Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996980)

Thank you for highlighting the fact that Article 24 is even admitted by the BBC as being possible, which has been denied up until now by many antiBrexiteers.

The key paragraphs are:

It would mean no tariffs or taxes would be imposed on goods crossing borders between the UK and its largest trading partner, the European Union.

The trouble with that argument is that you can only use Article 24 if two parties are willing to make an agreement - in this case, the UK and the EU. Neither can impose it on the other.

That's a bit different from 'impossible' and sounds doable to me, particularly as the EU wants a non-tariff arrangement as much as we do.

The big advantage of this is that we will have a ten year protection period so that we can negotiate a trade deal, which gives us plenty of time to resolve the Irish border question. The £39bn would be paid provided that the EU agreed to such an arrangement.

As far as I can see, this is the only means of exiting the EU that is available to us, given that we have a stubborn rump of Conservative MPs who refuse to vote for the 'no deal' solution and the EU will not re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996972)

One court case against the huge benefits gained is a great use of resources. This is a move to raise the standards of democracy in this country and I welcome it.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35996981)

And that is not a crime.

If we invent stuff as we are going along here - So we can after George Osborne, for lying saying there would be thousands of job losses right after a leave result, prosecute David Cameron for lying saying he would be around to enact the referendum result...

As already mentioned, Tony Blair for the Iraq War and WMD lie.... They were all in high office.

This list is endless, this is just a hit job on Boris because he is the scapegoat for the many pathetic Remainers who cannot accept the result that people in the UK do actually want to leave the corrupted EU.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------



Absolute one sided rubbish and you know it. Why don't we go after people who lied in the Remain camps who probably swayed people to vote Remain, like all the lies of project fear ?

Oh Remain lost, this is why so it doesn't matter to you. Gimme a break FFS. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996980)

Thank you for highlighting the fact that Article 24 is even admitted by the BBC as being possible, which has been denied up until now by many antiBrexiteers.

The key paragraphs are:

It would mean no tariffs or taxes would be imposed on goods crossing borders between the UK and its largest trading partner, the European Union.

The trouble with that argument is that you can only use Article 24 if two parties are willing to make an agreement - in this case, the UK and the EU. Neither can impose it on the other.

That's a bit different from 'impossible' and sounds doable to me, particularly as the EU wants a non-tariff arrangement as much as we do.

The big advantage of this is that we will have a ten year protection period so that we can negotiate a trade deal, which gives us plenty of time to resolve the Irish border question. The £39bn would be paid provided that the EU agreed to such an arrangement.

As far as I can see, this is the only means of exiting the EU that is available to us, given that we have a stubborn rump of Conservative MPs who refuse to vote for the 'no deal' solution and the EU will not re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996984)

So many anti-free speech and democracy deniers contributing to this thread. Makes you want to pull your hair out that there are people in this country who would be in favour of thought control and totalitarianism. This is not the country we are, and we don't want such politics here, thanks very much. :afire:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35996986)

How about, you let me answer the question rather than answering for me...

IF there's any evidence that remain campaigners made statements that could be construed as misconduct in public office then they should absolutely be investigated and if warranted charged accordingly.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35996974)

Well I don't and don't talk to me about raising the standards of democracy because that is you being a total hypocrite, when you and or your remainer buddies go on and on about nullifying the referendum result of 2016.

There is no benefits to this court case at all - it just turns this country in to something resembling North Korea, you really want to take this country down this path?

It just utter crazy, prosecuting a politician for lying during a political campaign.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35996991)

You say that now - but your prior post was very one sided as usual. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35996983)

Article 24 is of course an option that can be delivered.

There's a slight issue that under the terms of Article 24 that EU & the UK could only invoke Article 24 on the provisio we have a “plan and schedule” agreed for concluding a final deal.



Achievable by Halloween ? I highly doubt it.


Another extension anyone?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996987)

Do you not understand that no deal is not an agreement?


---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------


Read Hugh's post - it's about misconduct in public office. You may be happy to drag us down to the standards of democracy in North Korea and Venezuela. I'm not.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35996992)

Remainer buddies? How about everyone has their own opinion on the subject rather than clumping everyone together

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996987)

Do you not understand that no deal is not an agreement?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35996983)

Article 24 is of course an option that can be delivered.

There's a slight issue that under the terms of Article 24 that EU & the UK could only invoke Article 24 on the provisio we have a “plan and schedule” agreed for concluding a final deal.



Achievable by Halloween ? I highly doubt it.


Another extension anyone?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35996996)

Ah, you're catching up eventually.

For starters, the Brexit Party has not advocated for a no deal exit. They advocated for a WTO exit (article 24). (Just thought I'd throw that in).

Perhaps if the EU had offered or agreed to a deal and allowed it to be put on the table to be agreed we may be further ahead without such a divide having been created.

When whoever you are negotiating with refuses to come to a deal without first getting an agreement from you to have your hands tied you would be a fool not to walk away or at least offer article 24 as an alternative.

If the backstop, as the EU have continually emphasised, is only temporary and they do not want to implement it then the 10yr article 24 option should cry out for acceptance.

If not, the backstop is not as temporary as we are told and designed purely to keep us in the EU indefinitely.