Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Political expediency when it suits ones political agenda l would call it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Why do you call it a myth, Andrew? Who exports more to whom?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Where have you been? If this Parliament has demonstrated anything it’s that ideas such as this aren’t true any more.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Please can you just answer my question?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Of course he can’t. If you want paragraph after paragraph of unrelated wishful nonsense then knock yourself out.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

And if you want “knocking out” of this discussion, carry on with the pathetic petty insults.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

MPs aren’t trying to stop Brexit, they’re trying to ensure we leave with a deal, which isn’t the same thing.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The lib dumbs want to revoke a 50, as do the scottish nats, the welsh nuts some labour and cons also.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

There's always going to be opposition to anything - there's consensus on leaving with a deal. Indeed - it was the ERG and DUP that killed off May's deal. Not MPs as a whole.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

What a difference 3.5 years makes. Not only has Wright Bus laid off all its staff but the reality of the Irish border can no longer be escaped.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

That's just the cover story. Of course they want to stop Brexit.

Boris may bring back a deal from Europe, but the opposition parties will still vote against it, whatever it says.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It's hardly a cover story. It's a statement of fact. The Benn Act doesn't stop Brexit, nor could it, if they wanted to stop Brexit surely they'd vote to revoke?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Anyone hoping that the US will come to our rescue post-Brexit, needs to review how badly the US is treating us now.
The US woman involved in a car crash here that killed teenager Harry Dunn recently left the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
https://news.sky.com/story/family-to...edium=referral

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It can only deliver No Brexit if people vote for that in a second referendum or a General Election. We're some distance from there.

I repeat the fact that May's deal went down because of the ERG and the DUP. Had they voted for it we'd have left on March 29.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Exactly. They're now trying to revise the historical narrative so it excuses all the disloyal Conservative and DUP MPs who would not support Theresa May. They were the Government and the Government was let down badly by its own MPs.

If they had voted with their own Government, Brexit would have happened by now and we'd be discussing a trade deal.



---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------

Less of those pesky facts, jfman! ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

May's deal got the support of the vast vast majority of her party in Parliament. It's only the extreme end of the Brexit wing of the party that didn't vote for it.

Despite being BRINO as you put it, none of these so called remainers supported it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I am surprised the race to the bottom has started so early:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit...eld-eu-brexit/

Granted it is the Sun but this seems credible ..

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Now, you know that’s not true...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

What's that got to do with trade?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Stopping “no deal” Brexit, is just Remainer speak for stopping Brexit.

There was a deal on offer that was rejected 3 times, and I would suspect that any deal brought before the house would be rejected, as they don’t want to leave. Unfortunately no deal is the only form of Brexit that will happen, if it happens at all.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

No, because the remainers wanted things to remain as they are.

I don't think it is 'extremist' to take the view that the NI backstop was unacceptable.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It's not remainer speak for stopping Brexit. It's about leaving the EU on our terms, when it suits us, and not arbitrarily leaving the EU without a deal when we are ill prepared to do so.

One option would be to change the arithmetic in Parliament, another to negotiate another deal. All of which would allow more time to prepare for no deal.

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

It was the extremists who voted against it - the DUP and the ERG. The moderates in the Conservative Party were happy with it.

That's a statement of fact.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The deadline for leaving will not be extended. I thought you'd heard! :D

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

That's what they said in March.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Extremists. What a joke! You could call Corbynistas extremists because they are communist. The direct opposite of communism is fascism, and neither the ERG nor DUP are fascist.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

That's what May said, not Johnson.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

You are conflating multiple issues here that are irrelevant. The ERG have an extreme view of what Brexit should look like. An element of the bigots in the DUP believe the dinosaurs were put in the Earth to challenge our faith that the world was created just a few thousand years ago.

If that's not extreme I don't know what is.

Have you missed the papers lodged in the Scottish courts?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Pretty hard to avoid, one would have thought.

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

So, are you saying that BoJo is more honest than May?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Well, they haven't committed unlawful acts, and threatened to break the law, so, no...

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

There's what he says, and then there's what he submits to a court of law (handy hint, only one is legally binding...).

You can't believe everything you hear... ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

He seems to conveniently forgotten about that episode.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

That is the only way it will happen. A majority Tory Government all with the whip.

