Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brussels ups the the ante over the Johnson/Cummings EU deal ov

12467

Comments

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,940
    edited September 10
    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    The assumption here is that all Leave and Johnson voters are deranged fanatics. I think Starmer's tactics are to win over those that just wanted to make Brexit and the EU go away and leave the fanatics to Johnson.
    It is very easy to support Brexit and oppose this action by Johnson. Just like it is possible to support military action but oppose war crimes. It is not necessary for Johnson to break the law to secure a workable and reasonable result from the negotiations. That he is doing so speaks far more to his nature than it does to the nature of Brexit.

    Indeed in case you missed it, for those who want Britain to be a free trading nation outside the EU going forward, this is a terrible setback.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200
    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    The assumption here is that all Leave and Johnson voters are deranged fanatics. I think Starmer's tactics are to win over those that just wanted to make Brexit and the EU go away and leave the fanatics to Johnson.
    What the assumption is is that a few clunky videos by Nigel Farage on boats in the channel got millions of views, dragged this matter to the centre of the news and rocked the government to its core.

    That's what the assumption is.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
    Nope - Cummings and Boris are playing games and the best advice is to just let them get on with it - heck you voted for him on multiple occasions - I never have
  • eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    "Integrity"? Pshaw! This is politics, since when has there been integrity?

    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not ratify the EU Constitution - then called it the Lisbon Treaty and ratified it?
    Was there "integrity" when the French and Dutch rejected the EU Constitution - so it was rebranded the Lisbon Treaty and ratified?
    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not introduce tuition fees - then did so?
    Was there "integrity" when the Lib Dems pledged to abolish tuition fees - the trebled them?

    There is no moral difference to me between breaking an international agreement and breaking a manifesto - either way you are breaking your word. Politicians have been doing that for years. The EU has facilitated that for years.

    What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. If you're prepared to see politicians break their word with the voters the moment they get their mits on the levers of power, then what is different with breaking their word with other nations?
  • FF43 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    The assumption here is that all Leave and Johnson voters are deranged fanatics. I think Starmer's tactics are to win over those that just wanted to make Brexit and the EU go away and leave the fanatics to Johnson.
    It is very easy to support Brexit and oppose this action by Johnson. Just like it is possible to support military action but oppose war crimes. It is not necessary for Johnson to break the law to secure a workable and reasonable result from the negotiations. That he is doing so speaks far more to his nature than it does to the nature of Brexit.

    Indeed in case you missed it, for those who want Britain to be a free trading nation outside the EU going forward, this is a terrible setback.
    Absolutely my view
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208
    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    Andy_JS said:

    About 90% of the population will be appalled by this.
    Only 90%? Shows how the left barmy fringe has infiltrated ER.
    ‘Infiltrated?’ It was founded by them!
    ER has definitely moved in a water melon direction - I`ve observed it from the start. I had high hopes originally.
  • eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
    Nope - Cummings and Boris are playing games and the best advice is to just let them get on with it - heck you voted for him on multiple occasions - I never have
    When did I vote for Boris other than for the conservatives at the GE

    I did not vote for him in the leadership contest
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,651

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
    You dare to talk about integrity and you support that Britain-ruining shower that passes for a govt? A bunch of no-talent non-entities that have dragged the UK to the edge of ruin?

    If we are on an integrity kick then you should be telling your Party Chairman to get on the phone to CCHQ and sound off or else the shards of your membership card will be in the post.
  • eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    "Integrity"? Pshaw! This is politics, since when has there been integrity?

    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not ratify the EU Constitution - then called it the Lisbon Treaty and ratified it?
    Was there "integrity" when the French and Dutch rejected the EU Constitution - so it was rebranded the Lisbon Treaty and ratified?
    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not introduce tuition fees - then did so?
    Was there "integrity" when the Lib Dems pledged to abolish tuition fees - the trebled them?

    There is no moral difference to me between breaking an international agreement and breaking a manifesto - either way you are breaking your word. Politicians have been doing that for years. The EU has facilitated that for years.

    What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. If you're prepared to see politicians break their word with the voters the moment they get their mits on the levers of power, then what is different with breaking their word with other nations?
    Why are you talking about 'Labour' when Big_G was talking specifically about Starmer?

    Indeed Starmer wasn't even an MP (or a candidate) when any of the things you listed took place. So you can't even blame him for supporting them from the back benches.
  • eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    "Integrity"? Pshaw! This is politics, since when has there been integrity?

