Not at all. I know very well you can't pack every fact into every sentence. I meant to indicate that it's a significant fact that Cameron was in coalition from 2010. It scuppered his plans, and that's why he voted against the referendum petition in 2011 - because he didn't have a majority in the HoC, and that's why Theresa May was Home Secretary for a world record six years - while failing dramatically to deliver on an absurd immigration pledge on which Cameron had staked his political career! i.e. tens of thousands "or vote me out!" — karl stone

Okay, but you should try to recognise that this doesn't support your explanation over and above mine, and you should try to recognise that a conspiracy theory is obviously not a fact, and therefore you shouldn't refer to it as factual as you have done. I'm absolutely fine with genuine facts, but the way that you're connecting the dots and exclaiming, "Ah ha!", is something else entirely.

As for your other comments, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. Stop being so sensitive. I don't know you. I'm commenting on your arguments... your myopic crazed arguments! — karl stone

:grin:

Okay, but you should try to recognise that this doesn't support your explanation over and above mine, and you should try to recognise that a conspiracy theory is obviously not a fact, and therefore you shouldn't refer to it as factual as you have done. I'm absolutely fine with genuine facts, but the way that you're connecting the dots and exclaiming, "Ah ha!", is something else entirely. — S

So let me ask you a question - why did Cameron pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, adding "or vote me out" while simultaneously cancelling an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over immigration? Why did Cameron keep Theresa May in post for six years - without a word of criticism as she failed to deliver on that pledge?

Also, take into consideration that Cameron made the referendum a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament, that he took to UK out of a centrist coalition in the EU, and joined right wing nationalists, and ultimately, put himself on the wrong side of his impossible, failed immigration pledge championing the Remain cause?

You keep calling it a conspiracy theory - but if you believed Cameron, you'd have voted Remain. He threatened WWIII - for goodness sake. Why would he do that if not to further sabotage his credibility and damage the Remain cause? Did he believe he could deliver tens of thousands? Did he believe WWIII would break out in the event of a Leave vote? Did you believe him? If not then, why now?

Wiggle wiggle.

So it turns out there is a small majority in parliament in favour of a fantasy, whereby Britain gets exactly what it wants and does not have to pay for it, and Ireland floats away and becomes someone else's problem.

Great! Meanwhile, the currency falls, the deadline draws closer, the WTO paradise is exposed for a myth, and sensible Brexiteers are moving their money, their headquarters and their residences out of the country. This is called "taking back control".

How low can they stoop! The Guardian is reduced to cribbing my forum posts for its headlines.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/30/brexit-political-class-politicians?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR31xBjTa-_n30718XDfwE0lYczvwEeen9z_-cGSM01MN586OvImz2acuos

How low can they stoop! The Guardian is reduced to cribbing my forum posts for its headlines. — unenlightened

Here's the headline,

MPs have voted for a fantasy. It’s an indictment of our entire political class
Jonathan Freedland

but the byline is more interesting:

History will damn the architects of Brexit – and the politicians on both sides whose delusions are leading us to disaster

If they can identify them!

Cameron hid his part in stoking anti-immigrant rhetoric and pushing for a referendum from 2005 - behind fake advocacy of Remain, and May obliged him by cancelling the EU ID card scheme in 2010, sacking the long term head of the borders agency Brodie Clark, screeching from the Home Office about the Human Rights Act as it relates to immigration, anti-immigrant billboard vans driving round the streets, while doing nothing to fulfill Cameron's unbelievable tens of thousands pledge on immigration - allowing 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and publishing those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period, in which both Cameron and May declared themselves Remainers.

So now, the Tories can blame the whole thing on EU intransigence and "the will of the people" - while their money is taking a tax break in Panama, the economy crashes and they come back relatively richer, and with an excuse for further deregulation and austerity forever after!

Those are the facts - and they are entirely absent from the UK media.

EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: So, how about we renegotiate the backstop?
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: I get it. We'll renogotiate the backstop.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Ok, I suppose the only solution left then is to renegotiate the backstop. We'll make that clear in Parliament and take it from there.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Right, well let's deal with that as soon as we're finished renegotiating the backstop.

According to Sap it's just a negotiating tactic and they'll relent eventually.

