Cable Forum
Page 10 of 369 « First 6789 10 111213142060110 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708171)

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 19:20
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010588)
Which as we all know would have allowed Johnson to set the date after October 31st. :)
Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010600)
The only problem there is the FTPA, he will have to get 2/3 agreement.

The FTPA needs scrapping IMHO.
True, but it's only 50/50 to change the law.

jfman 18-09-2019 19:21
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010602)
Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.
Alternatively, no. Labour couldn't control the date.

If Boris had asked for a technical extension to Brexit I'd have looked forward to the public verdict and the delivery of the outcome after a general election.

You know this though I'm surprised you even made the point.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 19:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010606)
Alternatively, no. Labour couldn't control the date.

If Boris had asked for a technical extension to Brexit I'd have looked forward to the public verdict and the delivery of the outcome after a general election.

You know this though I'm surprised you even made the point.
Even if Labour could control the date, they would not have wanted an election yet. I'd have thought that was obvious. He knows he would have to come clean about Brexit, and he is not fit to win that argument. The man is very confused and unable to make a decision.

jfman 18-09-2019 19:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010608)
Even if Labour could control the date, they would not have wanted an election yet. I'd have thought that was obvious. He knows he would have to come clean about Brexit, and he is not fit to win that argument. The man is very confused and unable to make a decision.
Ah, so you were speculating! Thanks for confirming.

Chris 18-09-2019 19:42
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010602)
Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------



True, but it's only 50/50 to change the law.
Repealing the FTPA would require only a simple majority in the Commons, but the bill would be amendable at various stages of its passage through Parliament. The way Parliament is right now, any piece of primary legislation is at risk of a rider clause being inserted, with the intention of sabotaging Brexit in some way. So repealing the FTPA is going to have to wait until after an election, when Boris hopefully has a comfortable working majority. If he does deliver Brexit next month, that should be achievable.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 19:54
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010610)
Ah, so you were speculating! Thanks for confirming.
Ridiculous argument. :walk:

jfman 18-09-2019 19:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010625)
Ridiculous argument. :walk:
You made a very clear statement in ignorance of a material fact.

pip08456 18-09-2019 19:58
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36010618)
Repealing the FTPA would require only a simple majority in the Commons, but the bill would be amendable at various stages of its passage through Parliament. The way Parliament is right now, any piece of primary legislation is at risk of a rider clause being inserted, with the intention of sabotaging Brexit in some way. So repealing the FTPA is going to have to wait until after an election, when Boris hopefully has a comfortable working majority. If he does deliver Brexit next month, that should be achievable.
Agreed Chris, why it was ever passed into law is beyond me.

1andrew1 18-09-2019 20:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Looks like the reality of border checks has finally caught up with BoJo.

Quote:
EU officials also described a lunch in Luxembourg on Monday between Mr Johnson, Michel Barnier, and Mr Juncker as the moment the “penny dropped” for the prime minister on the complexities involved in replacing the Irish backstop. Mr Johnson was told by his counterparts that the UK’s proposals on allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock was not a sufficient replacement for the Irish backstop as it would still require customs checks on other types of goods.
“It was clear that Boris was on a learning curve,” said an EU official. Another described Mr Johnson as “slumping” into his seat over the course of dinner as the reality of the tight negotiating schedule dawned.
https://www.ft.com/content/93ff1a64-...b-77216ebe1f17

Quote:
Downing Street has described as “nonsense” a report in the Financial Times that Johnson turned to his chief negotiator, David Frost, and the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”
But senior EU sources confirmed that Johnson had expressed surprise during the lunch at the complexity of the situation, and that it appeared to have been a “bit of a reality check to hear it from EU officials”.
Sources said it was not the case that Johnson had failed to understand the role of the shared customs territory in the Irish backstop but that it was the scale of checks that would still be necessary without such an arrangement that appeared to hit home.
A second EU diplomat confirmed: “When the commission explained the technical challenges and enduring need for customs checks under the UK proposals, Johnson expressed surprise in the direction of his advisers.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-checks-brexit

Mr K 18-09-2019 20:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The liar has been lied to. Wonder how it feels?

denphone 18-09-2019 20:06
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010636)
The liar has been lied to. Wonder how it feels?
You have to realise Mr K that most politicians are liars even if sometimes its a white lie.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 20:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010629)
You made a very clear statement in ignorance of a material fact.
Looking at alternative scenarios is not ignorance, jfman. You do it all the time, don't you?

Pot, kettle, black...

Damien 18-09-2019 20:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010630)
Agreed Chris, why it was ever passed into law is beyond me.
The Liberal Democrats were worried that at an opportune moment the Tories would call a snap election, especially before their concessions to the Liberals were met.

I also think it's not all bad. In way it's doing what it was meant to do which is to stop the Government calling an election to suit them politically. This particular case is very weird since the Government can't govern and Parliament is keeping a zombie Government in place, and passing laws, which obviously isn't the intent though.

I am not sure if there is a way to avoid this situation but at the same time stop giving total discretion to the Government to call an election whenever they like.

Mr K 18-09-2019 20:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36010639)
You have to realise Mr K that most politicians are liars even if sometimes its a white lie.
Sceaming Lord David Sutch - Monster Raving Loony Party never lied, he said he was nuts and he was. He seems quite sane now, compared to today's leaders, so maybe he did lie? ;)

Chris 18-09-2019 20:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
So one side of the negotiations is issuing briefings suggesting that the other side is ill-prepared. I mean obviously we should just take that at face value and uncritically. What possible reason could they have for making their opponents’ position look shaky while at the same time portraying themselves as thoroughly on top of everything.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:37.
Page 10 of 369 « First 6789 10 111213142060110 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum