[Continuation] Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero - Page 53

LondonJohn · 17th December 2019, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Literally the Messiah, hyperbole, but they are suddenly talking in glowing terms about what a great Conservative leader he is having mocked him right up until the date of the election.

Well then.... wow.

Quote:

That's why I think they find it so difficult to say why Brexit will be so great for the UK economy. These are (four) smart people, generally (retired) senior managers or directors in multi-national companies so they're aware of the difficulties of doing business outside the EU rather than inside the EU. That's why they had clearly defined economic reasons for Remaining.

What has been very surprising to me is that over they have pretty much done the same thing over the last few weeks - suddenly decided that there is a strong economic case for leaving the EU and that business with the rest of the world will easily compensate with any new difficulties dealing with the EU. In contrast to their previous position however, they are unable to provide specifics about how this might happen.

Again, wow. But to paraphrase HL Mencken: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the (British) public".

Quote:

Best for whom ?

UK plc.

Quote:

It seems to me that there are very few people who stand to gain from either Boris Johnson's deal (which is the same as Theresa May's deal but with a hard border in the Irish Sea, not on the island of Ireland) or no-deal.

But at the same time, it's arguable that no better (or "less bad") deal could be had. Incidentally, on this issue I do happen to agree with those who argue that anthing involving an ongoing full customs union or free trade agreement would not be in keeping with what voters reasonably believed they were voting for in 2016 (but to a degree this is a judgement call rather than a black-and-white matter).

Quote:

Indeed the key players, including Boris Johnson have seemed to do everything they can to prevent a deal which is least damaging to the UK and its electorate and instead move towards a position which benefits their backers most.

I simply don't interpret the known evidence in the same way as you do.

Dave Rogers · 17th December 2019, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

He didn't promise that "the process (would be) expedited". He promised that there'd be no further delay. Which is exactly what the proposed legislation would do.

Except, of course, that it won't actually do anything, other than give the impression that Boris is doing what he said he would and prepare the way for a claim, if anything accidentally goes wrong, that he did everything he possibly could to prevent it by making it illegal for anything to accidentally go wrong.

Dave

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 04:41 AM

I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something.

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

LondonJohn · 17th December 2019, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

The UK already had the ability to prevent a further extension. All Boris Johnson is seeking to do is to prevent parliament, with a huge Conservative majority, from taking action should it become apparent that ending the transition period is disastrous.

I think you're missing the point. The point is that by locking this issue down with legislation, Johnson is (most likely) deliberately seeking to give himself no wiggle room in order to expedite negotiations and reach resolutions. Now, one can of course argue as to whether this is a wise move or not.... but you kicked off this area of debate when you suggested that Johnson's reason for seeking this legislation was in order to deliberately try to end up with a no-deal Brexit and/or to try to ensure an erosion of worker's rights.

Quote:

What proportion of Left-wingers and anti-Johnson-ers are inbred by your estimation ?

Uh what? Firstly (and again), if I wrote "I find it interesting that tall women find it difficult to shop for formal clothing", why would it be at all relevant to ask "what proportion of women are tall by my estimation"? Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction".

Quote:

I don't see how it's ironic. Rather, it clearly shows that a left-wing, anti-Conservative message wasn't a barrier to being elected.

*sigh* And nor was it a barrier to Labour being elected in safe Labour seats. You're missing the point.

Quote:

The key differences between the SNP and Labour IMO were a leadership which wasn't an electoral liability and a clearly defined, and easily understood Brexit policy.

While I agree with those differences, there's the additional rather large difference that's implied by the words "Scottish" and "Nationalist".

Quote:

...a no-deal Brexit

No, I do not believe Boris Johnson's repeated statements about not wanting a no-deal. He is both a liar and a political opportunist. During the Leave campaign he assured us that we'd be in the EEA and immediately reversed that position when it was clear that a hard Brexit created a path to 10 Downing Street.

OTOH Dominic Cummings has been very consistent about wanting a no-deal Brexit. Given that he is the one who actually does all the planning and work, and that Boris Johnson is famously lazy and ill-prepared, I'm confident that Dominic Cummings will prevail.

Well, we'll see I guess.

LondonJohn · 17th December 2019, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something.

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

(Though I don't altogether subscribe to your final sentence there)

McHrozni · 17th December 2019, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

EU wants the toxic UK out as soon as possible. It contends with the endless extensions upon extensions because it doesn't want to be guilty of the inevitable disaster Brexit will become. In regards to payments EU already won, the EU budget only went on until the end of 2020. UK can renegade to at most 11 months of that and would have to do an equivalent of a soverign default in order to do so.

McHrozni

Dave Rogers · 17th December 2019, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something.

I really don't think they're stupid enough to fall for that one. It's plain to see that this law will not be binding on the one body it applies to, and the evidence seems to suggest that the EU negotiators are intelligent and knowlegeable enough to understand that. I think this law is purely PR directed at the portion of the electorate who have voted Conservative in order to get a speedy resolution to Brexit.

