Do you support the Johnson deal [3 October version]?

Do you support the Johnson deal as detailed to Parliament on 3 October 2019?


  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
Or he can say he has in good conscience done everything he could within the law to leave on the 31st but his hands are now tied by those too cowardly to go to the ballot box. It might even work.
Cant see it. We had 3 years of May promising (over a 100 times) that the UK would leave on the 31st March - then she reneged. Boris stood for election based on leaving on the 31st Oct 'do or die' - and he has consistently repeated that promise.

If he does a May and reneged on that promise he is toast.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Or he can say he has in good conscience done everything he could within the law to leave on the 31st but his hands are now tied by those too cowardly to go to the ballot box. It might even work.
That's what I said he should have kept in the bag, and not spouted his bluster about "do or die", "dead in a ditch".

Potentially sealed his own fate with such ridiculous language.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Where he has shot himself in the foot over this was to continue to claim we would leave on the 31st after Parliament moved the goal posts on him. Which makes it harder to claim it's their fault if we don't leave.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Where he has shot himself in the foot over this was to continue to claim we would leave on the 31st after Parliament moved the goal posts on him. Which makes it harder to claim it's their fault if we don't leave.
Oh yeah it's just even more evidence of his bullcrap. And there's no way he'll escape his own comments if he ends up asking for an extension. Could even harm his election chances, which just plays into the hands of everyone else. There'll be very quick to remind him of the ditch. And I hope they do.
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
I see the EU has rejected weekend negotiations on the grounds there is nothing to discuss whilst the Johnson deal is in its current form. Hopefully the UK Government will spend the time on a complete re-scrub instead,
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
What I also find astonishing is the very limited reporting regarding the EU Euro Central Bank row. Many countries have written very critical to the ECB regarding their monetary policy, causing negative interests rates, allowing zombie companies to survive and setting the zone up for some very serious issues. It’s co-signed by Netherlands, Germany, Austria and France. The ECB is just responding that they shouldn’t be openly critical.

The EU Euro zone is not looking good at all.

I guess that doesn’t fit with the narrative regarding Brexit.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member

PatMrex

Active Member
No.

The 'Backstop' issue is a diversion from the rest of EU's cynical deception in the 'transitional agreement'. The backstop just ensures the EU can use its dictatorial and draconian ideology on Britain in perpetuity and leverage all types of demands from the UK until it totally subordinates the UK and ransacks its economy and sovereign independence. One only has to look at how the EU are currently treating the Swiss as their bi-lateral agreements are coming to an end. Like an imperial power born from the 19th century the EU has tried to place the Swiss economy under all types of economic duress until, basically, it's people (direct democracy), cave in and totally acquiesce and subordinate themselves to its demands.

The WA is no different, one incompetently agreed by May and the EU's favourite diplomat - Olly Robbins. This is a treaty unique in nature which arguably contravenes international law and one so one-sided and harsh it hasn't been seen since the Treaty of Versailles - and we haven't just tried to take a continent by force!

The UK will have to stay in the SM and CU during this period and won't just be bound by present rules but will also by bound by future ones. The EU will have no interest whatsoever in protecting the UK's economy as a member anymore and could pass laws that effect (purposefully or carelessly) against the UK's interests. The WA/TA is set up so that the UK will stay in the Common Fishery Policy for example, and if the UK does not acquiesce to such demands the EU can demand the 'transitional agreement' remains in place. The EU initially said the TA will only last 2 years, Simon Coveney spoke how that could undemocractcally be extended to 4 years. Who is to say, unless the UK rolls over to every demand the EU make during the TA period, 4 years won't turn to 6 and 6 to 8?

Currently, there are four locks that give the EU permanent sovereignty over the UK and it's economy:

1. The transition period of 'all pay and no say'
2. The Backstop
3. Political declaration - ensuring BRINO
4. Supplement to the political declaration where its terms are clear, conclude at lightening speed a future partnership that consigns the UK to best second class membership of the EU, at worst vassalage.

Here are just some of the pitfalls to the WA/TA "negotiated" by May, suffice to say, it is a trap:

- Trade arrangements under the WA would be worse than WTO - the UK would lose access to third country markets under an EU agreement, yet those third countries would retain access to UK market with no concern for British business or producers.

- The WA mandates the future trade deal must be built on a customs arrangement the most economically damaging deal for the UK which requires full implementation of the EU's trade policy and WITHOUT any say. UK consumers as part of this protectionist bloc will carry on paying on average 16% higher food prices than the RoW.

- Going back to the WA 'unique nature' this international treaty has no exit clause, once signed the UK cannot legally escape its provisions, unless it accepts beneficial arrangements to the EU.