There is no other way.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:19 ----------

They just ignored it or changed it. The law said we would leave in March. The law also says we will leave in October, or at least it did until they amended it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It is not extreme to believe that Britain should leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal instead. That is basically what Brexiteers voted for. You are the one raising different issues. I'm just responding to them.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I just don't care anymore..I'm sick of the whole boiling bunch in the HoC..

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

A no-deal breaks/threatens the Good Friday Agreement which is extreme.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

You brought Corbyn up - completely irrelevant and for no other reason than to derail the conversation.

“Basically what Brexiteers voted for”. Was it or wasn’t it?

The DUP and ERG are, and always have been, on the extreme end of the argument - you’re simply playing with semantics.

Leaving the EU with a deal is what moderates in the Conservative Party have voted for over and over.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I could point them out. I'm pointing out that there aren't that many that aren't fairly open in that illicit goods and/or people can't move across them. That is why Hungary was forced(not by the EU) to put up a big fence along their border.


It is still the responsibility of Ireland/EU to police what comes into Ireland/EU, not the UK. Same principle the World over. And I've I already pointed out, the backstop is outside of the legal remit of Article 50. It firmly comes under future agreements, which can't even be discussed until we've left the EU.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Looking at latest posts in here...We seem to be creeping back to old and tired arguments, stop it, or this thread closes for good. Sick of reading the same crap.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The IRA continuing their campaign of violence does that. If the GFA means we can't leave the EU, then the GFA is null and void, because nobody voted for that consequence. Don't get what all the fuss is about. Why on earth should the IRA kick up a fuss over it?


No other country in the world would stand for the way the UK gets treated.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I actually think a country less insecure about it’s own identity would recognise that Northern Ireland voted to remain and depends, to a greater or lesser extent, on trade with the Republic.

NI remaining in the Single Market/Customs Union has doesn’t make Brexit any less Brexit.

If the DUP didn’t have Theresa May by the short and curlies this is very well where we would have been today. Readying for trade deals for the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020.

It gives England what it wants (out the EU), Northern Ireland what it wants (no border) and reduces the chances of one Ireland.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Seconded.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

All that would be the subject of a future agreement. The "deal" can only be about a transitional, unambiguously limited in time one. That is the legal position of the EU treaty.



Remaining in the Single Market/Customs Union is against any notion of Brexit. If the UK is to remain in Single market/Customs Union, then it should be explicitly said and debated, and decided upon. Not by a backdoor method. You have a vote on something that is supposed to end on Dec 31st 2020, when 3 little words actually extends things to eternity. Imagine that sort of thing in any form of contract. It would be declared invalid in no time at all. Would you sign a contract like that? One that is designed specifically to restrict you beyond the term of the contract.



Every single notion of the law and of contracts is being overridden in the name of Remain. Whatever happened to proper scrutiny? How is Parliament expected to debate and vote on a near 600 page document in the course of a few hours? That is why the law states that there should be a minimum of 21 sittings days of Parliament involved. Then there is meant to be lots of other stages involved.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Your whole post is entirely irrelevant to the point I made. I'm unsure of the link - grateful if you could address my post directly.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Last week, I had the nice opportunity to be in another EU country for a global meeting and Brexit came up a few times, I can tell you! Here's what I learned from the 'other side';

From a business point of view, the company I work for is regarded as a critical material supplier to our customers so we need to show that we are prepared for any interruptions in manufacturing up to and including complete destruction of our manufacturing plant. Because of this,we store a huge reserve of finished goods off site that isn't touched in case of a disaster.

However, we also need to assess our critical raw material suppliers to ensure our continuity of supply. If raw materials are currently sourced from countries and/or areas that are at risk of interruption of supply, they are closely looked at. We hold large stocks of critical raw materials, especially from countries at risk. Depending on the country, we are also looking at second suppliers from other regions as a fall back position.

Since 2016, the UK is classed as a risk country. Our company sources a number of chemicals from the UK and second suppliers have been found for all of the critical chemicals sourced from the UK to cover any interruption in supply. In the risk management table, we are about equal with Chile right now which I thought was interesting.

Away from the business implications, the main theme from people I met was 'what are you lot playing at?'. This wasn't just from colleagues from other EU countries but people from the US, India, Australia and China. They couldn't understand why we would voluntarily make trade with our closest neighbours harder.