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

I don't think they're that stupid either. They want to get on with the business of running the EU, and I suspect most of them would really, really like to get the Brexit party out of the European Parliament.

Dave

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

EU wants the toxic UK out as soon as possible. It contends with the endless extensions upon extensions because it doesn't want to be guilty of the inevitable disaster Brexit will become. In regards to payments EU already won, the EU budget only went on until the end of 2020. UK can renegade to at most 11 months of that and would have to do an equivalent of a soverign default in order to do so.

McHrozni

If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can.

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I really don't think they're stupid enough to fall for that one. It's plain to see that this law will not be binding on the one body it applies to, and the evidence seems to suggest that the EU negotiators are intelligent and knowlegeable enough to understand that. I think this law is purely PR directed at the portion of the electorate who have voted Conservative in order to get a speedy resolution to Brexit.

I don't think they're that stupid either. They want to get on with the business of running the EU, and I suspect most of them would really, really like to get the Brexit party out of the European Parliament.

Dave

My understanding is that the Brexit party (and other UK MEPs) WILL be out of the European Parliament during the transition period - so they'll be gone about six weeks from now. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

I agree that there should be no need for the law - Boris's promise to not extend the transition period should be sufficient and equivalent. But if the law makes the EU negotiators think they have less chance of stringing the negotiations along, then it may have some value.

The Don · 17th December 2019, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I think you're missing the point. The point is that by locking this issue down with legislation, Johnson is (most likely) deliberately seeking to give himself no wiggle room in order to expedite negotiations and reach resolutions. Now, one can of course argue as to whether this is a wise move or not.... but you kicked off this area of debate when you suggested that Johnson's reason for seeking this legislation was in order to deliberately try to end up with a no-deal Brexit and/or to try to ensure an erosion of worker's rights.

I was arguing that it's a way to engineer a no-deal Brexit.

The erosion of workers' rights is the inevitable result of having a Conservative government during the Brexit process.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Uh what? Firstly (and again), if I wrote "I find it interesting that tall women find it difficult to shop for formal clothing", why would it be at all relevant to ask "what proportion of women are tall by my estimation"? Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction".

I have literally never encountered that definition of "inbred" in my 52 years of being a native English speaker. The two I'm familiar with are:

The product of incest
Something possessed since birth

Neither of these seem to relate to your definition.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

*sigh* And nor was it a barrier to Labour being elected in safe Labour seats. You're missing the point.

Labour were pummelled by both the Conservatives and the SNP and yet somehow this is a clear indication that their anti-Tory rhetoric is the cause - nope not getting it.

McHrozni · 17th December 2019, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can.

UK won't be able to conclude trade deals after the extensions either. UK faces a cliff edge Brexit unless it ends up in a customs union with the EU. A few trade partners might roll over the deals to cover the UK as well, most won't. UK doesn't have negotiators for any one of those deals, so it's not like making any sort of a deal like promised by BJ and his ilk benefits the UK.

McHrozni

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

UK won't be able to conclude trade deals after the extensions either. UK faces a cliff edge Brexit unless it ends up in a customs union with the EU. A few trade partners might roll over the deals to cover the UK as well, most won't. UK doesn't have negotiators for any one of those deals, so it's not like making any sort of a deal like promised by BJ and his ilk benefits the UK.

McHrozni

I said "conclude trade deals with other countries" By which I meant non-EU countries.

McHrozni · 17th December 2019, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I said "conclude trade deals with other countries" By which I meant non-EU countries.

So did I.

UK lacks skilled negotiators. This works well enough with EU that wants to accomodate UK to the best of their ability.

Outside it's dog eats dog. YOou'll probably feel it soon enough.

McHrozni

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

So did I.

UK lacks skilled negotiators. This works well enough with EU that wants to accomodate UK to the best of their ability.

Outside it's dog eats dog. YOou'll probably feel it soon enough.

McHrozni

I don't want to argue about the skill of UK negotiators.

But your argument has a logical error in any case. Having unskilled negotiators doesn't prevent you from concluding trade deals - it merely prevents you from concluding trade deals that work more in your own favour.

McHrozni · 17th December 2019, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Having unskilled negotiators doesn't prevent you from concluding trade deals - it merely prevents you from concluding trade deals that work more in your own favour.

Put that on a plaque and write "#Brexit" underneath, will you?

McHrozni

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Labour were pummelled by both the Conservatives and the SNP and yet somehow this is a clear indication that their anti-Tory rhetoric is the cause - nope not getting it.

One key difference is that the SNP consistently opposed Brexit, holding a referendum, and respecting the result.

Labour voted in favour of holding the referendum, promised to respect the result, and then broke their promise.

SNP stuck to their word and were rewarded by voters. Labour broke their word and were punished by voters.

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Put that on a plaque and write "#Brexit" underneath, will you?

McHrozni

A concluded trade deal now might be more valuable than a better deal concluded ten years from now. Have you considered that?

Once a trade deal is in place, alterations can still be made. This happens all the time.

McHrozni · 17th December 2019, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

A concluded trade deal now might be more valuable than a better deal concluded ten years from now. Have you considered that?

Of course I have.

It was one of the key arguments against Brexit.

Quote:

Once a trade deal is in place, alterations can still be made. This happens all the time.

Just be sure you have something to offer still, ok?

McHrozni

Darat · 17th December 2019, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You're missing the key difference. Johnson's promise was stupid, over ambitious, and unbelievable, but it was broken because his opponents prevented him from delivering it. In contrast, Labour politicians breaking of their promise to respect the referendum, was just because they changed their minds - or were lying when they made the promise in the first place.

Voters will forgive (to an extent) the first type of broken promise, but not the second kind.

His bill get through, it was him that sabotaged his own bill's process.

GlennB · 17th December 2019, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction".

This explains the dispute going on, as 'inbred' doesn't mean 'indoctrinated' at all.

Lothian · 17th December 2019, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can.

If we get a free trade deal with the EU then the UK will be unable to agree any trade deals with third countries that significantly differ from the deals the EU have with those countries, until until the UK can guarantee that goods travelling from and to the UK can not be diverted to/from the EU.
If we get a free trade deal with America then the EU will only give us the deal the US has. If the EU values free trade with us they will want to get in first.

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

His bill get through, it was him that sabotaged his own bill's process.

I don't accept that. His opponents were determined to delay it beyond his promised date, and to amend it to be even more remain friendly.

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

If we get a free trade deal with the EU then the UK will be unable to agree any trade deals with third countries that significantly differ from the deals the EU have with those countries, until until the UK can guarantee that goods travelling from and to the UK can not be diverted to/from the EU.
If we get a free trade deal with America then the EU will only give us the deal the US has. If the EU values free trade with us they will want to get in first.

That's why the EU wants to extend and delay. They know the USA can't conclude their deal for as long as we're locked into the transition period.

Darat · 17th December 2019, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I don't accept that. His opponents were determined to delay it beyond his promised date, and to amend it to be even more remain friendly.

You may not accept it but it is what the record shows happened.

angrysoba · 17th December 2019, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

One key difference is that the SNP consistently opposed Brexit, holding a referendum, and respecting the result.

Labour voted in favour of holding the referendum, promised to respect the result, and then broke their promise.

SNP stuck to their word and were rewarded by voters. Labour broke their word and were punished by voters.

I think it is more of a case of Scotland voting against Brexit in the referendum and therefore in favour of a Remain Party in the SNP or even in the Lib Dems who lost their leader but increased their vote share and kept the same number of MPs.

Whereas England and Wales voted Leave and therefore voted the most obvious choice in the Tories.

Northern Ireland which just has different politics because of the sectarian divide actually voted for more remain MPs with the SDLP and gave the DUP a rebuke.

Labour were the losers because their position on Brexit was incoherent and had been since the referendum. Of course, they also lost because of Corbyn but the two things are not easily disentangled. He is a figurehead of the middle that Labour were in.

And also, frankly I agree with you in one way. Although I am against Brexit and although many people have said it is like turkeys voting for Christmas it seems undeniable by now what the turkeys have voted for.

LondonJohn · 17th December 2019, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

This explains the dispute going on, as 'inbred' doesn't mean 'indoctrinated' at all.

Well, I mean both "inbred" and "indoctrinated" in the sense of growing up and remaining within a household and a community which has a strong particular political affiliation, such that one's inbuilt instinct is to support that political affiliation almost to the point of blindness.

I didn't realise it needed this degree of explanation, but there you go.

The Don · 17th December 2019, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well, I mean both "inbred" and "indoctrinated" in the sense of growing up and remaining within a household and a community which has a strong particular political affiliation, such that one's inbuilt instinct is to support that political affiliation almost to the point of blindness.

I didn't realise it needed this degree of explanation, but there you go.

Well if you're going to use words in idiosyncratic and/or personal ways then be prepared to be misinterpreted.

LondonJohn · 17th December 2019, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Well if you're going to use words in idiosyncratic and/or personal ways then be prepared to be misinterpreted.

Haha thanks for that. Hope it's all clear now.

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

You may not accept it but it is what the record shows happened.

No, I don't accept that either. Where's your evidence that he voted against his own deal? I think you imagined that. He stopped pushing it when it was apparent that his opponents were sabotaging and delaying it. Perfectly correct of him to do that, and subsequent events have shown that he did exactly the right thing.

GlennB · 17th December 2019, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

No, I don't accept that either. Where's your evidence that he voted against his own deal? I think you imagined that.

Darat didn't say that he did. As I recall Johnson pulled his own bill at second reading when the pesky HoC wanted a respectable amount of time to debate it (iirc Johnson was proposing 2 days of debate which, iihrc is absurd).

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think it is more of a case of Scotland voting against Brexit in the referendum and therefore in favour of a Remain Party in the SNP or even in the Lib Dems who lost their leader but increased their vote share and kept the same number of MPs.