"Stressed out by Brexit? I have a mindfulness exercise for you, one guaranteed to bring calm. Instead of imagining a deep, cool lake or a beach of bone-white sand, comfort yourself by imagining the day, several years from now, when a Chilcot-style inquiry probes the epic policy disaster that was Brexit. As you take deep breaths, and with your eyes closed, picture the squirming testimony of an aged David Cameron under sustained interrogation. Look on as Boris Johnson is at last called to account for the serial fictions of the 2016 campaign. Or perhaps contemplate the moment the panel delivers its damning, final report, concluding that this was a collective, systemic failure of the entire British political class."

Let's fund the NHS instead!

The idea that Ireland would agree to something that transgresses the good Friday agreement is fanciful at best. And Ireland has a veto. And the EU rather than make them use it and alienate one of the most willing members of its club will stand by and watch Britain flush itself down the toilet if that's what Britain would rather do than drop the red lines that got them into their present pickle.

I was optimistic that Parliament would veto a no deal Brexit and revoke Article 50 when it became clear that a deal won't be made. But then yesterday they voted against giving themselves the authority to do that. Crazy.

Although hopefully they change their minds before it's too late.

If I hadn't a bank account with a significant amount of sterling in it, I'd probably be more sanguine about the whole thing. Anyway, I'm also less optimistic than yesterday but still betting on non-craziness to take hold in time.

I was optimistic that Parliament would veto a no deal Brexit and revoke Article 50 when it became clear that a deal won't be made. But then yesterday they voted against giving themselves the authority to do that. Crazy. — Michael

How can parliament veto primary legislation, without an Act of Parliament?

Parliament cannot revoke Article 50, it is part of the EU treaty. The notice period could be extended with unanimous agreement of the EU Council, by the government.

Although hopefully they change their minds before it's too late. — Michael

Hopefully the unelected bureaucrats in the EU change their mind. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw Germany into recession.

How can parliament veto primary legislation, without an Act of Parliament? — Inis

I meant pass an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50 if a deal is not approved.

Parliament cannot revoke Article 50, it is part of the EU treaty.

The ECJ ruled that:

... where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State ... to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner ...

Hopefully the unelected bureaucrats in the EU change their mind. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw Germany into recession. — Inis

Hopefully the Government and Parliament change their minds. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw the UK into recession.

Maybe I should move my money into a stronger currency, like the Vietnamese Dong.

May is playing chicken with the Irish border. From a game theroy point of view I think the EU should blink first and gain reputation.

May already blinked and gave in on the backstop. There are no new negotiations only a charade by the British PM to please the crazy-wing of her party while highlighting their craziness as a precursor to her giving in and accepting the soft Brexit she's always wanted.

↪Baden Maybe I should move my money into a stronger currency, like the Vietnamese Dong. — Michael

*Puts 'Vietnamese Dong' into Google... thinks a second... *puts Vietnamese currency into Google*...huh, is that so.

:lol:

May is playing chicken with the Irish border. From a game theroy point of view I think the EU should blink first and gain reputation. — Kippo

If she is, she is misreading the situation. The EU cannot afford a border hole in the Customs Union. It's an agreement to no border, or no agreement and a border.

What's more, a majority of northern Irish politicians and businesses are in favour of the back stop. When do these matters become devolved matters that the local politicians get a say?

You mean the Article 50 notice, which is causing confusion for Inis.

What do the British MPs and the government want exactly?

What do the British MPs and the government want exactly? — Benkei

Same thing that the Scottish wanted from the UK: nice independence, but all things good for business to stay as it was in the union. It's called cherry picking.

The Northern Ireland assembly is currently suspended, but even if it hadn't been, it's a Westminster issue. Complicating matters, Sinn Fein, who are the major opposition to the DUP, boycott Westminster and so don't participate in any votes that could influence Brexit.

Same thing that the Scottish wanted from the UK: nice independence, but all things good for business to stay as it was in the union. It's called cherry picking. — ssu

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant more specifically with regard to the "alternative arrangements" to the backstop, what do they want?

the "alternative arrangements" to the backstop, — Benkei

They're looking for a time-limit and/or a legal guarantee they can unilaterally leave it. Both of which would make it pointless. It's like an insurance company asking if they can not pay you if you have an accident.

Leave what exactly? I'm getting a Balfour déjà-vu. The UK agreed to the following:

The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Here's an idea to an alternative arrangement; don't leave if you can't handle the consequences you dumb fucks.