minister.

I remember Robert Graves in I, Claudius talked about how each Caesar would nominate a successor who was more incompetent than they were in order to look better in history. This could be Chris Grayling's moment...

Pr4wn wrote:Chris Grayling is a cabinet minister.

Yes, and how many actually think he should be one?

I don't see why it would be a problem sacking him....Not like Corbyn with Watson where the guy has a following in the Party..

Chartering a non existent ferry outfit for a Port too small for purpose should have been the icing.

Grayling is easy to get rid of....In all my time following UK politics I haven't seen anyone as useless...Apart from perhaps Norman Lamont..

May and Grayling are old chums, and she needs friends right now.

Blunkett...Byers...Mandelson were friends of Blair and bought the farm over incompetence.

Grayling is a laughing stock..and it doesn't reflect well on her.

If she is one vote short on her MV by getting rid of this plank...She could offer some Brexiteer a knighthood.

lostinwales wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Chris Grayling is a cabinet minister.

I remember Robert Graves in I, Claudius talked about how each Caesar would nominate a successor who was more incompetent than they were in order to look better in history. This could be Chris Grayling's moment...

Don't think Graves was entirely right on that one.  

Julius was murdered at the height of his powers and although he had nominated his great-nephew (and adoptive son), Octavius, as his heir, Octavius was still a young man and Julius couldn't have know how competent or otherwise he would be.  Turns out that Octavius was a far better leader than Julius could have ever been and exceeded Julius' achievements.  

Tiberius succeeded Octavius largely because Octavius' preferred heirs died before he did and there wasn't many other options and also because of Tiberius' achievements on the battlefield.

Caligula succeeded Tiberius after worming his way into his affections and becoming his right hand man.  This was possible because Tiberius became a recluse and rarely visited Rome and Caligula had been sent to live with Tiberius as a young man.  He campaigned against any potential rivals whilst gaining the trust of Tiberius.  

Caligula was murdered by the Praetorian Guard and it was they who appointed Claudius as emperor.  

Claudius named Nero as joint heir with Britannicus but was said to favour Britannicus and it's thought that he would have named him as sole heir once he 'came of age'.  All evidence points to Nero killing Claudius and then sidelining Britannicus before killing him.  

But I digress, Chris Grayling is a useless c*nt.

Graves took his writings from Suetonius book the Twelve Caesars....Great book....Vespasian being an Emperor everyone should read about...The survivor of the year of the four Caesars..

But like Tacitus the other notable Historian of that time Suetonius work is plagued by hatred and bias especially to Tiberius...Nero...and Domitian (The last of the 12 Caesars)....So I wouldn't take it too much as read..

Like the bible...Lots of conflicting stories with added poems like..

You can cut down our vines goat..
But that's all you can do..
We will still have some wine left
To sacrifice you..

To lead the reader..Tiberius especially got the rough end..

Records are sketchy back then and Tacitus and Suetonius often contradicted eachother depending on their favourites..

Claudius survived about 50 relatives...He couldn't have been an idiot and his reign often showed he had a tendency to be a B****rd too..

Gemellus was chosen by Tiberius to succeed him..Caligula had him killed

But interesting stuff and well worth a read..

superflyweight wrote:Julius was murdered at the height of his powers...

I'm not Julius.

Always think Zeppo Marx gets a rough ride..

Moving on....

Some bookmakers have it an 80% chance that Article 50 gets extended..

Crazy odds....

Think May's MV will get 2 more goes.....If it becomes clear that extension is likely....I expect plenty of Brexiteers will fold and think a crap Brexit is better than no Brexit....

Anyone minded to flutter should tuck in to leaving on March 29.....Odds are crazy..

JuliusHMarx wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Julius was murdered at the height of his powers...

I'm not Julius.

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Julius was murdered at the height of his powers...

I'm not Julius.

Indeed, well done Jules.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Graves took his writings from Suetonius book the Twelve Caesars....Great book....Vespasian being an Emperor everyone should read about...The survivor of the year of the four Caesars..

But like Tacitus the other notable Historian of that time Suetonius work is plagued by hatred and bias especially to Tiberius...Nero...and Domitian (The last of the 12 Caesars)....So I wouldn't take it too much as read..

Like the bible...Lots of conflicting stories with added poems like..

You can cut down our vines goat..
But that's all you can do..
We will still have some wine left
To sacrifice you..

To lead the reader..Tiberius especially got the rough end..

Records are sketchy back then and Tacitus and Suetonius often contradicted eachother depending on their favourites..

Claudius survived about 50 relatives...He couldn't have been an idiot and his reign often showed he had a tendency to be a B****rd too..