Whereas England and Wales voted Leave and therefore voted the most obvious choice in the Tories.

Northern Ireland which just has different politics because of the sectarian divide actually voted for more remain MPs with the SDLP and gave the DUP a rebuke.

Labour were the losers because their position on Brexit was incoherent and had been since the referendum. Of course, they also lost because of Corbyn but the two things are not easily disentangled. He is a figurehead of the middle that Labour were in.

And also, frankly I agree with you in one way. Although I am against Brexit and although many people have said it is like turkeys voting for Christmas it seems undeniable by now what the turkeys have voted for.

Voters usually throw out politicians that CHOOSE (rather than being forced) to break their promises. It's that simple.

Dave Rogers · 17th December 2019, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Voters usually throw out politicians that CHOOSE (rather than being forced) to break their promises. It's that simple.

What, promises like "I will not prorogue Parliament"?

Dave

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

What, promises like "I will not prorogue Parliament"?

Dave

Boris never made that promise. He said that it wasn't his intention to prorogue it to prevent discussion on Brexit - there was no promise.

As Prime Minister, he HAS to prorogue parliament to end a session and have a Queen's speech. When he did prorogue it, because of the scheduled party conferences, parliament would only have been closed for five days extra anyway.

Of course, his opponents made a huge overblown fuss over it. Look where it's got them now.

jimbob · 17th December 2019, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

A number of my Conservative friends have suggested that Boris Johnson, now that he's no longer beholden to the ERG and DUP will pivot back to the centre and deliver a much "softer" Brexit than his, or Theresa May's deal.

Being Cassandra I've said that it does the complete opposite, it gives him carte blanche to satisfy his financial backers and deliver a no-deal Brexit whilst turning the UK into a regulation-free sweatshop.

Looking at the proposed terms of the Brexit bill, that pivot doesn't seem to be happening:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50818134

Sounds like he's going to fritter away the transition period before those horrid Europeans force the UK to crash out with no-deal.

And how will the UK respond ? ......

Wow, what a shock

, hope those working-class turkeys are looking forward to Christmas

I'm sure he will moderate himself, it was just an act to get hifmgh office, just as Trump has moderated his actions since becoming POTUS.

ceptimus · 17th December 2019, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Darat didn't say that he did. As I recall Johnson pulled his own bill at second reading when the pesky HoC wanted a respectable amount of time to debate it (iirc Johnson was proposing 2 days of debate which, iihrc is absurd).

His opponents had already forced a delay to the current date (31st January) by delaying it, and were planning to vote through pro-remain amendments that would have modified the bill beyond recognition.

At that stage, Boris and his government pulled the bill, and proceeded to their current triumph. Let's see his opponents try to delay or amend the bill again now.

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2019, 11:20 AM

Look you have to remember the core principle at stake here, and sacrifice is worth it, be it the ecconomy, national health care, british standing in the world, all of it can be safely traded away to preserve the great british institution of the prawn cocktail crisp! That is what got Johnson into the position he is in and that is what is driving their faith in his ability to deliver a prawn cocktail crisp rich brexit.

It might be the only thing to eat but damn it they will be there!

lomiller · 17th December 2019, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

What if the purpose of the legislation is to say to parliament and to the EU that urgency and efficiency in sorting out the withdrawal agreement is now both paramount and unavoidable?

There is nothing left to sort out. Everyone knows what the 3 options are, all that is left is for Parliament to approve one of them.

If BJ has Parliamentary backing he just needs to move forward either with the Theresa May deal or No Deal Brexit. If he doesn’t, attempting to usurp Parliamentary authority should be grounds for a non-confidence vote and new election.

lomiller · 17th December 2019, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can.

Get this though your head. There is no shape or form of Brexit where the UK can keep trading with the EU under current terms and have it’s own side deal in force. Either the UK is outside the EU market area with appropriate trade borders and customs between the two markets, or the UK cannot have side deals in effect. Pick one or the other, you can’t mix the two.

This isn’t something that you can negotiate your way around. The EU has no choice but to enforce it’s own borders and trade agreements just like the UK will need to if it leaves the EU. The only delay here is that the UK is still trying to have it's cake and eat it too. If you really want Brexit pick one and move forward and stop blaming everyone else for your own inductiveness.

Lothian · 17th December 2019, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

That's why the EU wants to extend and delay. They know the USA can't conclude their deal for as long as we're locked into the transition period.

The EU can't unilaterally extend the transition period. The end date is hard coded into article 126. It will only be changed if we want to change it. We can agree a deal with the US and start it the day after transition. We have already rolled over many desls. Admittedly not with a major player or deals improving on our current deal but there is nothing to stop us agreeing a deal with America and starting it on 1/1/21.

America won't want to start a deal before then for reasons previously given.

Vixen · 17th December 2019, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well, I mean both "inbred" and "indoctrinated" in the sense of growing up and remaining within a household and a community which has a strong particular political affiliation, such that one's inbuilt instinct is to support that political affiliation almost to the point of blindness.

