Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Paper thin majority at last election running the Dept for Universal Credit LOL, resigned her post as Home Secretary because of the Windrush scandal, sneaking back in Government because the unstable thicko PM is running out of qualified MPs to appoint to her Cabinet. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

Stephen Barclay the new Brexit Secretary.

Re: Brexit
 

As you have researched this thoroughly and clearly dispelled this "myth", can you let us all know which of the following EU Directives on the Environment are not in fact EU ones but are really OSPAR?

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_...s#/Environment

Re: Brexit
 

I eagerly await his resignation .

Re: Brexit
 

Back in government as you say but she certainly has the poison chalice at the DWP with Universal credit for the next 5 years that is a guarantee but of course she probably won't be there for 5 years given that most of her predecessors have not lasted that long before her.

Re: Brexit
 

What do you basis this on? Curious ...

I came across this article which seems to contradict your statement:

Students are not settled migrants and do not have significant ECHR rights

Re: Brexit
 

We await your odds.;)

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Here he is getting ready for his first speech:

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2018/11/10.jpg

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

But your link seems to conclude that the case was refused on the basis of UK and not ECHR law:

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Who??

The Downing St. cat turned it down apparently.
https://twitter.com/Number10cat/stat...24031719403520
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2018/11/12.jpg

Re: Brexit
 

Well done Larry the cat... now lets get rid of the Tory's for good...

Re: Brexit
 

:D:D

Re: Brexit
 

So the example you cited was wrong then. Ok, got it ..

Re: Brexit
 

That's a shame.

He would have been the purrfect candidate. :D

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

the 585 page draft Brexit agreement, here if you want to read it.



https://www.gov.uk/government/public...european-union

Re: Brexit
 

Are you surprised? Some people have more or less bet the farm on May not being able to get a deal of any kind. Whatever its drawbacks and compromises, there is now a deal on the table, which, when it comes down to it, most Tory MPs will vote for. The vast majority of Labour MPs will vote against it. So if we do now crash out of the EU without a deal, the blame will rest with Jeremy Corbyn (and to a lesser extent Nicola Sturgeon).

For some people, that’s a lot of butthurt to process. You can’t blame them for wanting to deflect their discomfort with a few silly Internet memes. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

A few Brexiters who believed what David Davis (we can still have all the benefits of the single market) and Liam Fox (easiest deal ever) are nursing what you described as butt hurts. They truly can't have their cake and eat it. But there's no reason why they and everyone else can't tap their traditional British sense of humour. A better approach than being in denial and pretending there's a better deal to be had as they need us more than we need them or other poorly-researched reasons.

Re: Brexit
 

No, the blame lies with anyone that voted for Brexit. It was an impossible fairy tale and reality has bitten. Blame whoever you like, but you need to look in the mirror.

TM got the 'deal' the EU gave her. They made little compromise, have given sweet nothing, and we've lost a lot.

As for the cat, have some respect ;)

Re: Brexit
 

I can’t answer for Davis or Fox. All I can say is, a lot of people have taken leave of their senses this week, and a lot of them have very obviously set in motion strategies that were planned before the deal was announced, and before they even read it properly. The SNP, Corbyn, his handlers at Momentum (whose anti-deal URL was registered days ago) and, yes, some Tory arch-Brexiteers were never going to welcome the deal.

For me, I think this piece by Katya Adler at the BBC is useful. This is not the future relationship. This is the transitional arrangement. It is temporary. I think it’s unlikely the 27 would have given more at this stage and I don’t think they will give any more if Parliament rejects this.

I have been opposed to our membership of the EU since around 1992. It has been a very long road to get this far and I can be patient if it takes a further decade to get the U.K. closer to where I think we should be. The pain and difficulty we have already experienced has proven to me that I was right all along - we have been entangled in the EU project so deeply that our sovereignty was seriously compromised. Putting that right was always going to take a great deal of time and effort.

