Jump to content

Recommended Posts

whlst I agree with the rest of rouge's post (And posts generally), I have to pick up on this point


"Unlike Seph I think a soft Brexit would've been accepted both by parliament and the country as a whole. Yes it would've peed off the ERG headbanger types, but there would've been enough on the Labour side to see them off."


Because I think it's a comforting thought that people still cling to and I don't know why. For a start it couldn't happen - May, even with her full on shrill Brexit means Brexit stance was never accepted as a True Believer and was thrown overboard. Her successor was chosen from a list of headbangers - anyone with even a sniff of "soft Brexit" about them wouldn't have become leader. There was no corner from which a soft brexit could emerge


But even if I'm wrong and it was possible - it would still be lose lose. We lose access to power we had as a member. Leavers don't get their "sovereignty".


It's such a large "what if", we may as well go full "What if" and talk about not having had teh referendum in first place, putting a threshold for such a constitutional rupture or having a ratifciation referendum on the table


But this notion of "oh if only we could have had a soft Brexit" just doesn't hold water for me

Firstly, there is little chance of Boris's Bill getting through the Lords, so we might as well all ask what is the point of it.


And yes, if the Democrats hold either house (or both), they have clearly stated they will block any trade deal if Boris's amendments go through.

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Because I think it's a comforting thought that

> people still cling to and I don't know why. For a

> start it couldn't happen - May, even with her full

> on shrill Brexit means Brexit stance was never

> accepted as a True Believer and was thrown

> overboard. Her successor was chosen from a list of

> headbangers - anyone with even a sniff of "soft

> Brexit" about them wouldn't have become leader.

> There was no corner from which a soft brexit could

> emerge


I think there were two opportunities for a soft Brexit. May only became vulnerable to being thrown overboard after losing her majority in 2017, up to that point she didn't need the headbangers, just as she didn't need them when she was elected leader. Their favourites, Gove and Johnson, stabbed each other in the back, leaving Andrea Leadsom as their only choice, and she quickly pulled-out because she had little support from the rest of the party. Happy to be corrected, but my memory says that at the time of the Tory leader election, none of the candidates had a clear vision of what Brexit entailed, and it was only after May won that she came out with the infamous ''Brexit means Brexit'' soundbite, presumably as a reposte to being asked what her plans were. Had she come up with a soft Brexit after being elected I feel sure she would've got it through parliament with more than enough Labour support to counter the ERG mob. With the likes of the ERG, Gove, and Johnson having little political clout at the time, it raises the question why did May go for such a hard Brexit? Personally, I think its because she saw it as an opportunity to go in hard against immigration. This vicar's daughter has quite a nasty xenophobic streak in her, she was the architect of the 'hostile environment' and 'go home vans' after all.

The second opportunity she had was after losing her majority at the snap election, a clear indication that the country as a whole wasn't happy with her 'red lines' hard Brexit, and she could've then pivoted towards a softer Brexit and got Labour support. Her decision not to was more to do with her and her party staying in power.



> But even if I'm wrong and it was possible - it

> would still be lose lose. We lose access to power

> we had as a member. Leavers don't get their

> "sovereignty".


That's democracy for you, you can't please all the people all the time, at some point compromise has to take hold. Instead of compromising we seem to be living in an age of absolutism which never bodes well. At least with a soft Brexit it would've allowed an easy route to rejoining at some point in the future, and equally detaching ourselves from the EU gradually over time if public opinion went that way.


Right, football calls!...

A big subject Sephiroth that would require its own thread.


However, rather than tackling it from ?Sephiroth is unhappy with the majority vote result therefore it is undemocratic? May I suggest you start with ?Plato made simple? or ?Plato for idiots? or some such beginners introductions to the subject.

You could start with


?Do you think that slim majority in 2016 voted for THIS??


Because I can tell you now they f@@king didn?t


Yes I?m unhappy and so should everyone who cares about this country, international law, peace in Ireland


Obviously that will exclude you keano


Only a psychopath would be ?happy? with how things are now

None so blind as those that won?t see


England has talked itself into a corner and has no way out. So it talks about breaking international treaties or imagines the eu will just abandon the rules of the single market to accomodate this tantrum


Sorry keano. But the just like the German car makers, no one is coming to the rescue of the U.K. this time. U.K. govt has alienated too many people


Johnson will either renege and accept a slim pickings deal (in which case he?s gone)


Or he goes ahead with no deal (In which case the country implodes and he?s gone)


The govt has never ever been able to deliver on the promises made before the referendum. Because it was only talking to itself.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Calm Sephiroth, calm.

>

> Last time I looked the negotiations were still

> going on. The EU will come up with its usual

> fudge.



Is that the same as the UK fudge where Johnson tells everyone to vote for the deal, that it ?gets Brexit done?, and campaigns on it in a GE which results in a stonking majority, thus giving him a mandate for the WA, and then subsequently says it isn?t good, we can?t agree to it and we have to change it, and is CJ apply breaking international law to do so?


Is it the same as that fudge? Because I quite like fudge, but Johnson?s smells overcooked and like it will taste bitter.