    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not ratify the EU Constitution - then called it the Lisbon Treaty and ratified it?
    Was there "integrity" when the French and Dutch rejected the EU Constitution - so it was rebranded the Lisbon Treaty and ratified?
    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not introduce tuition fees - then did so?
    Was there "integrity" when the Lib Dems pledged to abolish tuition fees - the trebled them?

    There is no moral difference to me between breaking an international agreement and breaking a manifesto - either way you are breaking your word. Politicians have been doing that for years. The EU has facilitated that for years.

    What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. If you're prepared to see politicians break their word with the voters the moment they get their mits on the levers of power, then what is different with breaking their word with other nations?
    Philip.

    You and I agree on much but we have divorced completely over this shameful bill and there is no way back for my support for Boris

    He has to go but I do want to see brexit concluded at the end of the year
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    The assumption here is that all Leave and Johnson voters are deranged fanatics. I think Starmer's tactics are to win over those that just wanted to make Brexit and the EU go away and leave the fanatics to Johnson.
    What the assumption is is that a few clunky videos by Nigel Farage on boats in the channel got millions of views, dragged this matter to the centre of the news and rocked the government to its core.

    That's what the assumption is.
    Let's assume all Leavers ARE deranged fanatics (some of my best friends etc... well not many, but a couple voted Leave and are nice people in fact. They are keeping VERY quiet about it now) . OK, let's go with the assumption: Leavers are WITHOUT EXCEPTION deranged fanatics.

    How many of those deranged fanatics do you think Starmer will ever win over? He's wasting his time.
  • In case my last post came out the wrong way I absolutely think there should be more integrity in politics. But like charity I think it should start at home. And I think the EU has shown a lack of good faith in the negotiations.

    Your word should be your bond. Our MPs lost sight of that decades ago.
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,651
    I am going for a hot bath and a glass of wine

    Later...
  • I am going for a hot bath and a glass of wine

    Later...

    TBH, I'm tempted to swap the volumes of wine and water.

    Which takes us back to Divinity, I guess.
  • alex_ said:
    Wait until the 10pm to 5.00am daily curfew comes in
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    "Integrity"? Pshaw! This is politics, since when has there been integrity?

    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not ratify the EU Constitution - then called it the Lisbon Treaty and ratified it?
    Was there "integrity" when the French and Dutch rejected the EU Constitution - so it was rebranded the Lisbon Treaty and ratified?
    Was there "integrity" when Labour pledged to not introduce tuition fees - then did so?
    Was there "integrity" when the Lib Dems pledged to abolish tuition fees - the trebled them?

    There is no moral difference to me between breaking an international agreement and breaking a manifesto - either way you are breaking your word. Politicians have been doing that for years. The EU has facilitated that for years.

    What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. If you're prepared to see politicians break their word with the voters the moment they get their mits on the levers of power, then what is different with breaking their word with other nations?
    The average voter can't cripple an industry with interdependent supply chains with a stroke of a pen. This is a wild take, even for you.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,851
    In the same way a Lannister always pays his debts, the UK government has always respected rule of law. The government is changing the nature of how businesses and investors see us as a nation. That is an intangible loss which will hurt us for years to come. Tory MPs must stand up and be counted and they need to rouse opposition benches, it hurts a future Labour government as well.
  • @Big_G_NorthWales my respect for you continues to grow, unfortunately I think Philip is trolling at this point.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,636

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
    Nope - Cummings and Boris are playing games and the best advice is to just let them get on with it - heck you voted for him on multiple occasions - I never have
    When did I vote for Boris other than for the conservatives at the GE

    I did not vote for him in the leadership contest
    Thought you couldn't vote Hunt over fox hunting ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949
    edited September 10
    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    Andy_JS said:

    About 90% of the population will be appalled by this.
    Only 90%? Shows how the left barmy fringe has infiltrated ER.
    ‘Infiltrated?’ It was founded by them!
    ER has definitely moved in a water melon direction - I`ve observed it from the start. I had high hopes originally.
    Then I am afraid you hadn't bothered to study it closely enough.

    It was founded by a long-time Green activist and a failed farmer in urgent need of money. It was dominated by fat posh boys of limited intelligence who were annoyed that nothing went right and blamed the world rather than their general uselessness, so wanted to riot.

    I do not say they do not care about the climate. I do say for them campaigning about it is primarily a means to a series of other ends.

