O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[KerrAvon]

@ Raging,

Of course you are a member of Momentum, which is why you know very well that they support a further referendum. It's a sorry state of affairs when your organisation has a coherent policy whilst the political party it parasitises doesn't. It’s also a bit unfair on Labour voters when they put their cross against Labour and risk getting your organisation instead.

Once again, I can see where you are going wrong. This thread isn’t about me as you assert – it’s about Brexit. As I mentioned to Exile further up, if you want to talk about my politics, start a thread on the subject.

I can see that I upset you when I commented upon your support for a Norway deal. With hindsight, I could have just pointed out that there is no chance of a Parliamentary majority for such a policy.

Whilst I am sorry that I upset you over Norway, I still find it incredible that you could object to the backstop when the deal on your wish list is one where we would have to accept freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ and in which the EU would have an even greater say upon what the UK can do and we would be paying for the privilege. In other words, it's a far more restrictive position than the backstop, with no discernible advantages over it. This again confirms that you have no understanding of the May deal that you are urging your MP not to support.

[ragingpup]

@ Raging,

Of course you are a member of Momentum, which is why you know very well that they support a further referendum. It's a sorry state of affairs when your organisation has a coherent policy whilst the political party it parasitises doesn't. It’s also a bit unfair on Labour voters when they put their cross against Labour and risk getting your organisation instead.

Once again, I can see where you are going wrong. This thread isn’t about me as you assert – it’s about Brexit. As I mentioned to Exile further up, if you want to talk about my politics, start a thread on the subject.

I can see that I upset you when I commented upon your support for a Norway deal. With hindsight, I could have just pointed out that there is no chance of a Parliamentary majority for such a policy.

Whilst I am sorry that I upset you over Norway, I still find it incredible that you could object to the backstop when the deal on your wish list is one where we would have to accept freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ and in which the EU would have an even greater say upon what the UK can do and we would be paying for the privilege. In other words, it's a far more restrictive position than the backstop, with no discernible advantages over it. This again confirms that you have no understanding of the May deal that you are urging your MP not to support.

Not upset in the least. Just enjoying seeing you unable to give an answer to the simple question of what your preferred outcome would be to the likely rejection of May's deal in the commons?

I understand the drawbacks of the 'Norway' option but as I think I may have already indicated, and that you seem to struggle to comprehend, I am willing to accept FoM and parts of the ECJ in order to secure friction-less trade and travel with the EU. I can see that you are trying to deflect having to answer the question by looking at drawbacks in my preference.

This is what you do.

In fact this is all you do. Far from being the sophisticated person, above taking party sides, your way is to wait until the Government form a policy and then defend it to the hilt from critics. Well good luck to you lad.

Unfortunately for you, I have already identified the compromises in my preference and am standing by that. Something has to give as there is little chance of this getting through. So it would seem have a number of the cabinet, possibly Mrs May herself as a Plan B. I guess when she and they emerge with this Plan B following the defeat, you'll suddenly be on here defending it! Try thinking for yourself lad! It's good for the brain.

So, back to the questions: if you are rejecting the compromise of a deal along these lines, that leaves you with either a preference of:

1. A return to the EU with a Harder Brexit deal in the hope that they would listen and not just piss themselves laughing.
2. Walking away at the commons rejection with no attempt to re-negotiate and just accepting a No Deal.

Which of these two remaining options are you in favour of?

(I'm beginning to think that your inability to answer this simple question indicates that you're quietly a Remainer, but daren't say so out loud! Is that it? You saucy devil!)

[KerrAvon]

Not upset in the least. Just enjoying seeing you unable to give an answer to the simple question of what your preferred outcome would be to the likely rejection of May's deal in the commons?

I understand the drawbacks of the 'Norway' option but as I think I may have already indicated, and that you seem to struggle to comprehend, I am willing to accept FoM and parts of the ECJ in order to secure friction-less trade and travel with the EU. I can see that you are trying to deflect having to answer the question by looking at drawbacks in my preference.

This is what you do.

In fact this is all you do. Far from being the sophisticated person, above taking party sides, your way is to wait until the Government form a policy and then defend it to the hilt from critics. Well good luck to you lad.

Unfortunately for you, I have already identified the compromises in my preference and am standing by that. Something has to give as there is little chance of this getting through. So it would seem have a number of the cabinet, possibly Mrs May herself as a Plan B. I guess when she and they emerge with this Plan B following the defeat, you'll suddenly be on here defending it! Try thinking for yourself lad! It's good for the brain.

So, back to the questions: if you are rejecting the compromise of a deal along these lines, that leaves you with either a preference of:

1. A return to the EU with a Harder Brexit deal in the hope that they would listen and not just piss themselves laughing.
2. Walking away at the commons rejection with no attempt to re-negotiate and just accepting a No Deal.

Which of these two remaining options are you in favour of?