Of course, the people in my meeting are the 'intellectual elite' with many letters after names and high paying jobs. What was illuminating was the same conversation with my taxi driver back to the airport. After confirming which terminal I wanted, the next thing he said was 'so, Brexit then?'! He was asking a lot about what I thought was going to happen and what I thought in general. In return, I asked what he thought about the EU. His feedback was a few years ago, he wasn't in favour of being in the EU but he has softened since our decision to leave. He said the EU wasn't perfect but it was a 'cold world out there' (his words, not mine)

The country I was in was one of the 5 countries that pay a larger proportion of their GNI than the UK does by the way

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Only Germany is a higher net payer than us.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

You have to allow for artistic license in these works of fiction.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

What are us lot playing at?

How rude.

I'd have told everyone who asked that stupid question in that meeting you had, exactly what I thought of them, I would not have given a shit who they were and what grade of pay they were on or whether they were CEO's.

Remember, I once had a face to face meeting with then ntl CEO Simon Duffy and I basically spoke my mind, bollocked him for allowing the closure of nthellworld.com on his watch and he was made to see that the decision to do that was regretful!

Um, but back to the issue at hand - we have chosen to democratically leave the European Union, but because of the pathetic corrupted cretins in the EU are not acting in good faith, i.e there is plenty of video footage of them mocking us during negotiations, wanting to turn us in to a colony, not allowing the UK to thrive on our own - they cannot stand to see the UK succeed without them post Brexit, they are now urging the UK to think again, they want to give us another extention, I say piss off, we chose to leave and leave we must.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Seems like the same tired old EU insults yet again. :confused: I thought we had to move on?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I was careful to say as a proportion of GNI rather than absolute amount. Yes, only Germany is a larger net contributor in absolute amounts but other countries pay a larger proportion of their GNI. If you measured as a proportion of GDP, then Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands are higher than us.

---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------

Yeah, I kinda like my job but also these conversations were informal chats at break times rather than an official company policy and, let's be honest, does anyone, regardless of their Brexit persuasion, think the process is going well and exactly as planned?

I also subscribe to Carl Sagan's quote - "There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question"

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Campaigners' bid to get courts to order no-deal Brexit delay fails


https://news.sky.com/story/campaigne...fails-11829971


campaigners - led by businessman Vince Dale, SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC and Jolyon Maugham QC - launched legal action at the Outer House of the Court of Session.

They wanted a judge to order that Mr Johnson had to send a letter to Brussels asking for the delay.

They also wanted to try and stop the prime minister finding a way around the law, including getting the judge to ban Mr Johnson from asking EU leaders to veto the request.

Their case was dismissed on Monday afternoon.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

“What are we playing at?” Has an aggressive tone to it, as if there is no right to hold a view of self determination and leaving the EU.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

List by country
France(0.70%) and even Romania(0.67%) may pay more as % of their GNI than the UK(0.46%), but they get more back. The net difference being France 0.12%. Germany 0.26%, the UK 0.18%, Ireland -0.01%, Poland a massive -1.99%(That's €9bn:shocked: net they get). Remember the UK gets a 66% rebate, which the EU is itching to remove, if it hasn't done so already. Does that bump up our expected(future?) contribution to a whopping 1.38% of GNI?

Even with the rebate, the UK had been forecast(by the OBR in 2017) to have net contribution of £17.405 billion (£335 million per week) in 2022.
Link to pdf
It's on page 19.


Any money we get back is taken off the rebate, therefore at least 66% of the money has come from the UK in the first place, ie for every £3 of funding, £2 is knocked off the rebate and added to what we pay in. Factor that in and we actually get an even lower rate of EU funding, nearer 0.10%, ie €2bn, not €6bn.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

That is the danger of a text only medium. It certainly didn't come over as aggressive when face to face. It was a wry amusement and certainly no malice was intended as, rightly, there nothing that I and the one other Brit there could influence as individuals.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------

Yeah, I have double checking my figures and it does depend on how you measure things I guess.

I have been using this report from September 2019 covering the 2017 budget - http://researchbriefings.files.parli...55/SN06455.pdf

According to table 3, we are the second highest net contributors. However, according to table 4 where we look at contribution per head, we are fifth. My initial numbers came from the second table on this site - https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-one-b...ors-eu-budget/ which covers the 2014-16 budget round

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

From your first link.
IE the backstop.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

What a defeat - the judge said BJ/HMG will comply fully with the Law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-49959167

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Yes but which one ?

As we know, Benn Act requires Johnson to seek an extension to Brexit if parliament has not approved either a deal or leaving without a deal by October 19, however, Primary legislation still exists in the form of a different law, the European Union Withdrawal Act, states Britain will leave the EU on October 31. Which of these laws takes precedence, matters a lot.