I didn't realise it needed this degree of explanation, but there you go.

The correct term is 'incestuous' to refer to the type of industry where everybody knows everybody else.

17th December 2019, 04:30 AM	#2082
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,362	Originally Posted by LondonJohn He didn't promise that "the process (would be) expedited". He promised that there'd be no further delay. Which is exactly what the proposed legislation would do. Except, of course, that it won't actually do anything, other than give the impression that Boris is doing what he said he would and prepare the way for a claim, if anything accidentally goes wrong, that he did everything he possibly could to prevent it by making it illegal for anything to accidentally go wrong. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

17th December 2019, 04:41 AM	#2083
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something. Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 04:49 AM	#2086
McHrozni Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,919	Originally Posted by ceptimus Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible. EU wants the toxic UK out as soon as possible. It contends with the endless extensions upon extensions because it doesn't want to be guilty of the inevitable disaster Brexit will become. In regards to payments EU already won, the EU budget only went on until the end of 2020. UK can renegade to at most 11 months of that and would have to do an equivalent of a soverign default in order to do so. McHrozni
	__________________ لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

17th December 2019, 04:58 AM	#2087
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,362	Originally Posted by ceptimus I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something. I really don't think they're stupid enough to fall for that one. It's plain to see that this law will not be binding on the one body it applies to, and the evidence seems to suggest that the EU negotiators are intelligent and knowlegeable enough to understand that. I think this law is purely PR directed at the portion of the electorate who have voted Conservative in order to get a speedy resolution to Brexit. Originally Posted by ceptimus Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible. I don't think they're that stupid either. They want to get on with the business of running the EU, and I suspect most of them would really, really like to get the Brexit party out of the European Parliament. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

17th December 2019, 05:00 AM	#2088
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by McHrozni EU wants the toxic UK out as soon as possible. It contends with the endless extensions upon extensions because it doesn't want to be guilty of the inevitable disaster Brexit will become. In regards to payments EU already won, the EU budget only went on until the end of 2020. UK can renegade to at most 11 months of that and would have to do an equivalent of a soverign default in order to do so. McHrozni If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 04:29 AM	#2081
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 16,475	Originally Posted by The Don Literally the Messiah, hyperbole, but they are suddenly talking in glowing terms about what a great Conservative leader he is having mocked him right up until the date of the election. Well then.... wow. Quote: That's why I think they find it so difficult to say why Brexit will be so great for the UK economy. These are (four) smart people, generally (retired) senior managers or directors in multi-national companies so they're aware of the difficulties of doing business outside the EU rather than inside the EU. That's why they had clearly defined economic reasons for Remaining. What has been very surprising to me is that over they have pretty much done the same thing over the last few weeks - suddenly decided that there is a strong economic case for leaving the EU and that business with the rest of the world will easily compensate with any new difficulties dealing with the EU. In contrast to their previous position however, they are unable to provide specifics about how this might happen. Again, wow. But to paraphrase HL Mencken: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the (British) public". Quote: Best for whom ? UK plc. Quote: It seems to me that there are very few people who stand to gain from either Boris Johnson's deal (which is the same as Theresa May's deal but with a hard border in the Irish Sea, not on the island of Ireland) or no-deal. But at the same time, it's arguable that no better (or "less bad") deal could be had. Incidentally, on this issue I do happen to agree with those who argue that anthing involving an ongoing full customs union or free trade agreement would not be in keeping with what voters reasonably believed they were voting for in 2016 (but to a degree this is a judgement call rather than a black-and-white matter). Quote: Indeed the key players, including Boris Johnson have seemed to do everything they can to prevent a deal which is least damaging to the UK and its electorate and instead move towards a position which benefits their backers most. I simply don't interpret the known evidence in the same way as you do.

17th December 2019, 04:43 AM	#2084
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 16,475	Originally Posted by The Don The UK already had the ability to prevent a further extension. All Boris Johnson is seeking to do is to prevent parliament, with a huge Conservative majority, from taking action should it become apparent that ending the transition period is disastrous. I think you're missing the point. The point is that by locking this issue down with legislation, Johnson is (most likely) deliberately seeking to give himself no wiggle room in order to expedite negotiations and reach resolutions. Now, one can of course argue as to whether this is a wise move or not.... but you kicked off this area of debate when you suggested that Johnson's reason for seeking this legislation was in order to deliberately try to end up with a no-deal Brexit and/or to try to ensure an erosion of worker's rights. Quote: What proportion of Left-wingers and anti-Johnson-ers are inbred by your estimation ? Uh what? Firstly (and again), if I wrote "I find it interesting that tall women find it difficult to shop for formal clothing", why would it be at all relevant to ask "what proportion of women are tall by my estimation"? Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction". Quote: I don't see how it's ironic. Rather, it clearly shows that a left-wing, anti-Conservative message wasn't a barrier to being elected. sigh And nor was it a barrier to Labour being elected in safe Labour seats. You're missing the point. Quote: The key differences between the SNP and Labour IMO were a leadership which wasn't an electoral liability and a clearly defined, and easily understood Brexit policy. While I agree with those differences, there's the additional rather large difference that's implied by the words "Scottish" and "Nationalist". Quote: ...a no-deal Brexit No, I do not believe Boris Johnson's repeated statements about not wanting a no-deal. He is both a liar and a political opportunist. During the Leave campaign he assured us that we'd be in the EEA and immediately reversed that position when it was clear that a hard Brexit created a path to 10 Downing Street. OTOH Dominic Cummings has been very consistent about wanting a no-deal Brexit. Given that he is the one who actually does all the planning and work, and that Boris Johnson is famously lazy and ill-prepared, I'm confident that Dominic Cummings will prevail. Well, we'll see I guess.