Gemellus was chosen by Tiberius to succeed him..Caligula had him killed

But interesting stuff and well worth a read..

Tom Holland's books "Rubicon" and "Dynasty" are both really good on the rise and fall of Julius and then the rise and fall of the Caesar dynasty respectively.

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Graves took his writings from Suetonius book the Twelve Caesars....Great book....Vespasian being an Emperor everyone should read about...The survivor of the year of the four Caesars..

But like Tacitus the other notable Historian of that time Suetonius work is plagued by hatred and bias especially to Tiberius...Nero...and Domitian (The last of the 12 Caesars)....So I wouldn't take it too much as read..

Like the bible...Lots of conflicting stories with added poems like..

You can cut down our vines goat..
But that's all you can do..
We will still have some wine left
To sacrifice you..

To lead the reader..Tiberius especially got the rough end..

Records are sketchy back then and Tacitus and Suetonius often contradicted eachother depending on their favourites..

Claudius survived about 50 relatives...He couldn't have been an idiot and his reign often showed he had a tendency to be a B****rd too..

Gemellus was chosen by Tiberius to succeed him..Caligula had him killed

But interesting stuff and well worth a read..

Tom Holland's books "Rubicon" and "Dynasty" are both really good on the rise and fall of Julius and then the rise and fall of the Caesar dynasty respectively.  

And the uncut version of the film about Caligula has w*nking material to suit just about every taste.

For some reason I've always found Peter O'Toole to be a challenging w*nk.  I think it's the piercing blue eyes - they look judgemental.

superflyweight wrote:For some reason I've always found Peter O'Toole to be a challenging w*nk.  I think it's the piercing blue eyes - they look judgemental.

Sounds like it should be the opening voiceover to a film, can imagine it in Morgan Freeman’s voice.

Oh dear.. They are thinking of pulling the vote again..

Unbelievable.

I've been reading the comments (oldest first) on this article. All pro-Brexit comments are voted down, all anti-Brexit comments are voted up.

I'm not saying it's significant, but it's the first time I've ever seen that happen on a Brexit HYS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47519637

Rumour has it she has got some last minute help that might have the ERG on board and deal passed..

Imagine she will quit soon if she has..

Last couple of days have been a shambles..

Brexit articles on the BBC have been a bot-infested joke for a few years now.

It's hard to please everyone, isn't it?

This is sort of like one of those NASA missions.

1. Come in too shallow; then bounce back off the atmosphere into endless space.
2. Come in too steep; then burn a hole through the atmosphere... like a crashing fireball hitting the ground hard.
3. Come in gradually making critical adjustments at the right time; bubbling along nicely. Some simmering on the edges every now and then.

A slower & safer landing with only a couple of missing tiles and some friction burn marks down the side is what Theresa should be aiming for.

There is no fecking way we should be in this situation with the clock running down. It has just been an utter clusterfeck from start to finish, and always avoidable.

Instead we are just marching straight for the one thing nobody wants (no deal) because nobody has the balls to stop it. If it was not the default nobody would want to go there.

Any coincidence in this and impending Brexit decision(s):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47538402

See also recent explosion in Ireland. Nothing's been said that I've seen, but...

Isn't there something special in the logic when May and Barnier negotiate something so complex legally with no legal authority obviously informing them.... and only when these 'agreements' are made does May return home and ask her primary Legal advisor whether what she has in her briefcase actually has the legal guarantees required.
I'd suggest asking Legal advisor to formulate what an agreement would need Before going off and talking with another politician. At least then she'd know when to stop Barnier in his tracks and tell him the proposals won't have a sufficient legal basis. Horse before the cart.

But of course, it's all subterfuge as the whole idea is to try to get a non-legally binding legal agreement passed under the pretence that 'everything is now agreed and everyone is happy to proceed'.
Next Up Barnier should ban the use of legal advisors.....that might work

It doesn't matter what wording May's legal team are advising needs to be included if the EU lawyers are advising the EU against inclusion of those words.  

There's no legal magic wand that can be waved to satisfy the needs of both parties on the backstop and instead any solution involving clear and definitive wording would depend on political compromise and not the mechanics of legal drafting.  

Given the importance of the issue to one of their member states, the EU understandably can't compromise to the extent that there is any risk at all of a return to a hard border.  This is why the wording will lack legal certainty.

Well it looks pretty certain that the deal won't go through Parliament, now the ERG have said 'no' to it. In light of that, Ladbrokes have shifted the odds from 1/6 to 1/20 that the deal won't be passed.

Barring a dramatic shift from Labour MPs, it looks like we're heading for extension (followed by no-deal).

Duty281 wrote:Well it looks pretty certain that the deal won't go through Parliament, now the ERG have said 'no' to it. In light of that, Ladbrokes have shifted the odds from 1/6 to 1/20 that the deal won't be passed.

Barring a dramatic shift from Labour MPs, it looks like we're heading for extension (followed by no-deal).

Well there is an obvious alternative to May's deal or no deal, and one that does not involve screwing the country over any more than we already have.

Duty281 wrote:Well it looks pretty certain that the deal won't go through Parliament, now the ERG have said 'no' to it. In light of that, Ladbrokes have shifted the odds from 1/6 to 1/20 that the deal won't be passed.

Barring a dramatic shift from Labour MPs, it looks like we're heading for extension (followed by no-deal).

I don't follow the logic. MPs will vote tomorrow to reject No Deal, and then on Thursday to request an extension to Article 50. Only if the EU 27 reject the application to extend A50 will no deal happen in the short term.

Quite what happens with an extension is unknown, although that is where we move into possible 2nd referendum / remain options.

dummy_half wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well it looks pretty certain that the deal won't go through Parliament, now the ERG have said 'no' to it. In light of that, Ladbrokes have shifted the odds from 1/6 to 1/20 that the deal won't be passed.

Barring a dramatic shift from Labour MPs, it looks like we're heading for extension (followed by no-deal).

I don't follow the logic. MPs will vote tomorrow to reject No Deal, and then on Thursday to request an extension to Article 50. Only if the EU 27 reject the application to extend A50 will no deal happen in the short term.

Quite what happens with an extension is unknown, although that is where we move into possible 2nd referendum / remain options.

If extension happens, the end question will still be deal or no deal, just as it is now. During the possible extension, May's deal will undergo some more minor changes that amount to very little. This is why extension solves nothing.

Another referendum in 2019, revocation of article 50, another General Election in 2019 - these are all very unlikely to happen.

But you still have to get anuythign through a Parliament that is likely tomorrow to explicitly reject No Deal.

I think on e thing that those an all sides of the argument can agree on - this negotiation can be summarised with the work OMNISHAMBLES

Duty281 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well it looks pretty certain that the deal won't go through Parliament, now the ERG have said 'no' to it. In light of that, Ladbrokes have shifted the odds from 1/6 to 1/20 that the deal won't be passed.

Barring a dramatic shift from Labour MPs, it looks like we're heading for extension (followed by no-deal).

I don't follow the logic. MPs will vote tomorrow to reject No Deal, and then on Thursday to request an extension to Article 50. Only if the EU 27 reject the application to extend A50 will no deal happen in the short term.

Quite what happens with an extension is unknown, although that is where we move into possible 2nd referendum / remain options.

If extension happens, the end question will still be deal or no deal, just as it is now. During the possible extension, May's deal will undergo some more minor changes that amount to very little. This is why extension solves nothing.

Another referendum in 2019, revocation of article 50, another General Election in 2019 - these are all very unlikely to happen.

None of these options is likely though. None of them, including deal/no deal.

No deal is only slightly more likely because it will happen if nobody does anything. Parliament is getting ever more unstable, and it is getting to the point where it will be ungovernable, if it is not there already. More MP's could easily quit both main parties, so anything could happen.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Rumour has it she has got some last minute help that might have the ERG on board and deal passed..

Imagine she will quit soon if she has..

Last couple of days have been a shambles..

Didn't age well..

Judging by the pictures I’ve seen from the No lobby the deals about to take another hammering. Could be beaten by atleast 150 votes.

Aye 242 No 391

Another mammoth defeat. May right to highlight that there needs to be a purpose to extension - I can't see a deal ever getting over the line, even if negotiations dragged on for another decade.

Another referendum is becoming increasingly likely. Seems the general public's attitude towards Brexit has changed hugely over the last two years. Many are finally starting to cotton on to the BS that they were fed by the Leave campaigners.

Also worth remembering, what May just tried to negotiate wasn't even a "Deal". It was a transitional agreement that could be adhered to while they negotiate the actual deal. If they can't get close to getting that over the line, what hope is there for something far more complex?

Her position is obviously completely untenable. She commands absolutely no authority.

Pr4wn wrote:Another referendum is becoming increasingly likely. Seems the general public's attitude towards Brexit has changed hugely over the last two years. Many are finally starting to cotton on to the BS that they were fed by the Leave campaigners....

Maybe. Maybe not. Just because the same people are shouting louder re. a second referendum, it doesn't necessarily make it more likely. I'm not sure re. the public's position either. Polls? Polls don't seem to mean a great deal these days and pre-Ref2016 they were solidly predicting a remain outcome, until it wasn't.