Re: Brexit
 

I think that Conservative Leave MPs fall into two categories. Those who want the magical unicorn and have resigned from Government to try and achieve it. And those like Michael Gove who have more patience and appreciate that it's a journey and not an instant light-switch situation.

Re: Brexit
 

The fairy tale is the one we have now this mockery of a deal laid out to please the remain camp having a PM that voted remain who didn't carry out the wishes of those that actually wanted to "Leave".

Not only to please the remain camp but to please herself in getting something she voted for.

I feel cheated that I had to compromise to a bunch of spoilt brats that threw their dummy out of the cot because things didn't go the way they wanted.

Re: Brexit
 

I think you misjudge Gove there. He has only one objective , being PM. Brexit is a side issue for him.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:36 ----------

Do you mean Rees Mogg or Farage??

Re: Brexit
 

You, as most others, are confusing this agreement with a future trade deal or some other arrangement.

This is not a trade deal, this is setting out where we stand immediately after we leave in March. There is then a 2year transition period were trade deals, Northern Ireland and all other things are sorted out. I thought someone as knowledgeable as you would know this.

Re: Brexit
 

I’m now more confident than ever that in the end we will remain in the EU.

This deal that nobody wants is a result of the fact there are no solutions to the major problems around Ireland and customs arrangements.

Re: Brexit
 

Not really as the timescales they mentioned are long in the rear view mirror. But I'll take the compliment. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

and keeping the good Friday agreement too

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

The Leavers bottled it when it came to being PM and staying as Brexit secretary. They wouldn't have been tough with the EU.

---------- Post added at 23:09 ---------- Previous post was at 23:05 ----------

It was a highly accurate description of both so I too am left pondering which.

Re: Brexit
 

That’s not a solution, and undermines our ability to set meaningful tariffs if the people can simply move items from the EU into the UK via a non-existent land border.

Nobody can be tough with the EU as they hold all the cards. They always have and always will.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

So the solution is to do random customs checks miles from the land border?

This is going to be fantastic- UK traders who perhaps aren’t even engaging in cross border trade being inconvenienced for living near the land border on the island of Ireland.

We’ve bullied ourselves into submission by starting off a timebound sequence of events with no coherent plan to reach a destination that we can’t even agree upon.

Conservative politicians arguing over policies they probably don’t even agree with just to position themselves to succeed Theresa May and a Government with no electoral mandate have weakened their negotiating position themselves.

The EU have just had to sit back and watch.

Re: Brexit
 

if I wasn't living here, it would be comedy gold.

No wonder there's no decent comedies on TV, everyone's watching Sky News or BBC 24! :D

Re: Brexit
 

As we approach the end of March and the cliff edge then we will withdraw Article 50.

If Brexit was going to happen it needed a larger mandate than 52-48. The funding controversies, fake news and xenophobia aside the 52 can’t actually agree what they want.

There also needed to be a second referendum to give the Government a mandate to go forward and pursue a type of Brexit (Norway, Canada, Switzerland, other). However, we know the problem with that is Remain would win unless it was kept off the ballot.

Ideally the UK also needed a decisive general election (regardless of who won). Neither party is unified to the extent they can rely on all of their MPs to vote one way. In the example of the Conservatives they probably need 400+ MPs to not be subject to the extreme wings of the party.

The EU27 obviously aren’t unified but they at least put up a single negotiator and have all stayed relatively silent throughout the process. We have live streaming our disagreements making it clear to the EU the people sitting in front of them are in a weakened situation.

May could easily be toppled from within, Labour could win an election and Leave would almost certainly lose if the question was put to the people again. At the same time they know, and we know, that No Deal isn’t a realistic option.

Re: Brexit
 

But it does not please remain voters. It is mostly all the worst aspects of membership but with no say.

As the Bostonians said in 1773 - no taxation without representation. Whilst what we pay may not be classed as tax, the sums involved need directly elected representatives.

Re: Brexit
 

Everything you say is correct. I just add the dimension of pushing back at the EU and the perfidious Irish government in preference to rolling over as May has done.


---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

A very sober assessment.