    They are BLM only even less ethnically diverse.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    I am going for a hot bath and a glass of wine

    Later...

    TBH, I'm tempted to swap the volumes of wine and water.

    Which takes us back to Divinity, I guess.
    I Cana believe it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 5,499
    edited September 10
    Labour just needs to oppose this on the grounds that, apart from breaking our word, it is actually hostile to a deal with the EU, with the US and anyone else.

    It’s actually anti-Brexit.

    I’m not sure how easily Cummings (this has his fingerprints all over it) can turn this into a People vs Remoaner issue. I don’t sense a great desire from the usual cheerleaders in the media to follow Boris into the abyss.

    Not least because he is fucking up Covid as well.
  • alex_ said:
    Another thoroughly un-conservative policy, to have the "man from the government" going around doing this.

    The reality is you can't policy the nation to do this, it has to be that the vast majority buy into it and you reserve the police to deal with a small minority doing things like organizing raves.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,963
    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208
    Oscars: I know Mr Royale raised this earlier, but this really is outrageous.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-oscars-diversity-quest-has-gone-too-far

    Biden should make a statement against this - it would do his campaign a lot of good by reassuring waverers who are being put off voting Dem by the protests and wokey stuff.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 1,048
    I don't like the game of one-downmanship the Brexit and Covid narratives seem to be playing with each other to regain attention in the collective consciousness of the nation.

    At this rate in about 8-10 weeks I expect the news for the nation to be split roughly 50/50 between the new strain "Captain Trips-20" and the nuclear destruction of Brussels.


  • The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
  • Starmer should oppose this on the grounds it stops a deal being made and Johnson promised a deal.

    That was pretty much his line yesterday.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666
    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    "The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law,"

    It's sort of why we elect people.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208
    Omnium said:

    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    "The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law,"

    It's sort of why we elect people.
    If that`s all it is why are Tory MPs against it then?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    Omnium said:

    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    "The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law,"

    It's sort of why we elect people.
    Er no. If ministers want to over-ride existing law then they have to persuade Parliament to change it. They can't just act by Executive fiat.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,355
    Omnium said:

    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    "The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law,"

    It's sort of why we elect people.
    Traditionally Parliament made laws, not ministers.

    But hey we’re ripping everything else up, let’s get rid of Parliament as well and just directly elect a government.
  • Starmer should oppose this on the grounds it stops a deal being made and Johnson promised a deal.

    That was pretty much his line yesterday.

    The really smart thing is to wait. It's Thursday evening, the votes aren't until next week, there are plenty of unhappy Conservatives.

    It'll be easier for them to act if Starmer says as little as possible for now.
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
    Nope - Cummings and Boris are playing games and the best advice is to just let them get on with it - heck you voted for him on multiple occasions - I never have
    When did I vote for Boris other than for the conservatives at the GE

    I did not vote for him in the leadership contest
    Thought you couldn't vote Hunt over fox hunting ?
    I abstained
  • If we hadn't that that election and Starmer had already taken over, we'd have had a GNU of by now
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    Omnium said:

    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    "The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law,"

    It's sort of why we elect people.
    We elect a legislature who then authorises the executive. If they want to give the executive that power then that's up to them. Of course, the legislature might have other ideas.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,337
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    We could have asked for an extension.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    edited September 10

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    That flashback shows why Biden should have >90% chance of winning.

    No candidate I can think of in recent decades has gone backwards in their poll share from here, they normally both go forwards in share. Biden's share starting at 51% . . . Trump is not POTUS if Biden gets >51% of the vote realistically.

    Watch the share not the lead.
    They have after the debates, which are still to come.

    However while Biden will almost certainly win the popular vote, even if he gets 51% if Trump gets 47% or 48% he still has a chance of winning the EC
    Name one candidate in recent decades please who has gone backwards in absolute share from here to election day?

    The lead can change absolutely but both candidates shares normally go up. If the lead changes its normally by one candidate getting the bulk of the "others" share, not because of a direct swing from here.
    In September 2000 Gore reached 51% and 50% and 49% in multiple polls, on election day he got 48% and lost the EC to Bush while still winning the popular vote.

    In September 1996 Bill Clinton was over 50% in all polls but one, he reached 55% in several, he got 49% on election day.