(I'm beginning to think that your inability to answer this simple question indicates that you're quietly a Remainer, but daren't say so out loud! Is that it? You saucy devil!)

Not upset? Of course you aren't! Your keyboard is getting sticky with the foam from your mouth.

Can you point out where I have defended May's deal to the hilt from critics? A couple of posts ago you were saying: I have just about extracted a grudging opinion that you think that May's deal is the best we can get. I appreciate that you are a wee bit flustered but it would be helpful if you could decide what your position is.

Again I would simply point out that the fact that you like the Norway model (even though I don't think you understand it) doesn't mean that it can get through Parliament. The main objection to the May plan is that the backstop if triggered is too restrictive and so the acceptance of an even more restrictive regime has to be rather unlikely. I have no difficulty with you liking Norway I just don’t understand what you think you are achieving by doing so. I’d like a house in Antigua but it aint going to happen (unless I win the lottery).

Thinking about things is great but it helps if you understand what you are thinking about first.

[Exiletyke]

I really don't believe the resident Judge Rinder
Says he's invited me to start a thread on his politics
When does he ever talk any other than politics [such as they are]
Man City v Millers, any thoughts KA

[millmoormagic]

The king of condescension strikes again....

[Lolmorgan]

Not upset? Of course you aren't! Your keyboard is getting sticky with the foam from your mouth.

Can you point out where I have defended May's deal to the hilt from critics? A couple of posts ago you were saying: I have just about extracted a grudging opinion that you think that May's deal is the best we can get. I appreciate that you are a wee bit flustered but it would be helpful if you could decide what your position is.

Again I would simply point out that the fact that you like the Norway model (even though I don't think you understand it) doesn't mean that it can get through Parliament. The main objection to the May plan is that the backstop if triggered is too restrictive and so the acceptance of an even more restrictive regime has to be rather unlikely. I have no difficulty with you liking Norway I just don’t understand what you think you are achieving by doing so. I’d like a house in Antigua but it aint going to happen (unless I win the lottery).

Thinking about things is great but it helps if you understand what you are thinking about first.

For Feck sake lighten up, we have just drawn one of the best teams in the world in the FA Cup & all you taproom politicians bang on about the brexit something you can do nothing about.

[ragingpup]

Not upset? Of course you aren't! Your keyboard is getting sticky with the foam from your mouth.

Can you point out where I have defended May's deal to the hilt from critics? A couple of posts ago you were saying: I have just about extracted a grudging opinion that you think that May's deal is the best we can get. I appreciate that you are a wee bit flustered but it would be helpful if you could decide what your position is.

Again I would simply point out that the fact that you like the Norway model (even though I don't think you understand it) doesn't mean that it can get through Parliament. The main objection to the May plan is that the backstop if triggered is too restrictive and so the acceptance of an even more restrictive regime has to be rather unlikely. I have no difficulty with you liking Norway I just don’t understand what you think you are achieving by doing so. I’d like a house in Antigua but it aint going to happen (unless I win the lottery).

Thinking about things is great but it helps if you understand what you are thinking about first.

Yes, but what would you like to see happen after the commons vote down May's deal?

[ragingpup]

For Feck sake lighten up, we have just drawn one of the best teams in the world in the FA Cup & all you taproom politicians bang on about the brexit something you can do nothing about.

We've drawn Barnet? Excellent, nice easy passage.

[rolymiller]

so then Mr Kerr can you explain what all this legal shyte your government is in tonight please for a lay person.

[KerrAvon]

so then Mr Kerr can you explain what all this legal shyte your government is in tonight please for a lay person.

Certainly Roly.

The May deal contains a 'backstop' designed to prevent a hard border being created on the island of Ireland should the UK and EU not have agreed a trade deal that has the same effect by the end of the transition period on 31st December 2020.

The backstop upsets hard line leavers and those of a unionist persuasion

As is clear from the text of the May deal the backstop is not time limited and cannot be unilaterally ended by either the UK or the EU.

Labour has seen some room for mischief in that there is enough opposition to the May deal from leavers unionists and remainer MPs who want to try to reverse Brexit for them to have secured a vote in which Parliament purported to direct the government to publish the AG's advice on the deal (obviously publishing the deal itself isn't good enough for them or they have trouble understanding it - a common problem). This will result in Parliamentary time being wasted.

The government is sticking with the long standing convention that governments do not publish legal advice that they receive. The reason for that is that it is important that they receive candid legal advice and will not do so in the future if the lawyers who give it know that it will be published and exploited for political ends. In that sense it is akin to Legal Professional Privilege which would prevent any lawyer that you instructed from being ordered to reveal the contents of his or her discussions with you. There is a further twist which is that the AG is a member of the cabinet and it is important for the functioning of government that the cabinet can have candid discussions about policy, which is less likely to happen if there is a risk that the detail of those discussions will be revealed at a later date and exploited for political purposes.

P.s. it's our government, unless you have declared independence.