---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

I will venture another assessment. The draft political protocol that accompanied the draft agreement is all full of ‘best endeavours’ verbiage.

The Maybot is hanging her hat on that being an expression of sincerity from the EU side.

If that sincerity includes working together with the EU to speedily develop the technological customs solutions, then her plan stands a chance.

Question is, what are the EU’s real intentions?

Re: Brexit
 

Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...e-theresa-may/


That didn't take long;)


The Environment Secretary, who stepped back from the brink of resignation on Friday, will meet Andrea Leadsom, Chris Grayling, Penny Mordaunt and Liam Fox over the next two days to agree the terms of their ultimatum.

Re: Brexit
 

The intention of the EU is to demonstrate to the rest of the member states that leaving isn’t viable. That could be achieved through the UK remaining, a bad deal, or no deal. All three options currently on the table satisfy the EU position somewhat.

The EU, like any Union, has to satisfy it’s own interests first and foremost. Despite our delusions of grandeur, the consequences for us were always going to be far greater than for them.

Negotiators for Greece in the 2015 financial crisis look back and lament that their mistake was believing the EU were negotiating at all. The EU had mapped out all of the options suitable to them and it was “take it or leave it”.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I’m not sure how it causes panic in the Irish Government. If there’s no border it’ll allow the EU to establish de facto standards and controls for the island of Ireland and countries trading with the UK will complain to the WTO about having to compete with uncontrollable movement of goods from the EU into the UK.

The Irish Government have simply offered rhetoric in line with what the EU expects of them to create pressure on us.

The reality is the Article 50 process is designed to favour the EU. Leaving the EU in a controlled and stable manner would probably take a decade of preparation and include a transition within the EEA/SM/CU.

Re: Brexit
 

The Daily Mail, in the return from the "dark side" to the centre (ish) political ground are now presenting the, previously ignored, 3rd choice as a viable option:

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/loc...11/1.jpg:large

Re: Brexit
 

132-Days 8-Hrs 38-Min and 10 seconds :)

Re: Brexit
 

It'll never get that far. Even a minister at the Foreign Office today on Twitter has as much as said there's no parliamentary majority for no deal.

It's Theresa's deal or Remain.

Re: Brexit
 

The Express was putting its weight behind Theresa's deal. It too knows that no-deal is a no-goer and would harm the country, its allies...and the Conservative Party's electoral prospects.

Re: Brexit
 

The new owners obviously did not like the Dacre editorial tone.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Strange how this lot hated it with a passion, but now it's holy scripture .

Re: Brexit
 

Not for me old bean as the best place for that newspaper is in a cesspit.

Re: Brexit
 

One can despise the Daily Mail and equally recognise it's importance in managing the debate in the coming months as the dream is lost and the country remains within the EU.

Recognition that there is no other deal but the one Theresa May has negotiated and that remain is a genuine option are two significant steps at the beginning of that journey. It's an admission that there's no silver bullet, no magic Brexit and that none of the main protagonists (Johnson, Gove, Davis, Raab, Farage) have any answers to this problem.

The Daily Mail wasn't obliged to make these concessions.

Re: Brexit
 

It's just a quote from what Theresa May herself said. I don't think it is significant that the Mail repeated it. However, Theresa May has actually ruled out the no Brexit option.

---------- Post added at 17:59 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Er, no it's not! If Parliament votes down the deal with the EU, she doesn't actually need to put anything else to the vote. Article 50 has already been triggered and we will simply arrive in our brave new world at the end of March 2019.

TM has said many times now that we are leaving the EU. I don't know why you and others continue to clutch at straws like this.

It may be that we can get a change in the wording about the backstop, so that the UK can trigger a mechanism to bring it to an end, with the understanding that this may have consequences (eg no trade deal). But if anyone seriously thinks that the EUNwill give any further concessions beyond this, they are mistaken. Theresa May has negotiated the best deal possible and the EU will not give us any more.

Re: Brexit
 

I do think it's significant - they could have been selective but chose not to.