    In 2000 Bush was on 52% pre debates in September, he got 50%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#2000_United_States_presidential_election
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    OnboardG1 said:

    Omnium said:

    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    "The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law,"

    It's sort of why we elect people.
    We elect a legislature who then authorises the executive. If they want to give the executive that power then that's up to them. Of course, the legislature might have other ideas.
    Once the legislature has ceded power to ministers it never gets it back. Imagine Parliament authorising the Government to set taxes without a Finance Act! They could do it, but it would in effect be taking us back to pre Magna Carta! This is almost unprecedented. Already there are a lot of murmurings about the powers that Ministers have been granted under the Coronavirus act, but that is at least (at the moment) time limited.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    The assumption here is that all Leave and Johnson voters are deranged fanatics. I think Starmer's tactics are to win over those that just wanted to make Brexit and the EU go away and leave the fanatics to Johnson.
    It is very easy to support Brexit and oppose this action by Johnson. Just like it is possible to support military action but oppose war crimes. It is not necessary for Johnson to break the law to secure a workable and reasonable result from the negotiations. That he is doing so speaks far more to his nature than it does to the nature of Brexit.

    Indeed in case you missed it, for those who want Britain to be a free trading nation outside the EU going forward, this is a terrible setback.
    Exactly. Well said.

    But, again, the up-their-own-arsehole Remainers don't see this and prefer to try and use it to take the battle back to Day One.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208

    Starmer should oppose this on the grounds it stops a deal being made and Johnson promised a deal.

    That was pretty much his line yesterday.

    The really smart thing is to wait. It's Thursday evening, the votes aren't until next week, there are plenty of unhappy Conservatives.

    It'll be easier for them to act if Starmer says as little as possible for now.
    At last knockings if Starmer evaluates the numbers and then orders a vote against he will have a famous defeat against the government ... but on the other hand the look of the UK government playing tough with foreign countries plays very well into into the feeling held by many of British exceptionalism. And - remember - the LP`s image is not exactly one that is based on being patriotic. Starmer knows this.

    So I still think he`ll duck the issue by abstaining.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 278



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    Yep, the EU have walked into the trap too. Would have been better to sit silently until the legislative process took it's course.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,371
    Stocky said:

    Oscars: I know Mr Royale raised this earlier, but this really is outrageous.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-oscars-diversity-quest-has-gone-too-far

    Biden should make a statement against this - it would do his campaign a lot of good by reassuring waverers who are being put off voting Dem by the protests and wokey stuff.

    To be honest, does it really matter? Ultimately it's up to them who they dish out awards to. A lot of films that are nominated for Oscars tend to be rubbish anyway.

    I guess it might mean some excellent films like The Big Short might struggle to get made, but I don't think all that many films rely upon Oscar potential to get funding.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,784

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
    Nope - Cummings and Boris are playing games and the best advice is to just let them get on with it - heck you voted for him on multiple occasions - I never have
    When did I vote for Boris other than for the conservatives at the GE

    I did not vote for him in the leadership contest
    " other than for the conservatives at the GE"
    That was when ;-)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 5,499

    Omnium said:

    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    "The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law,"

    It's sort of why we elect people.
    Traditionally Parliament made laws, not ministers.

    But hey we’re ripping everything else up, let’s get rid of Parliament as well and just directly elect a government.
    Yes.

    On the face of it, this also seems to be a way of empowering Ministers (or certain SPADs) to spend millions or even billions on pet projects without scrutiny.

    Why pay tax when you know it will be siphoned away to Cummings’s cronies?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921
    alex_ said:

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill without even touching the issue of the EU. The bill as i understand it gives Ministers wide ranging powers to over-ride existing UK law, particularly in the area of state aid, and without reference to Parliament and without subject to judicial review. It will open up UK businesses attempting to trade abroad to the risk of significant "tit for tat" measures where ministers acting like this (against decades of Conservative orthodoxy on free trade that most Brexiters claimed to be strong supporters of) pile money into struggling businesses to pander to their current voting constituencies.

    Just a big disaster all round.

    And on the EU does anyone really believe that the Government is looking forward to no deal on 1st January? When they will have no ability to properly control even the borders they aspire to control for at least six months, something the EU seems far more prepared for?

    The EU should have walked away before now, and forced the UK media to really focus on the impact of no deal, instead of persisting in playing the Govt's game of talking it up as a "negotiating tactic". As it is, by the time the media start focussing on the implications for the UK public it will be too late to do anything about it.