The government has repeatedly said only that it will comply with "the law", without actually specifying which one. It may try and argue that it is following the law by taking Britain out on October 31st. ;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I'm sure he will comply with the Law as he understands it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The Withdrawal Act itself doesn’t facilitate leaving, it would make our laws incompatible with EU law, but it doesn’t actually change our status as members of the EU.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

As I've pointed before the principal behind the law and this case, is completely ludicrous. It is designed to be unachievable. UK Parliament won't say or even indicate what they would agree to, and the only thing the EU has said it would agree to, has been turned down 3 times. According to EU law, Article 50(2), the legal onus is on the EU to "negotiate and conclude an agreement". They seem to be the ones that legally have to give way. If so, that also seems unreasonable as there is no obligation on the withdrawing state to agree to anything. In those circumstances an agreement couldn't be "concluded".

All rather sinister. Worse than Rumpelstiltskin's game. At least that had an answer, although you weren't meant to know it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I think the EU would argue they have done that. They negotiated a deal with the “U.K. Government” and which the government concluded an agreement.

There is nothing there that says the EU must conclude an agreement with the nations Parliament.

This where the whole thing is off the rails, we have Gina Miller to thank for it.

There is no way a deal can be done now with the UK Parliament in its current state. The only form of Brexit available at the moment is to leave without a withdrawal agreement and negotiate a deal from outside the EU.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

There are 2 "deals" in the arena. The first is the withdrawal agreement, the 2nd future agreement has always been from the position of being outside the EU. The 1st agreement is only meant to be a temporary, transitional one. Negotiations on the 2nd can't even start until we have left the EU. Far too much inherent ambiguity and misunderstanding over what people are meaning when they talk about "the deal". There is the sense that people seem to think that "the deal" is an ongoing one, and the only one that will ever be needed. Far from it, whatever happens, we will have to go through this all again in the near future.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Although for that period we won't trade with the EU on WTO terms, allowing adequate time for genuine preparations for the new trade conditions.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Exactly, which is why it is all smoke an mirrors, the “Withdrawal agreement” just facilitates, or should just facilitate, an orderly departure from the EU.

Everything else is totally up for grabs, but we will be doing that from outside the EU.

So orderly departure or not, everything still needs to be negotiated.

There’s no such thing as a “ no deal” Brexit, that’s why it’s just a tactic to stop Brexit totally.

There’s an agreed and orderly departure, or not. Then a deal.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Getting a bit bored with all this now. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' sums up this country and Brexit. By the time we've become a down-market British version of Trump's USA, the USA will have long moved on from Trump,...

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I’m getting bored with this point of view.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

If there was a second Brexit vote, would you vote Remain or Leave?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

If we and the EU are "ready as we'll ever be", then the WA is not supposedly needed by anybody.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Well, the judgement specified that

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/d...7.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The judgement refers to BJ’s submission to the Court he will carry out the actions stated in the Benn Bill.

It also states

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

But what would and could any 2nd vote be about? "Deal" vs "No Deal", is still "Leave" either way. A Remain campaign would be based upon bullying and outright lies.
Eg Link
As I've pointed out, the "deal" referred to in Grieve comments is one on which negotiations haven't even started. We wouldn't be leaving without a "deal", in his sense of the word. We can't leave with one. If anything, agreeing to the WA blocks any future deal, as it locks us in with the backstop. Nothing further that the EU will agree to, as they wouldn't need to.

---------- Post added at 21:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------

But it can't override Primary Law. A Statutory Instrument is a different thing.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The original Withdrawal Act doesn’t mean we leave, it only transposes EU legislation into UK law and claims we aren’t signatory to a Treaty that in reality we are.

If the UK and EU agree an extension the reality is we remain. For the Government to extend (with the EU) and not amend exit day in the Act simply means we could get legal challenges. It doesn’t mean we leave on the 31st October.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I think I’ve made my position very clear over the years.

I voted Remain, pre-referendum the EU wasn’t even on my radar. It just was what it was. I cared as much about the EU as much as I cared about my Local Authority. Not a lot.

But what I am, is a Democrat. It’s what separates us, or is supposed to, from despots, tyrants and dictators or is supposed to.

We lost, and immediately said to Mrs Pierre, this will be bad, but here we are.

