EU referendum are you in or out

[snaff]

Maybe we should all join the monominous and go to protest againist the government ...

Which bit do we disagree with:

* Weighting of concerns of global corporations versus indigenous population
* Size of state - feeling of being dehumanised and absorbed into someone else's 'system'
* Overcrowded and poorly planned, low quality housing
* Lack of representation in government
* Poorly run schools, police and social services
* The need to address issues at a government level
* Poor quality of press

He gets that across in a three minute informal speech. He's listening to his parents, educating himself, looking for ways to improve himself and his community. If he can't pronounce the odd four syllable word it only backs up what he says about the school system.

[gilesgoat]

Maybe we should all join the monominous and go to protest againist the government ...

Which bit do we disagree with:

* Weighting of concerns of global corporations versus indigenous population
* Size of state - feeling of being dehumanised and absorbed into someone else's 'system'
* Overcrowded and poorly planned, low quality housing
* Lack of representation in government
* Poorly run schools, police and social services
* The need to address issues at a government level
* Poor quality of press

He gets that across in a three minute informal speech. He's listening to his parents, educating himself, looking for ways to improve himself and his community. If he can't pronounce the odd four syllable word it only backs up what he says about the school system.

It's not about the arguments, it's the way it explains them, it's a bit like "the most serious topics explained in the most UNserious way", it's kinda genius but you have to admit is quite funny to listen at

[tufty]

Which bit do we disagree with:

That should finish with a question mark.

* Weighting of concerns of global corporations versus indigenous population

Global corporations vs the people "born and raised in this country", sure. Once you start slipping in words like "indigenous", you start sounding xenophobic. But it's you that used the phrase, not him, so it's you I'm disagreeing with. That you feel the need to put a xenophobic twist on it, in fact, speaks volumes.

* Size of state - feeling of being dehumanised and absorbed into someone else's 'system'

I didn't hear anything about the size of state, merely the (perceived or real) idea that the machinery of the state is both corrupt and acting against the interests of the population. "size of state", again, is a bit of spin that /you/ are putting on what he said.

He's doing the same thing as the "muslamic rayguns" EDL guy, perhaps with less ingestion of diamond white before being interviewed. Illiterately repeating his group's list of facebook bullet points. "Oi could go on for so long but …" doesn't. Good on him for not falling into a group like EDL that puts the blame on darkies, especially coming from a rough estate in Luton, but again, its still all the fault of the "other".

[tufty]

Meanwhile, reports over here are that France will veto an extension to Article 50. That might still be political posturing, but France have very little to lose compared to Britain in this respect.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europ ... 08263.html

There is no question of accepting that the date of Brexit be postponed "as things stand" . That's what French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Sunday in the political program "Le Grand Rendez-vous" Europe1 / CNEWS / Les Echos.

The British "say that they want to propose other solutions, alternative arrangements to ensure withdrawal ... We have not seen them, so it's no, we will not start every three months." he said.

Dodgy translation via google there, basically what he said is that we shouldn't simply assume the EU will give another extension, and that as things stand the French will say "no" is its just another 3 month's delay. The underlying sense I had from this was that they'd need a concrete way forward in order to give an extension, rather than Boris' vague hand waving about negotiating a new withdrawal agreement.

[gilesgoat]

Meanwhile, reports over here are that France will veto an extension to Article 50. That might still be political posturing, but France have very little to lose compared to Britain in this respect.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europ ... 08263.html

There is no question of accepting that the date of Brexit be postponed "as things stand" . That's what French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Sunday in the political program "Le Grand Rendez-vous" Europe1 / CNEWS / Les Echos.

The British "say that they want to propose other solutions, alternative arrangements to ensure withdrawal ... We have not seen them, so it's no, we will not start every three months." he said.

Dodgy translation via google there, basically what he said is that we shouldn't simply assume the EU will give another extension, and that as things stand the French will say "no" is its just another 3 month's delay. The underlying sense I had from this was that they'd need a concrete way forward in order to give an extension, rather than Boris' vague hand waving about negotiating a new withdrawal agreement.

I think they said not once but MANY times that EU won't give any new extensions unless "significant reasons" like a total new deal serious proposal to be made and/or general election and/or another referendum.

Fundamentally "if nothing serious is going to happen it is what it is".

[merman]

Well, Donald Tusk told us not to waste the six months.

Which we have, basically. No serious proposals on replacing the backstop. A Prime Minister being advised by a man found in contempt of Parliament, with a lame duck Government that has lost the narrow majority it held anyway through a dodgy backroom deal.

When the incompetent and awful Amber Rudd resigns on a point of principle, you know your party is in trouble.

The 20+ Tory rebels/defectors could seriously dent Johnson's ability to cling onto power.

[zip accident]

The 20+ Tory rebels/defectors could seriously dent Johnson's ability to cling onto power.

Clinging onto power is not an objective. The main issue is not being seen to reject power, while evading being in power during the last few years of Brexit (it will take six to eighteen months for the bad news to really kick in to the point were Brexiteers realise how badly they were conned).

[Cloudane]

Meh, France threatened to veto last time, that's just what they do

I'm mostly interested in seeing how Boris intends to abide by the law AND not request an extension. I don't get how that works. I could see him asking and having a word in Macron's ear asking if he'd kindly go ahead with that veto though

[Absolute_Zero]

Viktor Orbán perhaps... or my previous suggestion of vetoing it himself.

