Brexit delayed

[Banquo]

You can do that, and it would be my preference.

But you'd have to ensure that the facts were reported, which we cannot have because we did not make law the Leveson inquiry. So our press are bastards in general, with only one naturally unbiased paper who just happen to be so fucking up their own arse anything they say is immediately dismissed.

Interested to know which one you think is unbiased.

By definition the Granuaid.

whaaat????

[Banquo]

Obviously it couldn't be the leader of any of the parties. But the soon to retire Vince Cable should be harmless enough to Corbyn and probably acceptable to the exiled formed Tories. Or some independent MP. Whether Corbyn could cope with Benn (et al) I'm not 100% sure. But let's face it, this would only need to be in place for a few days to implement the extension (should Corbyn, or pretty much anyone really, want to pull the plug after that).

Of course, I would prefer a more stable coalition, since with first past the post and the billionaire press and people voting for all kinds of reasons other than Brexit, I've no confidence that a BJ/Farage government wouldn't result from a GE. Calling one now (or the next few months) seems like a throw of the dice to me (actually, russian roulette with three bullets is closer), whereas (admittedly with heroic levels of cooperation) I can believe that a coalition could negotiate a soft Brexit deal and bring it to the country in a second referendum.

what do you mean by that?

I mean something which closely resembles being in the EU in effect, while not being in name So, in the CU, in the SM, in any body we can still be a part of. It's also the closest thing to an average of the 52:48 views expressed in the referendum, ie just over the line out of the EU.

But that still means freedom of movement, EU regs etc etc. If you are proposing that, then you need to be honest with people and say its pointless leaving to renegotiate a lesser version of what you have already but without any influence and all the downsides.
Frankly, I think that is what post the WA the deal would have ended up looking like, with watery red lines.

[Mellsblue]

Lol....plus Joe Public has no idea what you mean re single market, customs union. Its a massive education exercise needed- the one that Project Fear sort of tried, but lost to simple soundbites, essentially.

The final shortlist was down to four, three of which could go on the ballot paper - CU, Common Market 2.0 and second ref. Add on no deal and you’re there.

I need and edit to respond to your edit. As I say, a mostly naive electorate is inherent in a democracy. It ain’t perfect but what process would be?

so you'd put a second referendum on a referendum question? Que....

Ha. Sorry. Typing quickly whilst pretending to ‘work’. Second ref option = Remain.

[Mellsblue]

By definition the Granuaid.

As Banquo would say ...... lol.

Depends on your opinion of reality.

But when you cut out the crap, they do report quite well generally.

At least better than the other papers I see.

Not as good as Al-Jazeera was when it first started English language (gone down the pan since) but still good.

So in your opinion of reality (whatever that means), based on your own bias, they are unbiased. Got it.
In my option of reality they are incredibly biased in favour of Remain. Even my remainiac wife thinks the same.

[Banquo]

By definition the Granuaid.

As Banquo would say ...... lol.

Depends on your opinion of reality.

But when you cut out the crap, they do report quite well generally.

At least better than the other papers I see.

Not as good as Al-Jazeera was when it first started English language (gone down the pan since) but still good.

The Guardian is extremely editorial in its reporting, in common with most mainstream outlets.

[Stom]

Interested to know which one you think is unbiased.

By definition the Granuaid.

whaaat????

It's ownership is designed to keep it impartial. And it often succeeds much more than the other mainstream UK papers.

Though it is also full of a metric fucktonne of shit.

[Banquo]

By definition the Granuaid.

whaaat????

It's ownership is designed to keep it impartial. And it often succeeds much more than the other mainstream UK papers.

Though it is also full of a metric fucktonne of shit.

I agree with 2/3rds of that.

[Stom]

As Banquo would say ...... lol.

Depends on your opinion of reality.

But when you cut out the crap, they do report quite well generally.

At least better than the other papers I see.

Not as good as Al-Jazeera was when it first started English language (gone down the pan since) but still good.

So in your opinion of reality (whatever that means), based on your own bias, they are unbiased. Got it.
In my option of reality they are incredibly biased in favour of Remain. Even my remainiac wife thinks the same.

Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

[Stom]

whaaat????

It's ownership is designed to keep it impartial. And it often succeeds much more than the other mainstream UK papers.

Though it is also full of a metric fucktonne of shit.

I agree with 2/3rds of that.

Which part don't you? the ownership or the succeeding more than others?

[Banquo]

It's ownership is designed to keep it impartial. And it often succeeds much more than the other mainstream UK papers.

Though it is also full of a metric fucktonne of shit.

I agree with 2/3rds of that.

Which part don't you? the ownership or the succeeding more than others?

whaddya think . The latter is almost unprovable though tbh.