17th December 2019, 04:44 AM	#2085
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 16,475	Originally Posted by ceptimus I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something. Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible. (Though I don't altogether subscribe to your final sentence there)

17th December 2019, 05:08 AM	#2089
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I really don't think they're stupid enough to fall for that one. It's plain to see that this law will not be binding on the one body it applies to, and the evidence seems to suggest that the EU negotiators are intelligent and knowlegeable enough to understand that. I think this law is purely PR directed at the portion of the electorate who have voted Conservative in order to get a speedy resolution to Brexit. I don't think they're that stupid either. They want to get on with the business of running the EU, and I suspect most of them would really, really like to get the Brexit party out of the European Parliament. Dave My understanding is that the Brexit party (and other UK MEPs) WILL be out of the European Parliament during the transition period - so they'll be gone about six weeks from now. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I agree that there should be no need for the law - Boris's promise to not extend the transition period should be sufficient and equivalent. But if the law makes the EU negotiators think they have less chance of stringing the negotiations along, then it may have some value.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Last edited by ceptimus; 17th December 2019 at 05:10 AM.

17th December 2019, 05:14 AM	#2090
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,328	Originally Posted by LondonJohn I think you're missing the point. The point is that by locking this issue down with legislation, Johnson is (most likely) deliberately seeking to give himself no wiggle room in order to expedite negotiations and reach resolutions. Now, one can of course argue as to whether this is a wise move or not.... but you kicked off this area of debate when you suggested that Johnson's reason for seeking this legislation was in order to deliberately try to end up with a no-deal Brexit and/or to try to ensure an erosion of worker's rights. I was arguing that it's a way to engineer a no-deal Brexit. The erosion of workers' rights is the inevitable result of having a Conservative government during the Brexit process. Originally Posted by LondonJohn Uh what? Firstly (and again), if I wrote "I find it interesting that tall women find it difficult to shop for formal clothing", why would it be at all relevant to ask "what proportion of women are tall by my estimation"? Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction". I have literally never encountered that definition of "inbred" in my 52 years of being a native English speaker. The two I'm familiar with are: The product of incest Something possessed since birth Neither of these seem to relate to your definition. Originally Posted by LondonJohn sigh And nor was it a barrier to Labour being elected in safe Labour seats. You're missing the point. Labour were pummelled by both the Conservatives and the SNP and yet somehow this is a clear indication that their anti-Tory rhetoric is the cause - nope not getting it.

17th December 2019, 05:14 AM	#2091
McHrozni Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,919	Originally Posted by ceptimus If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can. UK won't be able to conclude trade deals after the extensions either. UK faces a cliff edge Brexit unless it ends up in a customs union with the EU. A few trade partners might roll over the deals to cover the UK as well, most won't. UK doesn't have negotiators for any one of those deals, so it's not like making any sort of a deal like promised by BJ and his ilk benefits the UK. McHrozni
	__________________ لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

17th December 2019, 05:18 AM	#2092
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by McHrozni UK won't be able to conclude trade deals after the extensions either. UK faces a cliff edge Brexit unless it ends up in a customs union with the EU. A few trade partners might roll over the deals to cover the UK as well, most won't. UK doesn't have negotiators for any one of those deals, so it's not like making any sort of a deal like promised by BJ and his ilk benefits the UK. McHrozni I said "conclude trade deals with other countries" By which I meant non-EU countries.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 05:19 AM	#2093
McHrozni Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,919	Originally Posted by ceptimus I said "conclude trade deals with other countries" By which I meant non-EU countries. So did I. UK lacks skilled negotiators. This works well enough with EU that wants to accomodate UK to the best of their ability. Outside it's dog eats dog. YOou'll probably feel it soon enough. McHrozni
	__________________ لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

17th December 2019, 05:25 AM	#2094
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by McHrozni So did I. UK lacks skilled negotiators. This works well enough with EU that wants to accomodate UK to the best of their ability. Outside it's dog eats dog. YOou'll probably feel it soon enough. McHrozni I don't want to argue about the skill of UK negotiators. But your argument has a logical error in any case. Having unskilled negotiators doesn't prevent you from concluding trade deals - it merely prevents you from concluding trade deals that work more in your own favour.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 05:28 AM	#2095
McHrozni Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,919	Originally Posted by ceptimus Having unskilled negotiators doesn't prevent you from concluding trade deals - it merely prevents you from concluding trade deals that work more in your own favour. Put that on a plaque and write "#Brexit" underneath, will you? McHrozni
	__________________ لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