[tufty]

My feeling is that Orban and his like would rather keep the horror of a crash out Brexit away, as it will counteract their own anti-european rhetoric.

Boris vetoing his own demand seems highly unlikely to be possible, and unlikely to go well if he tried it. He is (or will be), after all, required *by law* to seek an extension from the EU, so torpedoing that would put him on the wrong side of the law. I doubt he's willing to put his freedom at stake on this, despite his "dead in a ditch" blustering.

Given the media coverage and political statements over here since the last extension (which we must not forget has been pissed away on political cock waving rather than actually accomplishing anything), I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss the idea of the French forcing the ripping off of the plaster. On the other hand, doing so leaves Ireland, and the GFA, at the mercy of whatever twat is ruining the UK when it happens.

[Cloudane]

The thought occurs that he might just not care about breaking any laws. Worked for Blair, so there's precedent for a PM doing whatever he wants unchallenged...

There are rumblings of him bringing back May's dead horse deal again - what about this, he prorogues parliament for the 'reset' so that he can put it forward again, right at the last second, with a threat that either parliament votes for the deal or he simply ignores the law and lets us crash out, "come what may" - effectively forcing a choice between May's Deal or No Deal. If he pulls this off late enough then perhaps there wouldn't be enough time to remove him via VoNC or legal action?

[Harlequin]

There are rumblings of him bringing back May's dead horse deal again - what about this, he prorogues parliament for the 'reset' so that he can put it forward again, right at the last second, with a threat that either parliament votes for the deal or he simply ignores the law and lets us crash out, "come what may" - effectively forcing a choice between May's Deal or No Deal. If he pulls this off late enough then perhaps there wouldn't be enough time to remove him via VoNC or legal action?

As I wrote a few days ago, I have been concerned that this goalpost shifting could result in that deal (or a close variant thereof) finally being passed by Parliament. This would enable the BJ to fulfill his legal obligation without having to request an extension to Article 50. Indeed, the recent post-Ireland press statement suggests that his focus is now at least partially on finding a way to exit the backstop at some point after leaving without the possibility of being permanently blocked by the EU.

[tufty]

The french are saying any extension should be at least 2 years.

[KlaxonCow]

The French always did have a wicked sense of humour.

But this is excellent, as it will push Brexit over that 1st January 2020 deadline - when the EU will introduce their new anti-tax-evasion laws - which is the real reason why our tax-dodging friends - Bojo, JRM, Farage, etc. - are wanting to rapidly kamikaze out of the EU with a "no deal" Brexit - and also why they couldn't sanction May's deal, when it had a "transition period" where there'd be "regulatory alignment" that crossed that date - because they're desperate for the UK to not only be out of the EU but legally "unhinged" from EU law, so that their tax-dodging schemes don't get rumbled and undone.

Because they realise that not only, if we're still in the EU on that date, we definitely will be implementing those new laws, but also that even if we're technically out of the EU but following "regulatory alignment" then they can't win any arguments in Parliament or within the UK with pleas of "leave my untaxed millions alone!".

So, as long as we get an extension to the 2nd January, obliging us to implement the anti-tax-evasion laws. Because, equally, even if we're disconnected from EU law thereafter, once such measures are on the statute books, how the hell does JRM and his ilk make a convincing argument to repeal it all?

"Please restore our ability to cheat and swindle - possibly even criminally so - to avoid paying any taxes"? Would you be remotely convinced?

They want a total and instant legal divorce by Halloween, as they need all our legal obligations to the EU well and truly dead by New Year's, as there's no reasonable argument they can put forward to not join the international consensus to get rid of global tax-dodging that would convince anyone to win a vote for repeal afterwards.

And why they've been so bullishly adamant to not let the Brexit deadline slip again, as it's very likely to get pushed over that 1st January 2020 date and they know it.

I hope the French realise that's what's really going on and, indeed, quite purposefully choose not to veto but to extend it way over the line. 2 years is about right. Because that's over the line and having been bedded down in UK law for over a year on top - and for results of the new policy to emerge - so that it'd be next to impossible to convincingly argue these laws away, even if we do leave the EU later on.

[merman]

The thought occurs that he might just not care about breaking any laws. Worked for Blair, so there's precedent for a PM doing whatever he wants unchallenged...

There are rumblings of him bringing back May's dead horse deal again - what about this, he prorogues parliament for the 'reset' so that he can put it forward again, right at the last second, with a threat that either parliament votes for the deal or he simply ignores the law and lets us crash out, "come what may" - effectively forcing a choice between May's Deal or No Deal. If he pulls this off late enough then perhaps there wouldn't be enough time to remove him via VoNC or legal action?

The No Deal preventing law gained Royal Assent on Monday.

So Parliament either has to agree a deal OR commit to No Deal by the 19th of October - in the event of further deadlock Johnson then HAS to write a letter to the EU asking for an extension to Article 50.

*In theory* the Stephen Kinnock amendment could be used to bring back the Withdrawal Bill with changes/compromises, as it was nodded through. The likelihood is that John Bercow (before the 31st of October) or his successor as Speaker would not allow that through.