Still waiting for you to explain how the WA can be ok and then not ok. If there was a problem with it, why did we sign it? Simple question really.

It doesn?t answer the question. At all. It doesn?t address anything about how many people told him all this at the time. About how mps wanted time to debate it only to be told shut up enough talking nothing to discuss


It?s not old ground


Because it?s the same ground over and over again


He lies and he lies. Voters like you might like it but same people in this country and international partners have had enough

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> J.a I refer you to BJ?s article in The Telegraph

> today. He explains why he wishes to amend the WA.

> That should answer your question.



Hahahaaaaa! No it doesn?t! And yes I?ve read it.


You?re just avoiding the fact that your Brexit hero told you he?s got it done, and then said he hadn?t.


Whatever mate. I see you.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Calm Sephiroth, calm.

>

> Last time I looked the negotiations were still

> going on. The EU will come up with its usual

> fudge.



Boris will go No Deal just to say "I did it, I did it" whilst dancing around the fire he's caused.

also from the Telegraph


"Boris Johnson has written a column for the Telegraph for the best part of three decades. No modern politician?s opinions are better known: readers have been treated to his views on skiing helmets, the African elephant, and the disappearance of the otter, among other more weighty subjects. But his columns have also become a source of controversy, with his opponents selectively quoting from them in an effort to discredit him...."


Everything he writes is a load of BS - that's what the above means.


A brief history of Boris BS


https://thepinprickcom.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/a-brief-history-of-bullshit-boris-johnsons-10-greatest-fibs/

Nah. Johnson will claim whatever paltry deal he gets will be the eu caving in ?as per?


Britain will be diminished

Scotland will leave

Johnson will be sacked


Keano will still be keano


Speaking of this fudge. Care to try and define it keano? Give me 3 things (or more) that Botha sides will cave in on and why this will be a bet win for Britain. Go on. You get to play Fantasy Brexit

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Login Search: Lost: Coco, Mastiff, Male, in South East (SE21) 199549 Alerts Sent: 150 Click to See How You Can Help Views: 32 Poster Image Extra Image Name:Coco Dog ID:199549 Gender:Male Breed:Mastiff Age:Young / Puppy Colour:Brown Marks/Scars:white chest, also small white mark on the top his back Special Conditions:None Microchip:Yes Date Lost:13 Aug 2025 Where Lost:94 clive road Postcode: SE21Show on map Town/County:London, Greater London Region:South East Other Info: Not specified Created:13 Aug 2025 Listed by:luis View PosterDownload Poster ShareTweetPinEmailShare Poster Image Extra Image Sightings and Information Please post if you have more about this dog. Log in above or register to leave comments or to like them. Please note that DogLost cannot be held responsible for the content of any other sites mentioned or linked to here. 13-08-2025 11:48Jayne - Founder Doglost. DOG LOST Local members alerted. 13-08-2025 11:27DogLost System   Sorry to see that "Coco" is missing. • If your dog is microchipped please let the microchip company know that your dog is missing and check that all details are up to date. • Owners targeted by a malicious hoaxer demanding money for the return of their dog should phone the police on 101 immediately and contact admin@doglost.co.uk • A photograph of your dog is essential for the website. If you have not already uploaded one, please do so by Logging in and My Dogs. Alternatively you can email it to admin@doglost.co.uk quoting the dog's DogLost ID number: 199549 • Obtain a missing poster by clicking on View poster above. Posters are very important so start postering now! • You will need to be logged in to upload photos, edit your dog's details, or add comments. You can add comments by clicking on Click here to add a comment. • Contact dog wardens, vets and local rescue centres, and in Scotland, the Police. Give a detailed description with any distinguishing marks/scars or send them a copy of your DogLost poster. You can find vets in your area here. • If your dog has been stolen inform the police immediately and obtain a crime reference number (CRN). Send an email to stolen@doglost.co.uk. • If your dog is picked up and taken to rescue kennels, it can be legally re-homed after seven days. Visit rescue centres in person and do not rely on checking by phone alone. Other people may not recognise your dog by your description, so give them a DogLost poster. • Keep us updated by keeping your dog's page up to date and check for posts from helpers who may have suggestions and possible matches or sightings • DogLost is free and anyone asking for money to find or return your dog is not volunteering for us. If you are concerned about an approach you have received, please email admin@doglost.co.uk   Dogs Lost|Dogs Found|Dogs Reunited Homepage|Contact|Terms|Privacy|FAQ Reuniting Dogs with their Owners © 2025 DogLost Website Application Development by AmplifySales
    • So what would be your preference then, Spartacus, and why?
    • Hi, Looking for a bedframe with no head or footboard for a double mattress. Normal UK double. Ideally wood. If someone has one to sell or give away please get in touch, thank you!  
    • Great answer, but how do you then square it up with pension pots investments without adversely impacting future growth.  Buit of a tricky one as on one hand it should be nationalised but on the other we don't want to see future pension poverty relying on government top ups.  Far too complicated for a simple answer   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...