What I have witnessed since the referendum result has just disgusted me, and it has turned me from a remainer to a fervent Brexiteer - and not because I believe in Brexit - but I believe we have to enact the decision that was made.

A few points, I knew what we were voting for, that’s why I voted Remain. I knew what Leave meant. My version, Based on what I was told, and read and watched, was leaving the SM, CU and jurisdiction of the ECJ ( of nearly all things, I recognised there may be some areas they could still be involved with). If it’s not those three things it’s not Brexit and not the worth trouble we’ve gone through.

So, to answer you, if there was another Ref, I would vote leave.

Another point, I am a well educated, professional person, that earns in the higher tax bracket, as does my wife. Who both voted Remain and would both now vote leave. The same can be said of my sister, and I don’t we are an isolated case.

Parliament is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

We heard you the first time.

no shit?


I have no idea who you are talking to, or about.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

EU directives are already in UK law, Each EU nation has to do that. The transposing of EU rules has already been done.
The WA doesn't start until after we leave.
From Explainer on WA.
The "extensions" constantly referred to, are the start date of the WA, not the end date. There would become a point in time where any time extensions to the WA, would mean it was no longer a transitional, unambiguously limited in time agreement, and no further extension would be legal, even under EU law.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

At least you admit you have no idea about what’s going on, I suppose. Quite refreshing honesty from a Brexiteer. I commend you for it.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

I was referring to the Withdrawl Act not the Withdrawal Agreement.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Well you’ll have to enlighten me where I said “ I have no idea what’s going on”

Because I didn’t say that. In fact I specifically said the contrary.

You know recent posts from you are just getting more unhinged. You need to get horizontal for a time, i’m Worried for you.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Just leave at the end of the month. No Election. Let Boris Johnson and the Tories get what they want and deal with the consequences if it's not as good as they say.

Nothing stopping us getting a closer UK-EU deal later on, after the election does happen.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

If you’re serious, I agree.

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

I think I see where you are coming from now. Just to avoid confusion I was specifically talking about you. Not the issue. It’s you I have no idea about. I’m worried for you.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Well it's more of a cry of exacerbation but there is a part of me that wants Brexiters to get exactly what they're advocating for otherwise it'll be like the 'socialism has never been tried' thing. Anything less than No Deal Brexit will always be said to have been 'not proper Brexit' as a cop-out.

Of course if I am wrong and it all works out then fair play: win-win almost.

That said I am not convinced the blame if things do go wrong will not be about looking inwards but blaming others.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Are you a red tape loving anti-business Corbynista? Then a no-deal Brexit is just up your street!

https://www.ft.com/content/30c58758-...0-3b065ef5fc55

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

We still crash out of the EU and have those alleged extra costs at the end of the "deal"/WA.


Just one item of Corbyn's proposed spending amounts to £250bn. That's a declared specific amount, not one estimated in any way.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

No need.

You said you had no idea what I was on about when I'm explaining that the legislation isn't in conflict. Both serve different functions. By your own admission you either fail to understand, or see the relevance of, the point being made. A point which contradicts the "understanding" of others on the forum.

If you don't have anything constructive to add I'm happy to leave the point here.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I’m sorry, but now when I read your posts all get is visual static/ white noise.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Again your inability to comprehend isn't my problem. I once again invite you to be constructive to the discussion.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I understand your frustration but your proposition is worrying to say the least. You think the Hard Brexit folks should have their toys to play with and possibly trash the country because you are frustrated? No consideration for the majority who do not want this outcome or the impact on those who literally cannot afford No Deal?

This is exactly the thinking that Cummings, Farage, et al are relying on: "Make It Stop, I Don't Care Anymore" ..

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It's a clear strategy to heighten public frustration. I think much of the "easiest negotiation in history" myths haven't helped. Whether we extend or leave we are still in for years of negotiations with the EU (and others). Probably decades. It's far from a quick win. Even Rees-Mogg conceded this it could take fifty years. Presumably his hedge fund sees quicker returns.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

In regards to the years of negotiations, the ones with the EU will be interesting. The overnight report from a "contact in Number 10" detailed on the spectator.co.uk website is illuminating:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/1...-negotiations/

The response is long with the usual "blame the Irish" stratagem but this part is fascinating and will surely, if true, wind up "our friends and partners" on the continent:

This has Cumming's thinking written all over it .. so must be true :)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Above article (blog) written by James Forsyth.


James Forsyth is Political Editor of the Spectator. He is also a columnist in The Sun.