- May argued the point above and the WA itself could be abrogated if it could prove the EU negotiated in 'bad faith'. Though many of us know the EU have negotiated in bad faith with their draconian measures in place for the UK, it would be next to impossible to 'prove' the EU negotiated in bad faith and therefore wouldn't be able to leave the treaty unilaterally if the UK wanted to.

- Another important issue that has gone under the public's radar and one that didn't parliamentary scrutiny was the EU's demand, or May's willingness to totally subordinate the UK's defence and security structure to EU control for full integration. This, is totally different to 'cooperation'.

- The ECJ would remain supreme over this period and this foreign court would be allowed to prosecute the British government up to four years after the WA binding the UK to its judgement and fines thereafter.

- The WA would also be able to restrict UK government for support into agriculture and defence industries while placing no restrictions on the EU in these areas.

- The WA makes the UK a rule taker from the EU in areas such as trade, competition, environmental, social and even tax policies.

The backstop is a diversion to the trap of this transitional agreement of which it has many pitfalls for the UK as an independent sovereign nation.
 
Last edited:

tickedon

Active Member
I don't "support" Boris's deal but I don't oppose it either - too early to tell and so I've not voted. Once I've seen the actual legal text, I may accept it as a way to get Brexit over the line. But there was a lot wrong with May's deal beyond the backstop, and where there have been some suggestions these are also being dealt with (e.g. ongoing alignment with EU laws, state aid limits etc.) it isn't clear yet.

And @PatMrex has an excellent summary of other issues with May's deal too.
 

psikey

Well-known Member
He won't be toast. His voters know he lies and they don't care. They will still vote for him because 'he's Boris'.
You do know its a politicians main requisite to be able to lie (especially convincingly)? Also, reply without answering questions.

Applies to 75% of them anyway.

When opposition/media put Politian's on the spot about sensitive questions they should just say the truth sometimes as in "I'm not telling you my Brexit strategy, the EU do read our news you know!!"
 
Last edited:

psikey

Well-known Member
You do know its a politicians main requisite to be able to lie (especially convincingly)? Also, reply without answering questions.

Applies to 75% of them anyway.

When opposition/media put Politian's on the spot about sensitive questions they should just say the truth sometimes as in "I'm not telling you my Brexit strategy, the EU do read our news you know!!"
Plus male ones being as randy as fu**

How many more !

Does that mean he can't vote in parliament ?
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
Where he has shot himself in the foot over this was to continue to claim we would leave on the 31st after Parliament moved the goal posts on him. Which makes it harder to claim it's their fault if we don't leave.
Johnson will probably find a way to spin not leaving on the 31st of October. Question is if the UK and EU make compromises on Johnson's deal, will Johnson extend to get it done ? Lots of other bills have to be passed to make Brexit work within the UK's constitution and legal framework. Technically you could get it all done in 10 days flat, but I doubt MP's would allow it. As they'll want to debate each bill on it's own merits and make changes where necessary.
 

psikey

Well-known Member
Johnson will probably find a way to spin not leaving on the 31st of October. Question is if the UK and EU make compromises on Johnson's deal, will Johnson extend to get it done ? Lots of other bills have to be passed to make Brexit work within the UK's constitution and legal framework. Technically you could get it all done in 10 days flat, but I doubt MP's would allow it. As they'll want to debate each bill on it's own merits and make changes where necessary.
More like he has a way to ask for the extension and then neutralise it with something else.
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
You do know its a politicians main requisite to be able to lie (especially convincingly)? Also, reply without answering questions.

Applies to 75% of them anyway.

When opposition/media put Politian's on the spot about sensitive questions they should just say the truth sometimes as in "I'm not telling you my Brexit strategy, the EU do read our news you know!!"
Not sure why you directed that reply to me? I think it was Pacifico you want?

My argument was Johnson was fundamentally dishonest but his supporters accept that (perhaps sharing the same assumption as you have) and therefore he won't be "toast" if Britain extends in the EU.

Anyway, @psikey and @Pacifico I think this is matter for the two of you.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
My argument was Johnson was fundamentally dishonest but his supporters accept that (perhaps sharing the same assumption as you have) and therefore he won't be "toast" if Britain extends in the EU.
Cant see it. Brexit supporters have given the tories the benefit of the doubt over the last 3 years, all the while May was continually promising that we would leave on 31st March. When she reneged on that promise support for the Brexit Party ballooned until Boris took over with his leave on the 31st Oct promise. If Boris proves to be as untrustworthy as May then those supporters are not going to give the Tories a third bite at the cherry.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Top Bottom