Even the Scott Trust board composition is a tad skewed having three or four Guardian journos on it.

[Son of Mathonwy]

what do you mean by that?

I mean something which closely resembles being in the EU in effect, while not being in name So, in the CU, in the SM, in any body we can still be a part of. It's also the closest thing to an average of the 52:48 views expressed in the referendum, ie just over the line out of the EU.

But that still means freedom of movement, EU regs etc etc. If you are proposing that, then you need to be honest with people and say its pointless leaving to renegotiate a lesser version of what you have already but without any influence and all the downsides.
Frankly, I think that is what post the WA the deal would have ended up looking like, with watery red lines.

Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

[Banquo]

I mean something which closely resembles being in the EU in effect, while not being in name So, in the CU, in the SM, in any body we can still be a part of. It's also the closest thing to an average of the 52:48 views expressed in the referendum, ie just over the line out of the EU.

But that still means freedom of movement, EU regs etc etc. If you are proposing that, then you need to be honest with people and say its pointless leaving to renegotiate a lesser version of what you have already but without any influence and all the downsides.
Frankly, I think that is what post the WA the deal would have ended up looking like, with watery red lines.

Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

[Mellsblue]

Depends on your opinion of reality.

But when you cut out the crap, they do report quite well generally.

At least better than the other papers I see.

Not as good as Al-Jazeera was when it first started English language (gone down the pan since) but still good.

So in your opinion of reality (whatever that means), based on your own bias, they are unbiased. Got it.
In my option of reality they are incredibly biased in favour of Remain. Even my remainiac wife thinks the same.

Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

Sorry. When you said unbiased I thought you meant unbiased. Apols.

[Banquo]

So in your opinion of reality (whatever that means), based on your own bias, they are unbiased. Got it.
In my option of reality they are incredibly biased in favour of Remain. Even my remainiac wife thinks the same.

Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

Sorry. When you said unbiased I thought you meant unbiased. Apols.

[Son of Mathonwy]

But that still means freedom of movement, EU regs etc etc. If you are proposing that, then you need to be honest with people and say its pointless leaving to renegotiate a lesser version of what you have already but without any influence and all the downsides.
Frankly, I think that is what post the WA the deal would have ended up looking like, with watery red lines.

Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

Correct, it is utterly pointless (IMO... some may disagree) and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

[Banquo]

Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

Correct, it is utterly pointless and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

[Son of Mathonwy]

But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

Correct, it is utterly pointless and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

[Banquo]

Correct, it is utterly pointless and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

Nah.

Yes I agree, I think leaving the EU is nutso, but its what the majority wanted; I'm actually annoyed that May's WA didn't go through frankly, given what's happened since.. Even Ken Clarke voted for that.

[Mellsblue]

. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

[Son of Mathonwy]

You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

Nah.

Yes I agree, I think leaving the EU is nutso, but its what the majority wanted; I'm actually annoyed that May's WA didn't go through frankly, given what's happened since.. Even Ken Clarke voted for that.

May's deal is better than no deal. Not sure there's much else to recommend it... it being basically a transition period with some hopes attached to it. But, yes, it's a million times better than what the majority* of the Tories are intent on driving us into.

*Actually, it is pretty much all now. Apart from a few cowards who are pretending to agree with BJ to keep their careers on track.

[Son of Mathonwy]

. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy.

[Banquo]

Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

Nah.

Yes I agree, I think leaving the EU is nutso, but its what the majority wanted; I'm actually annoyed that May's WA didn't go through frankly, given what's happened since.. Even Ken Clarke voted for that.

May's deal is better than no deal. Not sure there's much else to recommend it... it being basically a transition period with some hopes attached to it. But, yes, it's a million times better than what the majority* of the Tories are intent on driving us into.

*Actually, it is pretty much all now. Apart from a few cowards who are pretending to agree with BJ to keep their careers on track.

It wasn't a deal. It was a rental period of EU membership when a deal would be negotiated.
I don't even think the majority of Tory MP's want to leave the EU, and lest we forget it was Tory policy to stay in the EU. Many have had to suck up their opposition to leaving, a lot of whom have now been kicked out, stepping down or crossed the floor.

[Mellsblue]

. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy.

Given the reaction to the WA and it’s polling numbers I can’t agree with that.

[Stom]

Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

Sorry. When you said unbiased I thought you meant unbiased. Apols.

Honestly...

It's not journalism job to act the devil's advocate, it should report on the facts...

What fact is there about brexit to make it a positive?

I have still, never, got an answer to this. Only "take back control", which we won't.

Sure, the EU is far from perfect but that's not the question!

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy.

Given the reaction to the WA and it’s polling numbers I can’t agree with that.

It was unpopular in parliament. I have no idea how it polled with the public... what were the numbers like?