:D :D :D

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

That pretty much says everything.;)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

And your point is what?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

The backstop and it's deliberate permanency IS the fault of the Irish, and against EU law in article 50. It wasn't on the EUs radar until the Irish brought it up.

The Guardian

According to EU law, it can only be there as part of future trade relations, even if the UK agreed to it.
Have the terms "transitional", "limited in time", and "future" been magically redefined?

The EU and the Remain crowd have thrown out all sense of logic, reason, legality, and democracy. All perfectly ok because it's the UK(especially) on the receiving end. Would any other country be expected to put up with this? If any other country had(before the UK) wanted to leave the EU, would they be subjected to all this? Or would all sense of logic, reason, legality, and democracy have mysteriously remained intact? Would Scotland and Wales be treated like this, if they voted for independence?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

In answer to your final question, probably, yes.

Literally the island of Ireland voted for independence and we partitioned it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

James Forsyth is a good reporter and clearly has good sources, not sure what the problem is?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

No-one's trying to 'trash the country' apart from the Corbynistas. A Brexit without a withdrawal agreement is not the disaster you and other remainers are trying to convince people it will be.

The majority want to leave the EU, and this is a majority decision. If the EU won't co-operate, we leave without a deal. It's time all remainers accepted that. Enough of the nonsense, let's just get on with it. After it happens, people will start to wonder what all the fuss was about.

The planes will not fall from the sky. You will still be able to holiday in Europe. The food and medicines will be available as usual. Etc.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

So what ongoing impositions, like the backstop, were placed on Ireland? Which laws were ignored without being legally and fairly changed?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

You can't actually evidence that any of your prediction is true. Stick to predicting the imminent death of linear television, it's got marginally more credibility. Marginally.

Nobody has said we won't be able to holiday, only that it'll be more expensive to do so. This is true already. Nor has anyone predicted planes falling from the sky. You are conflating genuine risk with the ridiculous to try and minimise its importance.

The literal existence of Northern Ireland.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

You need to go back to school.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

I don't. Ireland voted for independence. Got partitioned by Britain. I'd invite you to point out what part isn't true but don't want to sidetrack the discussion further.

Ironic that is why we are now in this mess, trying to protect our crumbled Empire.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Currently as EU members we are subject to the EU four freedoms and operating on a legal & trading framework acceptable to the EU and the UK..

When we leave we hope to shed the Freedom Of Movement requirement and the legal and trading frameworks may well be different and these are the barriers to our deal with the EU.

The problems with immigration were mainly due to the government failing to deal with the consequences of immigration like shortages of doctors, dentists, teachers, appropriate school places, jobs and affordable housing, all things that the government could address.

To satisfy the EU, Boris will need to remove the Freedom Of Movement red line thus allowing the people of Ireland & Ulster to move freely between both areas.

He will also need to equalise the legal & trading conditions on both sides of the Irish border so that, rights, responsibilities, procedures, protocols etc are the same, with the exception that issues raised in Ireland will be dealt with by the EU courts and issues in Ulster will be dealt with by the UK courts. When the same issue is raised in both areas, an Arbitration panel consisting say of 2 EU judges & 2 UK judges would look at the issue and try to find a mutually acceptable & legal solution. In effect, trading will just be as if we were still in the EU but the EU jurisdiction will only apply in Ireland as the UK jurisdiction will be in Ulster.

Given the bullying, bull-in-a china-shop tactics used by Boris, he has not only upset our EU friends but he has also failed to renegotiate our exit, apparently aiming to leave the EU at all costs without really trying to make a deal. He may well find leaving the EU like that to be satisfactory but there are plenty of poor people & businesses who will not. The massive borrowing required will not only put us further in debt but will also bring further years of austerity which can be avoided,

My bet is that neither he or Stephen Barclay have even asked the EU if such changes would make a difference and until he does he cannot really say that no deal is the only option.

I will also bet than no journalists have questioned Boris , Michel Barnier or Donald Tusk about discussing such changes in the Brexit negotiations.

Given the repeated requests from the EU for written proposals, it is the UK government which is at fault for belatedly supplying the ill thought-out proposals recently submitted.

No-one in government seems to be asking what the EU concerns are and as we do not know what they are how can the government address them.

The whole process has been a shambles from start to finish. Lots of ordinary people will suffer if we crash out of the EU like this.

I can only hope that all politicians involved will use some common sense and bring this deal to a successful conclusion.