    The fact that France, Holland and Ireland have measures ready to go in the event of a no deal Brexit, and we do not, simply adds to our Tory government’s shame, given that the referendum was over four years ago and no deal has always been many of their preferred outcome.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548

    Starmer should oppose this on the grounds it stops a deal being made and Johnson promised a deal.

    That was pretty much his line yesterday.

    The really smart thing is to wait. It's Thursday evening, the votes aren't until next week, there are plenty of unhappy Conservatives.

    It'll be easier for them to act if Starmer says as little as possible for now.
    The media and public will expect the LO to comment on this, but I think Starmer can safely run the uncontroversial "rule of law" argument. He can also parrot back Michael Howard's excoriation in the Lords today.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    RH1992 said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    Yep, the EU have walked into the trap too. Would have been better to sit silently until the legislative process took it's course.
    What trap have they walked into? I suspect they've had enough. It's not like they have any electoral considerations to take into account. If it makes them even more unpopular in the Red Wall seats so what?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    We could have asked for an extension.
    It was quite right not to ask for an extension. It was unnecessary and prolonged uncertainty.

    A deal was (and still is - just) doable this year, and we're not too far off.

    The only rider is that it might need a further 6-18 month phase in time (or it would do in a rational world).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921
    edited September 10

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
    Nope - Cummings and Boris are playing games and the best advice is to just let them get on with it - heck you voted for him on multiple occasions - I never have
    When did I vote for Boris other than for the conservatives at the GE

    I did not vote for him in the leadership contest
    Thought you couldn't vote Hunt over fox hunting ?
    I abstained
    Yet at that point you were still threatening to leave the party if Boris became PM, having spent months repeatedly posting here about his poor judgement and character.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208
    edited September 10
    tlg86 said:

    Stocky said:

    Oscars: I know Mr Royale raised this earlier, but this really is outrageous.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-oscars-diversity-quest-has-gone-too-far

    Biden should make a statement against this - it would do his campaign a lot of good by reassuring waverers who are being put off voting Dem by the protests and wokey stuff.

    To be honest, does it really matter? Ultimately it's up to them who they dish out awards to. A lot of films that are nominated for Oscars tend to be rubbish anyway.

    I guess it might mean some excellent films like The Big Short might struggle to get made, but I don't think all that many films rely upon Oscar potential to get funding.
    As Kirstie Allie has said: These new criteria are a ‘disgrace to artists everywhere ... can you imagine telling Picasso what had to be in his f**king paintings’.

    It matters a lot. It`s a form of brainwashing, enacted by force. At attempt to normalise an unintelligent batshit-crazy censorship.

    Every liberal should be up in arms about this - including the Dem Party.
  • alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
  • Starmer should oppose this as a point of principle. He doesn't have to say or do anything yet. No point giving Johnson time to plan a counterattack or wind up the rhetoric. Just wait until the vote next week and then, in reasonable time to encourage other opposition, make it clear he will whip against the bill.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    Nice misordering of words there! I think they mean Eurosceptic former leader... ;)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,610

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    We could have asked for an extension.
    It was quite right not to ask for an extension. It was unnecessary and prolonged uncertainty.

    A deal was (and still is - just) doable this year, and we're not too far off.

    The only rider is that it might need a further 6-18 month phase in time (or it would do in a rational world).
    A deal is no longer possible because of this wanton act.

    The question has now shifted to a choice between agreed WTO mini deal Brexit, and hostile No Deal Brexit.

    Glad my job isn't at risk with either of those.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921
    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    because there was an oven ready deal, AIRI?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    edited September 10

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Indeed to be met with UK airdrops and the Royal Navy to break the blockade
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    edited September 10

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    They've done it before. I don't mean a literal blockade. I mean closing the border. Apologies - misuse of language.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    I doubt it would be much different from the days when Spain have a work for rule and create 12 hour queues on the border
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    Yes that is a fact. It doesn't explain why that manifesto commitment should stand in the face of a pandemic. Plenty of manifesto commitments hit the buffers of reality. Manifesto commitments are not sacred. You wouldn't even be breaking the spirit of the rule. Merely in a specific and limited context you might say. Move the transition period out 6-12 months. Explain that, dash it all, we'd have done it all without COVID but I have to put 150% of my attention span towards keeping your granny safe dont you know? This might even have looked statesman like. But Johnson is fundamentally an idiot so that didn't occur to him. Or maybe it did but he lacked the spine to stand up to the frothers and headbangers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,610