Alistair Burt, a junior minister at the Foreign Office tweeted today:
"Be very clear. If an agreed deal on leaving between the Govt and the EU is voted down by purist Brexiteers, do not be surprised if consensus on accepting the result of the Referendum by Remain voting MPs breaks down. Parliament will not support no deal."

Remain is entering the public discourse from people who last week would not have mentioned it. There's four and a half months to go, a lot of mudslinging and a bad deal on the table.

When it comes to staring down the barrel MPs will vote to delay, at minimum, leaving the European Union.

Re: Brexit
 

Whatever Alistair Burt may think, TM is not obliged to do anything on Brexit if Parliament reject the deal (except prepare for the no-deal Brexit).

As for the Daily Mail, I still say that was insignificant, given that they were using TM's own words. And she only even mentioned that to make the hard line Brexiteers think before they voted. However, despite that, she has said on numerous occasions that we are leaving in 2019.

Re: Brexit
 

29th March can change- ways and means if all parties want. No deal just won't be allowed to happen. More likely is an extension/renegotiation, or another referendum. It would certainly be the end of TM/ possibly the Govt., so Brexit will have achieved something positive ;)

Re: Brexit
 

It's not clutching it straws to accept that politicians can/do change their minds when circumstances change or they view it as electorally convenient.

It's very unlikely there is a Parliamentary mandate for Theresa May's deal. When staring down the barrel, and knowing we haven't adequately prepared for the consequences of No Deal, the can will be kicked down the road.

The alternative is to take the blame for lower GDP, food shortages, queues at ports and all the effects of the lack of contingency planning in the last two years.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:11 ----------

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7688471.html

You are living in an absolute fantasy land if you think you can take any of these people at their word.

Re: Brexit
 

Not on this. There is a political mandate to leave the EU and I simply cannot envisage such a turnaround. There would be blood on the streets!

When TM makes clear that it's this deal or Brexit with no deal, MPs will realise that voting against the proposed deal would give them exactly what they don't want.

That realisation will ensure that Brexiteers vote against, but most MPs will vote for it, giving Theresa May the majority she needs.

It's not me living in a fantasy land, old chap.

Re: Brexit
 

Remain was rejected three times: Once by referendum, second by parliament passing article 50 and thirdly by 80% of the electorate voting for parties that had that in their manifesto.

Remain lost each time. Leave is happening. Stop posting remain crap.

Re: Brexit
 

Ah, clarity is sweet!

Re: Brexit
 

(quote)The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.(/quote)

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...0005/18005.pdf

Re: Brexit
 

Just because you lack the ability to see it happening doesn't mean it will not. Blood on the streets? That's quite dramatic.

This is why the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are important in the coming months. People need to know this is the absolute best deal we are going to get. And that it's a bad deal.

The deal isn't what 17.4 million people voted for. Farage, Johnson, Davis, Fox, etc. all lied to the public. The easiest free trade deal ever? Not quite. We can't accept no deal either.

A solemn Theresa May addresses the nation in March. We haven't adequately prepared for No Deal and proposes an extension, or that we have a further referendum because leaving is a bad idea anyway. What does she care? She's a remainer, and she's toast anyway.

---------- Post added at 18:29 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

Far from being clarity it's an opinion. No more, and no less valid than any other.

The only difference is that it's one you agree with.

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------

Has nobody ever amended an Act of Parliament? Ever?

Re: Brexit
 

I think that she will win Parliament but your arguments are good.

Exactly. Politicians, like voters, do have the right to change their minds though. We saw that with Boris Johnson when he signed up to Chequers then had a second vote on Chequers by resigning.

Re: Brexit
 

If she wins Parliament than that's that, obviously.

I'm unsure what the arithmetic would be but I suppose you don't know what Corbyn will actually do (despite his six tests).

The one thing for certain is that the glorious future of free trade agreements with the rest of the world is dead in the water. The EU can just leave us in whatever state of limbo they please.