If the politicians had any cojones, they would look at the data re. impact of leaving, simply cancel it and deal with the inevitable blowback via reasoned, evidence-based argument. They'd accept the political upheavals in their own parties as a consequence of 'doing the right thing' and for the wider good. They'd accept that their political legacies would be dominated by the outcome of the decision and be at peace with that, knowing they'd made the correct decision in the interests of the majority. We elect them to decide what's best for the Country. Yeah, right.

Most (all?) of our politicians are political pipsqueaks. Obsessed with short-termism, playing Westminster political games and ensuring they're re-elected.

Some MPs are still saying that the EU will cave in to avoid no deal. Staggeringly stupid.

This is my take for what it is worth...

No deal vote loses...

A50 extension vote succeeds...

Brussels say the only extension you can have is a longer one with EU elections...

MV3 comes back in 10 or so days... Where it is this deal v Long extension..

MV3 wins..Out on Mar 29.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Some MPs are still saying that the EU will cave in to avoid no deal. Staggeringly stupid.

Silly tribal behaviour, Jules.

I read an interesting article today about how the morass of MPs are speaking 'catch phases' all day to one another... everyone too careful not to step out of line in the bubble of Westminster and be seen/heard to do the wrong thing. And the media constantly repeating these phrases.
This in itself is a staggeringly annoying time waster.

In these times, politicians have no real conviction and it's less about the traditional ideologies and more about the current 'wordspeak'. These can be seen as weaker, watered-down versions of political slogans but their lifespan is more limited and they lack proper traction when you hear them uttered thousands of times a year. They are quickly replaced by new terminologies.

It's all a big load of bull, isn't it?

My favourite catchphrase is "We need to deliver the Brexit that the people voted for." As if the people knew what Brexit they were voting for, and all 17.2 million of them all wanted exactly the same type of Brexit.

The whole thing is a shambles and, in fact, shows that left to our own devices, far from being a great country who will prosper on our own, we are a joke who will struggle in a cesspool of our own making (while some nutjobs will still blame the EU).

Bad times ahead for short to medium term (5 - 10 years), and after that who knows, because history has shown that no-one can predict that far ahead.

Some idiot on Twitter was claiming that he'd voted for no deal on WTO terms. I'd bet a large amount of money that the daft b*stard had never heard of the WTO until a few weeks ago.

Thankfully the WTO are a democratically elected body, elected by the British people, designed to give us back control. Aren't they?

Part of me wants us to have a No Deal Brexit now. It'll suck for the 48%, but the 52% deserve it for the damage they've done to this country. I don't care why they voted Leave. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is that they voted Leave, and they deserve to face the consequences of that. They wouldn't be told.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:They wouldn't be told.

How dare they make up their own minds, and not be swayed by the lies of economic doom or the fact that no pro-EU campaigner could make a positive case for continued membership of the EU. The very nerve of these Leavers.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:They wouldn't be told.

How dare they make up their own minds, and not be swayed by the lies of economic doom or the fact that no pro-EU campaigner could make a positive case for continued membership of the EU. The very nerve of these Leavers.

Yes, they wouldn't be told, so part of me wants them to be shown the consequences of leaving. And to frank, I don't give much of a sh!t what you or any other Leave voter thinks of it. You've done untold damage to the UK.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:They wouldn't be told.

How dare they make up their own minds, and not be swayed by the lies of economic doom or the fact that no pro-EU campaigner could make a positive case for continued membership of the EU. The very nerve of these Leavers.

Where's the Emily Maitliss eye-roll gif when you need it?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:They wouldn't be told.

How dare they make up their own minds, and not be swayed by the lies of economic doom or the fact that no pro-EU campaigner could make a positive case for continued membership of the EU. The very nerve of these Leavers.

Yes, they wouldn't be told, so part of me wants them to be shown the consequences of leaving. And to frank, I don't give much of a sh!t what you or any other Leave voter thinks of it. You've done untold damage to the UK.

A good, positive attitude you have there.

There's nothing positive about this whole thing, even if we end up remaining. The damage is done. The divisions this has opened up will take years to mend, if it can be done at all.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There's nothing positive about this whole thing, even if we end up remaining. The damage is done. The divisions this has opened up will take years to mend, if it can be done at all.

If by 'divisions' you're referring to political divisions amongst the electorate, these have always existed - before, during and after the referendum - and are frequently visited upon every four/five years at General Elections.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Part of me wants us to have a No Deal Brexit now. It'll suck for the 48%, but the 52% deserve it for the damage they've done to this country. I don't care why they voted Leave. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is that they voted Leave, and they deserve to face the consequences of that. They wouldn't be told.

Yeah. Know exactly how you're feeling there.