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Implementing full customs would be a legal requirement, not an act of war.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    eek said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    I doubt it would be much different from the days when Spain have a work for rule and create 12 hour queues on the border
    Indeed. You don't have to literally sail frigates into the mouth of Gibraltar Harbour to make life intolerable for the residents. Not that it's their fault, given they voted remain by 90% plus poor bastards.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Implementing full customs would be a legal requirement, not an act of war.
    The implications of no deal for the Gibraltar border is one of those things which has been almost entirely ignored in all this.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    HYUFD said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Indeed to be met with UK airdrops and the Royal Navy to break the blockade
    You and Thommo have lost the plot this evening. Act of war indeed!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    because there was an oven ready deal, AIRI?
    The only deal the EU are offering would breach the Tory manifesto commitments to regain control of our fishing waters and to end EU sovereignty over UK law
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921
    OnboardG1 said:

    eek said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    I doubt it would be much different from the days when Spain have a work for rule and create 12 hour queues on the border
    Indeed. You don't have to literally sail frigates into the mouth of Gibraltar Harbour to make life intolerable for the residents. Not that it's their fault, given they voted remain by 90% plus poor bastards.
    I wonder what happened to PB’er Geoff from Gib, who was pretty much the only Leaver in the Village.
  • Foxy said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Implementing full customs would be a legal requirement, not an act of war.
    Customs is not a blockade.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    HYUFD said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Indeed to be met with UK airdrops and the Royal Navy to break the blockade
    I swear this is why the SNP are fated to win IndyRef2, whether I like it or not. This sort of mad, uniquely English fantasy land nationalism is deeply unappealing to anyone who doesn't use the Dam Busters as the template for their world view.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,260
    OnboardG1 said:

    eek said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    I doubt it would be much different from the days when Spain have a work for rule and create 12 hour queues on the border
    Indeed. You don't have to literally sail frigates into the mouth of Gibraltar Harbour to make life intolerable for the residents. Not that it's their fault, given they voted remain by 90% plus poor bastards.
    To be honest Spain have enough on their plate to worry about screwing over Gibraltar.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    IanB2 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    eek said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    I doubt it would be much different from the days when Spain have a work for rule and create 12 hour queues on the border
    Indeed. You don't have to literally sail frigates into the mouth of Gibraltar Harbour to make life intolerable for the residents. Not that it's their fault, given they voted remain by 90% plus poor bastards.
    I wonder what happened to PB’er Geoff from Gib, who was pretty much the only Leaver in the Village.
    Moved back to the mainland maybe?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    Yes that is a fact. It doesn't explain why that manifesto commitment should stand in the face of a pandemic. Plenty of manifesto commitments hit the buffers of reality. Manifesto commitments are not sacred. You wouldn't even be breaking the spirit of the rule. Merely in a specific and limited context you might say. Move the transition period out 6-12 months. Explain that, dash it all, we'd have done it all without COVID but I have to put 150% of my attention span towards keeping your granny safe dont you know? This might even have looked statesman like. But Johnson is fundamentally an idiot so that didn't occur to him. Or maybe it did but he lacked the spine to stand up to the frothers and headbangers.
    We may not find a vaccine until after 2024, the Tories cannot continue with transition period limbo indefinitely without losing lots of Leavers back to the Brexit Party at the next general election
  • HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    It also promised that they had an oven-ready Withdrawal Agreement to Get Brexit Done. Whatever happened to that?

    It wasn't oven-ready really, was it? They hadn't even started sourcing the ingredients yet.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 278
    edited September 10
    alex_ said:

    RH1992 said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    Yep, the EU have walked into the trap too. Would have been better to sit silently until the legislative process took it's course.
    What trap have they walked into? I suspect they've had enough. It's not like they have any electoral considerations to take into account. If it makes them even more unpopular in the Red Wall seats so what?
    They don't have any electoral considerations to take into account, but the EU wants closer relations with us and if the Red Wall is key to that in the future in getting a more moderate government, it won't help down the line.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    If we hadn't that that election and Starmer had already taken over, we'd have had a GNU of by now

    Yes, but the Labour Party put up one J Corbyn esq to be PM, and given that rather salient fact, the Tories didn’t have to put up Abraham Lincoln, crossed with F D Roosevelt, with a dose of Mother Theresa, they just had to put up anyone with a pulse.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    Scott_xP said:
    Cruella will jump to Johnson's tune.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506

    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    It also promised that they had an oven-ready Withdrawal Agreement to Get Brexit Done. Whatever happened to that?