Re: Brexit
 

You see, that's where you are completely wrong. This is not a trade deal, it is the withdrawal agreement. As such, it's a half way house. There's only two things to really bitch about. One is our inability to influence legislation in that 21 month period and the other is the backstop. Both only require tweaks to the withdrawal agreement, and it may be possible to correct these two issues.

However, the trade deal should ultimately give voters what they wanted.

I'm afraid that we have to accept this delay to avoid major disruption (some say) to business.

Of course, blood on the streets was overstated, but people would be very angry indeed and democracy in this country would be damaged if we ended up remaining in the EU.. TM would not allow this to happen, no matter how much some remainers might dream otherwise.

Re: Brexit
 

I know this isn’t a trade deal. That’s exactly my point.

My point is this half way house allows the EU to permanently leave us in limbo by not agreeing a future trade deal with solutions to the UK partition of the island of Ireland problem.

You have said a trade deal should give people what they wanted, and it may be possible to solve the underlying issues. It may not, and it’ll entirely be at the discretion of Brussels if it does.

I’d hope before sacrificing a chunk of GDP that a Government would consider the likelihood of both.

Democracy isn’t damaged if you give people a second vote. It’s reinforced. We elect Governments every five years to go back to the country with more information about leaving the EU is entirely democratic.

I understand people will be upset when their dream of leaving sinks for good. An almost equal number will have been upset if we left. That’s unavoidable anyway.

That’s why in the coming weeks and months the PR on the road to remain is carefully being managed. There has to be a growing acceptance that there is no favourable deal, and it’ll cost £39bn to implement it.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

This is a withdrawal agreement not a trade deal.

Negotiations on a trade deal will start after we leave.

At least get that “minor” fact correct in your rant.

---------- Post added at 09:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 ----------

It would still up for negotiation.

---------- Post added at 09:52 ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 ----------

We would have to go to the ECJ to get out. Not ideal but there is a mechanism.

You have said a trade deal should give people what they wanted, and it may be possible to solve the underlying issues. It may not, and it’ll entirely be at the discretion of Brussels if it does. [/quote] it will be negotiated

We don’t need a second vote, it’s this deal or no deal. That has always been the situation from day one.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I’ve always said N.I. Would be the alter on which Brexit is sacrificed. No N.I. Issue no problem for a hard border, no need for a CU backstop to avoid it.


I think this agreement is a good place to “start” negotiations not finish them.

It would be interesting to see if we went back to the EU, with some amendments that would definitely see the agreement passed, if they would change, with the alternative being no deal. Make some changes bat it back over to them see what they do.

Re: Brexit
 

It’s not my fault you can’t read. It was said this would be the easiest trade deal ever (Liam Fox), all we have two years on is this contingency plan.

You don’t want a second vote, but thankfully that has no legislative authority in the United Kingdom or the European Union.

The hopes and dreams that the EU will hand us a great trade deal are gone. We are only going to get what the EU/ECJ permit.

We’re playing Russian roulette, they’ve loaded all the chambers, handed us the gun and told us it’s our turn.

Theresa May conceded on Ridge that if her deal gets voted down there’s a risk of delay or that Brexit might not happen.

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------

I can tell you exactly what they’d do.

Nothing.

This is Britain’s problem. Giving up Northern Ireland there’s a genuine blood on the streets event.

Re: Brexit
 

Out of curiosity, what do you feel the Irish position should have been during these negotiations, considering the history between the Uk and Ireland and Ireland’s position in the EU?

Re: Brexit
 

Not forgetting the singular failure of the DUP and Sinn Fein to actually run the NI government in Stormont for far too long now.

Re: Brexit
 

Curious about your use of 'apologists on this thread'.

The European Union is a rational actor in a capitalist system. It's not particularly difficult to predict it's motivations or it's actions.

The fact that Britain voted for Brexit without a clear agreement on what that is isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact the Cameron Government made no preparations for a Leave vote isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact Britain voted for a hung Parliament giving no clear mandate for a type of Brexit isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact our Prime Minister could be toppled because the Conservative party can't agree on Brexit isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact that Britain has no contingency plans for No Deal isn't the fault of the European Union.

