Breaking News

[Bobbisox1]

Tusk says the EU27 agree to a January 31st extension

Groan.......

Are they Running scared?

[naomi24]

spath, not that difficult to understand? You seem to be having a bit of trouble understanding it.

[jim360]

// "Why on earth would Leave voters support any deal that keeps us in? " //

// "Why would I [ask Johnson why he now supports leaving the EU under arrangements that are essentially identical to May's]?" //

Johnson was a Leave voter. Indeed, he and Farage are probably the most prominent Leave voters there were during the campaign, spearheading the ultimately winning side. If one of them now supports a broken deal, it seems important to ask why.

I suppose at least one answer is politics, but the other answer is that it is simply not possible and not sensible to leave the EU in any other way without doing serious damage to all parties, and in particular to the UK. Johnson et al know this; Farage is, as yet, in the privileged position of being able to pretend that he doesn't.

[hereIam]

And of course come 31 January, they will then extend it to, say 31 May without a shadow of a doubt. Bloody fuming (again) !!

[naomi24]

//it is simply not possible and not sensible to leave the EU in any other way without doing serious damage to all parties, and in particular to the UK. //

Not so ... but I'm not going over all that again with you, Jim. You've told me what you think ... ad infinitum.

[ToraToraTora]

jim, are you seriously saying we should have accepted May's deal? I'd rather remain than that. No self respecting nation could countenance such a deal.
jim: "As an aside, I like the idea that Remain-supporters, MPs or otherwise are in any sense united enough, and competent enough, to thwart anything" - especially democracy eh?

[jim360]

Indeed. And as yet I can't see that you've ever actually provided evidence to explain why No Deal is fine. As yet the best you've said is that "it won't be Armageddon", which is a pretty low bar.

TTT: no, I would not have accepted May's Deal, nor would I accept the Johnson agreement. But it stands to reason that as these are the only achievable forms of Brexit, one either accepts those on the ground that it would be the only way to fulfil the "will of the people" at all, or recognises that the project is unachievable altogether. Or deliberately pursues a self-destructive course of No-Deal, I suppose, but it should be clear by now that the only person still wanting that is Farage, and he will only want that as long as he is in no position to actually deliver it.

[spathiphyllum]

"And as yet I can't see that you've ever actually provided evidence to explain why No Deal is fine."

Naomi doesn't need to. She just needs to write a condescending response that implies she thinks she's inferior without actually providing any knowledge, fact or even opinion to support the ideology she's trying to portray.

It's a great tactic in hostile situations, but when you want a genuine debate or discussion it's just a futile response that appeals to those who are rather hard of understanding and infuriates those who want the discussion to evolve and progress.

[naomi24]

Your continual scaremongering isn’t evidence, Jim. It’s weakness.

[naomi24]

//Naomi doesn't need to. She just needs to write a condescending response that implies she thinks she's inferior//

Oh spath, you are funny! Me imply that I think I’m inferior? Never!! :o)))

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "Indeed. And as yet I can't see that you've ever actually provided evidence to explain why No Deal is fine. " - I've never said it's fine, I said it's manageable. I said we could possibly must endure it and it will probably be necessary. The EUSSR are never going to agree to a sensible deal for us.

"TTT: no, I would not have accepted May's Deal, nor would I accept the Johnson agreement." - then why did you say this above:
"Maybe if Boris Johnson and other Leave voters had supported the May deal we'd have been in the transition period for months by now." - you seemed to be decrying the fact that May's deal as rejected.

"But it stands to reason that as these are the only achievable forms of Brexit," - they are if you tip your hand to the opposition like the Quisling Collaborators in the HOQ have. If we could have been united in saying we'll accept no deal if necessary, in all likelihood we'd not have had to. This chamberlainesque position means no deal is the only way we can properly leave, the rest is BRINO.

[Old_Geezer]

It's fine because it gets us out, disruption will be managed, and the situation improved from that baseline. We're gone through economic drops for far less benefit in the past; this ought not be argued against more than they. Of course a decent deal is preferable but what some don't seem to grasp is, partly due to incompetent negotiating and partly to discontent and splits at home, the present deal, woefully less than desired as it is, is still the best the EU is likely to offer. So it's that, or no-deal; and either moves us forward.

[emmie]

so we get another extension, whoopee, or not as the case is.

[pixie374]

I don't know if this is true... so wondering if anyone knows, but I was told by a couple of (intelligent) people, that there are several fleets of trains, costing millions, that have to be destroyed, because they don't meet EU regulations, although they would have been perfectly fine if we had left by now.
And also, that HS2 is actually part of a Europe network, that wants to put transport across our country. Apparently, its proper number is E (Europe) something... but also is only being done still because we are still in the EU?

[spathiphyllum]

Pixie, the way TTT goes on about boeing planes you though he'd be over the moon with EU safety regulations.

The idea that we can have less regulated trains and machines isn't enough to wantto leave the EU, surely?

[pixie374]

No. If Britain says they are safe, that is good enough for me. I have seen many EU rules in action, worldwide, which have made no sense often and been unfair- but obviously have to be very sweeping, in order to include every possible situation.
That isn't really the issue, anyway. We have already decided, as a country, that we want to leave. So surely, everyone is now a leaver?

[pixie374]

Workwise... sorry, autocorrect changed it to worldwide!

[jim360]

Citing studies by economists, industry leaders, the government, etc, etc isn't scaremongering. Not remotely. It's cold, hard, research.

[pixie374]

Depends on bias, Jim. Are you genuinely looking for equal views of both sides? Or concentrating on those you already agree with?

[jim360]

In answer to TTT's posts:

// I've never said [No Deal]'s fine, I said it's manageable. //

Indeed not, sorry you were caught up in that. I was addressing Naomi specifically.

// TTT: no, I would not have accepted May's Deal, nor would I accept the Johnson agreement." - then why did you say this above:
"Maybe if Boris Johnson and other Leave voters had supported the May deal we'd have been in the transition period for months by now." //

My point here is that it is rich to complain about Remainers thwarting Brexit, when a version, however inadequate, that would have achieved Brexit was on the table and rejected by Leavers. I can't say I blame them for rejecting it, but I *do* blame them for rejecting the deal and then going on as if it's all a Remainer conspiracy that we haven't left by now. It is simply not.

[pixie374]

Jim, do you think that remainers- whether the public or MPs, that have refused to accept the result of a referendum, have had any effect at all?