17th December 2019, 05:32 AM	#2096
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by The Don Labour were pummelled by both the Conservatives and the SNP and yet somehow this is a clear indication that their anti-Tory rhetoric is the cause - nope not getting it. One key difference is that the SNP consistently opposed Brexit, holding a referendum, and respecting the result. Labour voted in favour of holding the referendum, promised to respect the result, and then broke their promise. SNP stuck to their word and were rewarded by voters. Labour broke their word and were punished by voters.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Last edited by ceptimus; 17th December 2019 at 05:33 AM.

17th December 2019, 05:40 AM	#2097
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by McHrozni Put that on a plaque and write "#Brexit" underneath, will you? McHrozni A concluded trade deal now might be more valuable than a better deal concluded ten years from now. Have you considered that? Once a trade deal is in place, alterations can still be made. This happens all the time.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 05:50 AM	#2098
McHrozni Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,919	Originally Posted by ceptimus A concluded trade deal now might be more valuable than a better deal concluded ten years from now. Have you considered that? Of course I have. It was one of the key arguments against Brexit. Quote: Once a trade deal is in place, alterations can still be made. This happens all the time. Just be sure you have something to offer still, ok? McHrozni
	__________________ لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

17th December 2019, 05:56 AM	#2099
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,862	Originally Posted by ceptimus You're missing the key difference. Johnson's promise was stupid, over ambitious, and unbelievable, but it was broken because his opponents prevented him from delivering it. In contrast, Labour politicians breaking of their promise to respect the referendum, was just because they changed their minds - or were lying when they made the promise in the first place. Voters will forgive (to an extent) the first type of broken promise, but not the second kind. His bill get through, it was him that sabotaged his own bill's process.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

17th December 2019, 05:56 AM	#2100
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,370	Originally Posted by LondonJohn Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction". This explains the dispute going on, as 'inbred' doesn't mean 'indoctrinated' at all.
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

17th December 2019, 06:03 AM	#2101
Lothian should be banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside Posts: 16,089	Originally Posted by ceptimus If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can. If we get a free trade deal with the EU then the UK will be unable to agree any trade deals with third countries that significantly differ from the deals the EU have with those countries, until until the UK can guarantee that goods travelling from and to the UK can not be diverted to/from the EU. If we get a free trade deal with America then the EU will only give us the deal the US has. If the EU values free trade with us they will want to get in first.

17th December 2019, 06:28 AM	#2102
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Darat His bill get through, it was him that sabotaged his own bill's process. I don't accept that. His opponents were determined to delay it beyond his promised date, and to amend it to be even more remain friendly.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 06:32 AM	#2103
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Lothian If we get a free trade deal with the EU then the UK will be unable to agree any trade deals with third countries that significantly differ from the deals the EU have with those countries, until until the UK can guarantee that goods travelling from and to the UK can not be diverted to/from the EU. If we get a free trade deal with America then the EU will only give us the deal the US has. If the EU values free trade with us they will want to get in first. That's why the EU wants to extend and delay. They know the USA can't conclude their deal for as long as we're locked into the transition period.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 06:37 AM	#2104
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,862	Originally Posted by ceptimus I don't accept that. His opponents were determined to delay it beyond his promised date, and to amend it to be even more remain friendly. You may not accept it but it is what the record shows happened.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

17th December 2019, 06:49 AM	#2105
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,307	Originally Posted by ceptimus One key difference is that the SNP consistently opposed Brexit, holding a referendum, and respecting the result. Labour voted in favour of holding the referendum, promised to respect the result, and then broke their promise. SNP stuck to their word and were rewarded by voters. Labour broke their word and were punished by voters. I think it is more of a case of Scotland voting against Brexit in the referendum and therefore in favour of a Remain Party in the SNP or even in the Lib Dems who lost their leader but increased their vote share and kept the same number of MPs. Whereas England and Wales voted Leave and therefore voted the most obvious choice in the Tories. Northern Ireland which just has different politics because of the sectarian divide actually voted for more remain MPs with the SDLP and gave the DUP a rebuke. Labour were the losers because their position on Brexit was incoherent and had been since the referendum. Of course, they also lost because of Corbyn but the two things are not easily disentangled. He is a figurehead of the middle that Labour were in. And also, frankly I agree with you in one way. Although I am against Brexit and although many people have said it is like turkeys voting for Christmas it seems undeniable by now what the turkeys have voted for.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

17th December 2019, 07:12 AM	#2106
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 16,475	Originally Posted by GlennB This explains the dispute going on, as 'inbred' doesn't mean 'indoctrinated' at all. Well, I mean both "inbred" and "indoctrinated" in the sense of growing up and remaining within a household and a community which has a strong particular political affiliation, such that one's inbuilt instinct is to support that political affiliation almost to the point of blindness. I didn't realise it needed this degree of explanation, but there you go.