    It wasn't oven-ready really, was it? They hadn't even started sourcing the ingredients yet.
    The manifesto only promised a deal that regained control of our fishing waters and ended EU sovereignty over our laws, the EU have refused to offer us that deal
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 1,048
    HYUFD said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Indeed to be met with UK airdrops and the Royal Navy to break the blockade
    Going DEFCON again?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    because there was an oven ready deal, AIRI?
    The only deal the EU are offering would breach the Tory manifesto commitments to regain control of our fishing waters and to end EU sovereignty over UK law
    Here’s another promise from the same manifesto:


    "We will continue to be an outward-looking country that is a champion of collective security, the rule of law, human rights, free trade, anti-corruption efforts and a rules-based international system."
  • HYUFD said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Indeed to be met with UK airdrops and the Royal Navy to break the blockade
    You and Thommo have lost the plot this evening. Act of war indeed!
    I never said anything about airdrops or the Navy but absolutely a "blockade" is an act of war. Always has been. Not having a deal and making things awkward and uncomfortable is one thing, but a blockade is an act of war.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 9,295

    Cruella will jump to Johnson's tune.

    Indeed, but if there really is a public letter stating that ministers would be breaking the ministerial code by voting for this, that seems problematic...

    The "best" result would be for BoZo to lose the vote

    Not sure how close we are to that, although the ERG making noises is almost too delicious
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    Yes that is a fact. It doesn't explain why that manifesto commitment should stand in the face of a pandemic. Plenty of manifesto commitments hit the buffers of reality. Manifesto commitments are not sacred. You wouldn't even be breaking the spirit of the rule. Merely in a specific and limited context you might say. Move the transition period out 6-12 months. Explain that, dash it all, we'd have done it all without COVID but I have to put 150% of my attention span towards keeping your granny safe dont you know? This might even have looked statesman like. But Johnson is fundamentally an idiot so that didn't occur to him. Or maybe it did but he lacked the spine to stand up to the frothers and headbangers.
    We may not find a vaccine until after 2024, the Tories cannot continue with transition period limbo indefinitely without losing lots of Leavers back to the Brexit Party at the next general election
    You'll forgive me if I don't give the proverbial tuppeny about political considerations of Brexit in the time of a national disaster. It's the easiest time to be a statesman because the public just want the crisis to go away and will normally accept things they generally wouldn't. Who would remember a year's delay except you, a few political obsessives and the LadyG level frothing Europhobes? No one would. It would have vanished like a fart in the wind, and Johnson would futher have a boost by burying the Brexit negotiations under a vaccine drive. Instead we have more psychodrama around Europe at a critical juncture in the epidemic. This is a great example where a slavish need to permanently campaign cannot lead to good government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506

    HYUFD said:

    alex_ said:



    The whole point of this was to create this nonsense argument
    If the UK want no deal and no future deal then that's fine. I suspect the EU can do a lot of damage in the mean time, even before we get to the pre-conditions to any future trade talks.

    I suspect an early move will be a blockade of Gibraltar.
    That would be an act of war.
    Indeed to be met with UK airdrops and the Royal Navy to break the blockade
    Going DEFCON again?
    Well if Spain blockades Gibraltar obviously the RAF would drop food and supplies in as long as it lasted
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brexit shouldn't be a priority at the moment, ending the Covid-19 crisis as soon as possible should be.

    That depends on a vaccine which could take years, the transition period ends in December
    :facepalm:

    For everyone else reading: Ending it might well require a vaccine. There are many policies that can be implemented to control Covid-19 and ensure it doesn't collapse the healthcare system in the winter. Those should be the entire governmental focus, not some todger-waving contest with the EU over a deal that the PM himself ran a GE campaign on, on a timeline of his own making since he could easily have extended for six months in June.
    The Tory manifesto promised to end the implementation period in December
    It also promised that they had an oven-ready Withdrawal Agreement to Get Brexit Done. Whatever happened to that?

    It wasn't oven-ready really, was it? They hadn't even started sourcing the ingredients yet.
    The manifesto only promised a deal that regained control of our fishing waters and ended EU sovereignty over our laws, the EU have refused to offer us that deal
    Well, you shouldn't have promised something that it wasn't in your power to deliver, should you?
This discussion has been closed.