j.a.

To be fair tbh at may be for public consumption. I?d imagine there?s a lot more going on behind the scenes.

It?s somewhat concerning that Braverman appears to have sources the legal advice regarding the Internal Market Bill not from the Treasury Council - who would usually be instructed - but rather from committed Brexiteers who seem unqualified for the job in more than one way.

Yeah, fair point. The whole set-up was badly thought out. But as you say, that?s just a history lesson now (though it?d be nice to think we learned something).

Helmuth Von Molkte (the elder) is supposed to have said (I?ve never been able to find confirmation of it), ?Mistakes in the initial deployment can not be rectified? This is what I feel went wrong after the referendum, the mistakes were made early on and it?s akin to putting a train on the wrong tracks in the station; you can switch it quickly if you see what?s happened, but once it?s on the move it?s too late. Two things epitomised this. 1. Article 50 didn?t have to be triggered so quickly. As soon as that happened the clock is ticking and the EU had the upper hand because they knew we weren?t ready. 2. May?s disastrous GE. No need to call it, absolutely no need. And now she?s lost the solid majority she had and everyone is jostling for position and advantage. If I?d been in charge, I would?ve gotten everyone in a room together and told them that there was no way A50 was being triggered until we knew what we were doing. We didn?t have to go so fast, it hamstrung us from the beginning because there was no coherent foundation to the plan. So here we are taking extraordinary measures to try and get what we want, mostly because the process was ballsed up at the very beginning, and no one realised in time.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good post. > > You said ...? You won and then rammed it down the > losers throats like a street fighter...? > > By this do you mean Brexiters generally or me > individually? > If I did this I apologise to all concerned. I only > intended to respond to what I considered unfair > comments. No, I wasn?t referring to you personally, and I could?ve been clearer. I certainly was talking about the larger ?groupthink? of Leave voters who - I feel - took an understandable victory lap, and then kept taking it and rubbing people?s noses in it. The whole ?you lost, get over it? and so on. That?s where it became hot only unnecessary but divisive, and it was the lack of self-awareness on the part of those Leave voters (which is not the same as all Leave voters) which I feel angry about. Leave won. It didn?t win on any particular mandate other than simply Leaving, and when the discussion about exactly what form Brexit we took began, anyone who?d voted Remain found themselves squeezed out of the discussion. Every version of Brexit has its pros and cons, and if a Remainer pointed out the issues with any given version they were accused of, well, you know the various things. It wears you down after a while, and makes you feel like you?re being told to just shut up and take whatever comes. There was a point where I was giving serious thought to voting Leave, because I?m not blind to the problems of the EU. But no one could tell me what Brexit would look like - we now see why that?s the case. I personally couldn?t bring myself to support something that was essentially asking me to vote based on the blind faith of ?it?ll be alright?. The subsequent years have only reinforced on me the belief that no one in Leave actually knew how to get this done. There is a manifest disconnect between the campaign promises of Leave and how things have developed. I find it difficult to believe that the EU is entirely to blame for this, despite the protestations of Steve Baker et al. (Edited got spelling mistakes because I wrote this before I?ve had coffee)

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If you'd read all the thread, you'd know IM the > pompous prick...... To be fair I think we all take turns wearing that hat, and have done since 2016.

On here? If that?s what you mean then I?m not particularly surprised - this is a heavily Remain supporting area and online people run their mouth (yes, me included). I?ve been lurking here for many years before the boredom of lockdown pushed me into posting; even though back at work I?m still doing it. I?ve seen the arguments go back and forth over Brexit, here and everywhere else. It?s getting late at night and I?m at the end of a 15 hour shift so I?m going to leave it and go home. But this whole ?Brexiters were treated badly? argument - you won. You won and then rammed it down the losers throats like a street fighter. Frankly that pissed off and alienated a lot of people who were otherwise aware that it was a democratic vote, and accepting the result is the price you pay for not living in a police state. A lot of us did accept the result, and since then have had to endure being told that we're traitors for not supporting Brexit. But what is Brexit? No single version of it can command a majority across the whole Leave community, so the only thing that brings you together is No Deal. I?m tired and rambling. You won. You promised us it would be ok. And look where we are now, no further forward as a society. It pisses me off, because Remainers and the EU are still being blamed for *everything*. No one on the Leave side is considering whether maybe they?ve messed up thus far, at all. G?night...