17th December 2019, 07:17 AM	#2107
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,328	Originally Posted by LondonJohn Well, I mean both "inbred" and "indoctrinated" in the sense of growing up and remaining within a household and a community which has a strong particular political affiliation, such that one's inbuilt instinct is to support that political affiliation almost to the point of blindness. I didn't realise it needed this degree of explanation, but there you go. Well if you're going to use words in idiosyncratic and/or personal ways then be prepared to be misinterpreted.

17th December 2019, 08:00 AM	#2108
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 16,475	Originally Posted by The Don Well if you're going to use words in idiosyncratic and/or personal ways then be prepared to be misinterpreted. Haha thanks for that. Hope it's all clear now.

17th December 2019, 10:01 AM	#2109
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Darat You may not accept it but it is what the record shows happened. No, I don't accept that either. Where's your evidence that he voted against his own deal? I think you imagined that. He stopped pushing it when it was apparent that his opponents were sabotaging and delaying it. Perfectly correct of him to do that, and subsequent events have shown that he did exactly the right thing.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Last edited by ceptimus; 17th December 2019 at 10:05 AM.

17th December 2019, 10:04 AM	#2110
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,370	Originally Posted by ceptimus No, I don't accept that either. Where's your evidence that he voted against his own deal? I think you imagined that. Darat didn't say that he did. As I recall Johnson pulled his own bill at second reading when the pesky HoC wanted a respectable amount of time to debate it (iirc Johnson was proposing 2 days of debate which, iihrc is absurd).
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

17th December 2019, 10:07 AM	#2111
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by angrysoba I think it is more of a case of Scotland voting against Brexit in the referendum and therefore in favour of a Remain Party in the SNP or even in the Lib Dems who lost their leader but increased their vote share and kept the same number of MPs. Whereas England and Wales voted Leave and therefore voted the most obvious choice in the Tories. Northern Ireland which just has different politics because of the sectarian divide actually voted for more remain MPs with the SDLP and gave the DUP a rebuke. Labour were the losers because their position on Brexit was incoherent and had been since the referendum. Of course, they also lost because of Corbyn but the two things are not easily disentangled. He is a figurehead of the middle that Labour were in. And also, frankly I agree with you in one way. Although I am against Brexit and although many people have said it is like turkeys voting for Christmas it seems undeniable by now what the turkeys have voted for. Voters usually throw out politicians that CHOOSE (rather than being forced) to break their promises. It's that simple.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

17th December 2019, 10:08 AM	#2112
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,362	Originally Posted by ceptimus Voters usually throw out politicians that CHOOSE (rather than being forced) to break their promises. It's that simple. What, promises like "I will not prorogue Parliament"? Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

17th December 2019, 10:33 AM	#2113
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers What, promises like "I will not prorogue Parliament"? Dave Boris never made that promise. He said that it wasn't his intention to prorogue it to prevent discussion on Brexit - there was no promise. As Prime Minister, he HAS to prorogue parliament to end a session and have a Queen's speech. When he did prorogue it, because of the scheduled party conferences, parliament would only have been closed for five days extra anyway. Of course, his opponents made a huge overblown fuss over it. Look where it's got them now.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Last edited by ceptimus; 17th December 2019 at 11:04 AM.

17th December 2019, 10:52 AM	#2114
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,777	Originally Posted by The Don A number of my Conservative friends have suggested that Boris Johnson, now that he's no longer beholden to the ERG and DUP will pivot back to the centre and deliver a much "softer" Brexit than his, or Theresa May's deal. Being Cassandra I've said that it does the complete opposite, it gives him carte blanche to satisfy his financial backers and deliver a no-deal Brexit whilst turning the UK into a regulation-free sweatshop. Looking at the proposed terms of the Brexit bill, that pivot doesn't seem to be happening: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50818134 Sounds like he's going to fritter away the transition period before those horrid Europeans force the UK to crash out with no-deal. And how will the UK respond ? ...... Wow, what a shock , hope those working-class turkeys are looking forward to Christmas I'm sure he will moderate himself, it was just an act to get hifmgh office, just as Trump has moderated his actions since becoming POTUS.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

17th December 2019, 10:59 AM	#2115
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by GlennB Darat didn't say that he did. As I recall Johnson pulled his own bill at second reading when the pesky HoC wanted a respectable amount of time to debate it (iirc Johnson was proposing 2 days of debate which, iihrc is absurd). His opponents had already forced a delay to the current date (31st January) by delaying it, and were planning to vote through pro-remain amendments that would have modified the bill beyond recognition. At that stage, Boris and his government pulled the bill, and proceeded to their current triumph. Let's see his opponents try to delay or amend the bill again now.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Last edited by ceptimus; 17th December 2019 at 11:02 AM.