If the shoe was on the other foot we would do exactly the same thing. Indeed, much of the 'we hold all the cards' rhetoric implied we would have the EU on their knees begging the UK for a deal.

If Scotland voted for independence do you think England would make it as easy and cheap as possible to secede from the UK? Of course not. England would want what it was due. Scotland would (if outside the EU then) have to negotiate trade deals like any other country.

Re: Brexit
 

It takes two to tango, and Sinn Fein have tossed their toys out of the pram. They won't sort this out without some sort of major concession that is not going to be made, just as they refuse to let their MPs attend Parliament.

Letting their constituents down big time, I say.

Re: Brexit
 

I like the Aussies for straight no nonsense thinking, perhaps our lot would do well to consider this little piece.

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

Re: Brexit
 

Thank you for posting this, techguyone. At last, a considered response justifying the 'no deal' scenario. I think I will take these words and put them in a frame in my hall to be read compulsorily by all visitors!

Re: Brexit
 

That's quite sad really. No grasp of the real world consequences. The exact kind of delusional mindset that led us to this point.

Re: Brexit
 

The only "delusion" I see is your ridiculous assertion right here.

Re: Brexit
 

On the contrary, if no deal and not paying in £39bn led to this glorious future of no consequences then we wouldn't be sitting looking at this fudge right now. We wouldn't have so much disagreement over the type of Brexit to have.

The UK maintaining product standards with the Irish Republic means adhering to EU rules, and would have consequences on our ability to trade with countries who insist on different standards.

This bit might be my favourite

So we will just seize EU assets in the UK? What a wonderful start.

Re: Brexit
 

I've not seen any EU apologists on this thread, just people seeking to help you better understand where the EU is coming from.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I agree.

The only set back we have here is a remain PM trying to appease the remain side and set our country back into the dark ages.

She is not carrying out the wishes of those that wanted to leave the EU.

We need a clean break set back to WTO rules and then talk. The simple thing is the EU is either with us or against us it's their call then not ours.

The remain side really just need to keep their mouths out of our business. The vote was done and it was clear cut now they just need to crawl back into whatever cave they came from.

Re: Brexit
 

So do you feel that the Anglo/Irish Good Friday Agreement is irrelevant to the future UK/EU relationship or is it overplayed? What would have been the ideal compromise with the UK leaving while preserving the GFA or should we ditch the GFA?

Re: Brexit
 

We have a Prime Minister who wants to set the country back to the dark ages? I think that's clearly untrue.

She is carrying out the wishes of those who wanted to leave the EU - she has went and got the best deal she can. It's now up to Parliament to decide whether to accept or explore other options.

We haven't done any of the preparatory work required to crash out on WTO terms. To do so threatens the very existence of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To align ourselves with EU standards and not impose tariffs means we are restricted in the trade agreements we can make with the rest of the world.

In a democracy nobody should be silenced, one of the fundamental freedoms is to be able to disagree.

Your entire post is over sentimental drivel. I can accept that, the most bitter of Brexit supporters is seeing their dream crumble before their very eyes.

However, when you strip the emotion out of the situation the cold facts are the EU holds all the cards and we hold none.

Re: Brexit
 

He is a former Prime Minister of Australia, and he seems to be making perfect sense. What is there in that article with which you disagree, and why?

Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world does not revolve around the EU.

I understand that you are a remainer, and that's fair enough. But to accuse people of being delusional when they post a factual piece like this tends to make me think that it is your mind that is closed to any information you receive that doesn't fit your preference.

I continue to listen to both sides of the argument but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that tells me that staying in is better than leaving. Maintaining frictionless trade is the most convincing of the remainer arguments, which is why I would prefer a deal, but Tony Abbott's article shows that a 'no deal' is not the end of the world, by any means!

Re: Brexit
 

And they are wasting their time, especially with me.

EU is totally corrupt and being a member paying extortionate amount of money to be so, is a total con job and nothing nobody says on here will change my view ever!!!