*Here?s* the point............................................................aaaaaand *here?s* Keano doing his best to avoid it and appear like a jovial sort who?s simply enjoying sparring with those silly childish Remainers. The ?oh I?m sure it?ll all be alright in the end chaps, you?re being melodramatic, let?s not worry about it, smart men are on the case? view of things is filled with hubris. But if it makes you happy, who am I to take that away from you in these weird times. Enjoy. While you can.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You?ve missed several hundreds posts j.a.. You?ve > got a lot to catch up on. I?ve read the whole thread. You?re quite the pompous prick, and you?ve been avoiding questions for the whole shebang so far. Like I say, I see you.

I?ve never understood why people who criticise aspects of the UK?s courses of action are accused of putting the country down, like no one is allowed to have a negative opinion of one aspect of life here while having positive opinions of another? Oh, wait, now I get it.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > > Yes, I admit I do make a nuisance of myself > popping Remainers? self-righteous notions of being > the ones with all the correct answers but you?re > up for it. That?s all well and good, but there?s a certain amount of pot calling the kettle black there. > > One thing I?m certain of, whatever outcome we > arrive at a good number of people will be unhappy. This is very true.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shakes head in disbelief of my obsequious fellows To whom, exactly?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > J.a I refer you to BJ?s article in The Telegraph > today. He explains why he wishes to amend the WA. > That should answer your question. Hahahaaaaa! No it doesn?t! And yes I?ve read it. You?re just avoiding the fact that your Brexit hero told you he?s got it done, and then said he hadn?t. Whatever mate. I see you.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Calm Sephiroth, calm. > > Last time I looked the negotiations were still > going on. The EU will come up with its usual > fudge. Is that the same as the UK fudge where Johnson tells everyone to vote for the deal, that it ?gets Brexit done?, and campaigns on it in a GE which results in a stonking majority, thus giving him a mandate for the WA, and then subsequently says it isn?t good, we can?t agree to it and we have to change it, and is CJ apply breaking international law to do so? Is it the same as that fudge? Because I quite like fudge, but Johnson?s smells overcooked and like it will taste bitter. Still waiting for you to explain how the WA can be ok and then not ok. If there was a problem with it, why did we sign it? Simple question really.

Triggered much, you delusional nutter? I didn?t call him dangerous, I was referring to you, and that you couldn?t understand that from plain text speaks volumes. Conspiracy theories are great, aren?t they? You don?t need ac yak proof, in fact the absence of proof only strengthens your case (and by case I mean delusions), because *of course* they would say that. It was observed recently that conspiracy theories are the new religion. You certainly fit that profile.

Well, on the basis that even a stopped clock is right twice a day (a TE44 is more like one of melting clocks that Dali painted), I watched all of that video. Yup, all of it. 30 minutes of my life I?m never getting back. Yeah, yeah, I know TE, ?oh you don?t have an open mind, you?re such a bigot, you?re the problem.? Whatever let?s you sleep at night. You?re still a dangerous lunatic.

(You have a weird definition of a rant) Responding to the previous post, the point I was making is that Cummings (who is obviously the power behind this, please let's not pretend otherwise) won't care what anyone says, and likely sees Howard, Lamont et al as ancient history anyway. He's going to push it through, and Boris will do what he'd told. Kinda surprised you needed that explained but hey ho...

No. No I didn?t. Do you really need it explained to you?

