Re: Brexit
 

Yes my allotment fee is due for renewal, I'm thinking much the same about the 'committee' ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, something exceptional and marvellous happened in 2016, the UK saw sense and opted to finally leave the cancerous and corrupted EU.

The Currency issue.... It’s called market uncertainty and it will only get worse if Brexit gets delayed. I don’t give a shit about the £ vs €. Crap currency that the Euro is!

Re: Brexit
 

You might not give a crap about it but plenty of people do. But screw everyone else eh? Can we also drop the cancerous word? It's a pretty strong word to use and can be upsetting to some people.

Re: Brexit
 

It's all feelings and hatred of others though isn't it? Very little evidence. That really is the root cause of Brexit, the economic reality has caused the current problems. It just doesn't add up.

Re: Brexit
 

Sounds interesting. I have been trying to find the article without any luck (searched the Express web site for '2020' with no luck) Do you have a link at all?

At first I thought this might be related to the '2020 Lisbon Treaty' thing that has been posted many times on social media which includes things like the LSE moving to Frankfurt, losing control of our nuclear deterrent, losing control of our planning legislation etc. but that says joining the Euro will happen in 2022 so I guess it wasn't that. (Thoroughly debunked BTW here - https://twitter.com/StevePeers/statu...58784001654784 )

By the way, does anyone watch videos by CGP Grey on Youtube. Always great fun, he is a very good explainer. He's an Irish/American living in the UK and worked as a teacher. He has done one video on Brexit in the past but has added two new ones;

The EU's 'SECRET' Brexit Negotiation EXPOSED - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E

🇬🇧🔥 Brexit, Briefly: REVISITED! 🔥🇪🇺 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Yv24cM2os

Nicely distills down the negotiation positions of the UK and EU

Re: Brexit
 

EU plan to charge us 1 billion a month for each month (and impose punitive conditions) that Brexit is delayed:

https://en.news-front.info/2019/03/1...-brexit-delay/

Re: Brexit
 

DELAY, MAY Theresa May urged to SCRAP tomorrow’s crunch vote on Brexit deal as talks with EU break down



Tory MPs are urging her to hold a symbolic motion on whether to approve the deal subject to a set of specific changes.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit...s-theresa-may/

Re: Brexit
 

Official EU document

Re: Brexit
 

So they want a vote on an imaginary deal? :D

Re: Brexit
 

That’s the going rate for membership just without the rebate.

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

I vote unicorn Brexit!

Re: Brexit
 

You read strange websites to get to the truth :)

https://en.news-front.info/contact-us/

Address:

NewsFront, 57 Strelkovaya street, Crimea, Russia, 295034

Re: Brexit
 

That's because it's an opinion piece by Andrew Lilico (who writes in the BrexitCentral) in the Express, posted in 2014 (but then it was by 2020 every country had to be in the Euro), resurrected by the Express every couple of years (last time was in 2017) and that has been soundly debunked many times since...

Esther McVey used it last week, and got slammed for spreading lies.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/100115/est...ing-on-twitter

Re: Brexit
 

No we cannot - I will continue to use a word that best describes such an organisation, i.e the EU, because that is what it is. Don't also play the heart strings with me, it will not work - I too have lost family members to cancer.

---------- Post added at 12:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 ----------

It is not lies - the cancerous and corrupted EU will enforce us to use the Euro, if we do not leave, I can tell you that now, it will be a condition on being allowed to stay, if Brexit is not delivered.

Re: Brexit
 

If it's not true, and has been proven to be not true, it's a lie.

Re: Brexit
 

That's your choice it's your site, just thought I'd ask considering you're always laying down the laws on things you don't like. Pretty disappointing attitude to have though.

Re: Brexit
 

Daily Telegraph
It's probable that the other article came as a result of the one in the Daily Telegraph.


The Independent from over a year ago.
IE £350m/week=£18.2bn/year.

Re: Brexit
 

Ah, wondered if it was this! I see Esther McVey deleted the tweet saying this after multiple replies calling out the fact that it was nonsense. Even the shortest google search brings up Protocol 15 of the TFEU;

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2016/pro_15/oj

Re: Brexit
 

If people have to resort to lies to make a case, they can't have the strongest of cases.

Re: Brexit
 

Like hell has it been proven.

FFS It will happen!!!

They said years ago, there wouldn't be an EU Army - guess what Hugh ??

There is going to be a EU Army and corrupted cretins in the EU are championing for a EU Army.

Who you trying to kid?!?!?!? :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

Didn't we also have an exemption from the Working Time Directive? The EU(ie Germany) forced it upon us by the backdoor by classing it as a health and safety issue.

Re: Brexit
 

You also...

The EU Army was suppose to be a lie.