Re: Brexit
 

Agreed. However, I think Theresa May has done us all a favour, because we now know exactly how far the EU is prepared to go to give us a withdrawal agreement. What now needs to be decided is whether what they are offering is worth £39bn or whether we should just leave.

When that dawns on Parliament, I dare say there will be a few about turns, particularly by the Opposition.

Re: Brexit
 

It's an opinion piece from a politician who hasn't held office in this country or within the European Union.

I have already pointed out areas of concern about that piece. Maintaining EU standards means we adhere to their rules, on their terms and affects our ability to negotiate trade deals with other countries.

Not imposing any borders or customs checks, in the absence of a free trade agreement with the EU is an absolute fantasy. WTO rules will simply not allow unrestricted movement of goods across the UK/EU borders, and pretending the Ireland issue doesn't exist will not make that the case.

I doubt you will ever hear a convincing argument, I'd be more likely to resurrect Ian Paisley Snr and convert him to Roman Catholicism such is the extent you are entrenched in your views - and that's fine.

The fact is that remaining within the European Union is coming back into the public discourse and this isn't by chance. Once the Theresa May deal gets voted down we will extend, delay, renegotiate and ultimately remain within the EU because nobody has made adequate contingencies for crashing out on WTO terms in March 2019.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:49 ----------

I'm not actually trying to convince anyone that the EU are right or "where they are coming from". I'm spelling out the cold hard reality that there's no plan for Brexit and no appetite for the politicians to go through with it in the absence of one.

Yes, someone will tell me that 17.4 million people will be pissed off with that and equally something in the region of 16.8 million will be happy with it, and a further 30 million or so people just getting on with their lives probably glad to hear the end of it.

Re: Brexit
 

Well, judging by how the last pro-Brexit rally went, I doubt the Police would be overly-troubled in the event of our remaining in the EU. (Although I still think that Theresa May will get her deal through.)
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk...j5Pjg0OYqrm7Ok

Re: Brexit
 

The Irish position is important because however much people are blaming them for the border issue they've not said how they would solve it.

Do you have a border or do you not? If you do not then how do you manage the import and export of goods when you don't want a customs union? You could put a border in the Irish Sea, the EU agreed to that idea but the DUP didn't.

Re: Brexit
 

What is there to solve? Did you read the Abbot article?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

jfman I feel confident that the ex prime minister of Australia has a better knowledge of trade agreements, the EU and WTO rules than you, I or anyone else on this forum.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

What about the Prime Minister who followed him and said his shotgun trade agreement with India wasn't fit for purpose?

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...10-gvhrpb.html

Looks to me more like he misses the finer details and doesn't fully think through the consequences of these things.

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 14:26 ----------

We equally have no playable cards. The can gets kicked down the road 100% before we go for no deal.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

The following prime minister never mentioned "not fit for purpose" what he did say was

If you are going to use a media report to try and prove a point then at least quote what it says rather than your opinion of what it says.

Re: Brexit
 

No deal is hardly a quandary for the EU.

It's one of the options they have forced us into alongside 'bad deal'.

I'm sure the EU project as a whole wouldn't mind 'no deal' as an example to other Member States what life will be like for them if they leave. The EU will have been preparing for that contingency since June 2016.

While £39bn is a lot, I'm sure the largest trading bloc in the world can find it somewhere else.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Did the agreement go ahead as negotiated by Mr Abbot or did it not?

I think it's reasonable to state that something that required more work, and more negotiations, is not fit for purpose.

I'm loving how the pain in the Brexiteers is resulting in the conversation becoming sidetracked to avoid the reality that there's no Parliamentary majority for May's deal and none for No Deal.

Re: Brexit
 

Are you for real? What agreement had been negotiated?

Re: Brexit
 

Are you for real? You are sidetracking the conversation on the back of an opinion piece. Abbot has negotiated bad deals in the past that got postponed by his successor, indicating his understanding may not be as much as you first believed.