You think Dom gives a flying fornication what *anyone* thinks? Boris doesn?t choose a tie without Dom?s approval, so we know how this is going to go.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well Barnier seems to have been swinging the lead > so perhaps Boris?s optimism met EU highlighter > pen-pushing bureaucracy. This is a contender for the least constructive post ever.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good question pk. > > As far as I understand it the Govt?s argument is > that the WA is ambiguous and many of the details > were to be ironed out in the course of > negotiations through ?the Joint committee?. > > One consequence of the ambiguity is that > businesses based in GB could be subject to EU > (single market) rules if they supply goods to > Northern Ireland. > > The Bill aims to remove such ambiguity as it is a > back door for the EU to exercise control over > domestic matters through strict legal > interpretation. > > A sort of the devil is in the detail. > > The BBC touches on this here > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-540 > 92940 While all of that may be true, and it probably is, none of it addresses the fact that Johnson told everyone he?d ?got Brexit done? (?oven ready blah blah etc etc), signed the deal, then turned around and said it wasn?t resolved. None of us get to sign a contract and then claim it?s ambiguous. It doesn?t work that way. The British govt signed the WA and are now trying to backtrack. You and me don?t get to do that. The whole point of this stuff is that once you?ve ?signed on the dotted line?, as the phrase goes, THAT?S IT (again, caps mine and intentional). I can?t believe anyone is trying to defend this course of action. If the WA wasn?t good for us, we should not have signed it. We now look like we can?t be trusted. Gove was going around telling the ERG to vote for it because we could change it later. Turns out he meant that literally.

@TheCat While generally I agree that both sides have behaved badly in various ways at various times, from the start of the campaign right through to today, I feel there?s a counterpoint to your assertion that had Remainers accepted it from the start we wouldn?t be were we are now. Leavers were some of the worst winners in history. If you win, you should show a certain magnanimity towards the losers; it?s ironic that for something which was partly about British values (yes it was), many winners behaved in an astoundingly unBritish style. Remainers were told, basically, to shut up and accept whatever came their way. Somehow 52% became 100%, and 48% became 0%, as it was made clear that no one cares what that 48% thought, so in a way it?s hardly surprising they tried to change it. Astonishingly the only politician I remember trying to point out that everyone - not just Leave voters - had to be considered was Gove! I guess the point I?m making is that - after an understandable period of savouring victory - had Leavers adopted a tone of conciliation and ?don?t worry, we?re not going to screw you all over?, things might have been different. But they didn?t. That wasn?t cool. Sephiroth also makes an excellent and often repeated point. There is no single version of Brexit that commands a majority in the UK. That?s why the Leave campaign was deliberately vague. I?m not sure you can blame Remainers when the ballot paper only said Leave or Remain. Frankly, everything else is down to the government in power.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not sure pk. It is a bit high stakes. > > Both sides want a deal. Unfortunately the EU still > wants to ensnare the UK in its spider?s web in > perpetuity. > > Compromise would be the best solution. However, a > no deal would not be disastrous either as we chart > our way in a post-Covid world. And there it is. I?m amazed how many Brexiters have come round to the idea that No-Deal maybe isn?t so bad after all. Leave didn?t fight the referendum on the idea of a No-Deal, and if you think they did I suggest you revisit exactly what they said in 2016. The EU have played hardball and now you?re claiming that it?s all their fault after all. Childish and naive. You won, own it. ?Spiders web in perpetuity?. Oh please... The whole thing is no doubt a high-stakes poker game, albeit one on which the British govt has decided to behave...questionably...but personally I?d appreciate it if Leave voters stopped claiming they were always ok with No-Deal. Hardly any of you were, but now you all act like it?s no big thing. And let?s be f#*^ing clear about something: Boris signed the WA. He campaigned on it. IDS (and a lot of other Tories) stood up and said there?s been enough talking, you?ve all had plenty of time to study it, now vote for it. So they did. And the GE was pretty clear-cut too. And NOW they?re saying it was done in a rush, and that it was always understood that it would need clarifying afterwards, and that it?s ok because they?re only going back on something they?ve agreed to in a specific and limited way? You?re an intelligent person. Please don?t tell me you think any of that is ok. If the agreement contains stuff that is detrimental to us, then WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT TELL PARLIAMENT THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND SUBSEQUENTLY SIGN IT? (Caps mine and very intentional). The whole thing is bonkers.

Maximum table size of six people. Nothing else the venue can do in practical terms.

This is going to be...interesting.