It's bloody happening!!! :rolleyes:



---------- Post added at 13:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 ----------

No, I am not laying down the laws on things I don't like at all, utter nonsense. This looks like another of your cynical attempts to accuse me of some wrong doing, somewhere, when absolutely none exists, so pack it in. :dozey:

There is nothing against the rules on describing something as "cancerous".

What you are demanding is censorship of something YOU don't like.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't remember seeing anything regarding discussion around betting, but it didn't stop you from asking it to be refrained from being talked about further back in this thread.

It certainly comes over that you are laying down the law on things you don't like, regardless of if you actually are or not.


The EU Army is happening is it?


To which the UK would of had a veto.

https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/

Now who's at it with the project fear ???

Re: Brexit
 

they already said we can stay on exact same terms as now only way they can force us to use euro is if we leave then rejoin in a few years time

Re: Brexit
 

We do have an exemption - many people sign it as part of their contract of employment. I don't know where your link is from but this is a UK Government one.
https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours

Exactly.
There seems to be a concerted campaign to bring up all the misinformation we heard back in 2016 about the EU. There's not a key vote coming up in the Commons is there? ;)

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------

Original Project Fear was always a leave initiative with talk of Euro, Turkey joining the EU etc.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Well spotted. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Headline aside, as it was a opinion piece does that now mean all opinions are lies?

Did you actually read it or just do your quick google to find and post the link?

Re: Brexit
 

Report summary on red link.

Re: Brexit
 

To have any semblance of credibility to that article, the Telegraph needs to amend the headline "After 2020, all EU members will have to adopt the euro".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-the-euro.html

Re: Brexit
 

What part of headline aside don't you understand?

Re: Brexit
 

It doesn't appear to be fake news though, here is a report from closer to home:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...itain-14117460

It's been suggested by a BBC political correspondent that next week May might say that, due to the lack of time left, MP's could be told "it's my deal or no Brexit".

I think he could have a point as May could then either get her deal accepted, or say that she tried to deliver the result of the referendum, but it was down to MP's preventing her that stopped this being possible.

This is especially so if MP's vote to rule out leaving without a deal.

Re: Brexit
 

I am not saying that the news is not true. The Mirror is more credible than The Daily Vlad however articles based on repeating what "diplomatic sources told the Telegraph" still leave a lot to be desired.

The cited monthly amount seems to be just click-bait as we pay over £1 billion per month anyway as EU members so if we do not leave, we still would be paying our dues.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I've opted out of that, signed a bit of paper confirming it to

Re: Brexit
 

I actually previously read it - it has been proven to be untrue, and the evidence to prove it is untrue has been posted in this thread.

It was reported as a news piece (based on fact), rather than an opinion piece (based on, you know, opinions, from an avid Brexiteer).

Re: Brexit
 

As that article says "The Daily Telegraph has learnt.". They are merely just copying what the Daily Telegraph had said. How likely is it that the EU won't send us a huge bill?

Re: Brexit
 

Brexit minister just confirmed all the votes will take place Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday

Re: Brexit
 

Could you show the proof please? I can't find anything beyond the Protocol 15 published in 2016 which does seem to refute the assertion that the UK will be forced to join the Euro.

I wonder how this will affect Denmark who, up until now, also has had an opt out to joining the Euro?

Re: Brexit
 

All that seems to have moved is the target date to 2025.
From official EU document.

Re: Brexit
 

Like an MOT certificate that’s only a valid statement of the situation at that point in time. ;)

---------- Post added at 16:14 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

Completing the European and Monetary Union means those member states who joined the EU after creation but do not yet use the Euro - those without opt-outs.

Re: Brexit
 

So what is a "forced" decision, if not against their will?

Re: Brexit
 

That’s an unsourced sentence at the end of an article, essentially the opinion of the author.

There’s no published EU documents to support the claim. The part above about establishing a Treasury for the euro-area is true, and the Commission always encourages Member States to join.

However there’s nothing about ending the opt-out of Member States who have one. As that would require a Treaty level change it could also be stopped very easily. Which the EU know.

I’d imagine it’s a creative interpretation of this document:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...DC0821&from=EN

Even the vision for 2025 refers to the euro-area as a separate and distinct category than the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

It helps if you link to things you are quoting, because context is important - in this case

https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-e...etary-union_en

From 3 hours ago, on the BBC website

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47523168

Re: Brexit
 

Statement in Strasbourg at 9pm.

Can’t believe our PM addressing us from inside enemy territory with news. She should wait until she’s on sovereign British soil before giving those perfidious Europeans the V-sign from the cliffs of Dover. Then update us on the deal.

Re: Brexit
 

This is it! Those pesky Europeans have finally succumbed and will offer us those benefits of being in the EU that we choose without being a member.

Re: Brexit
 

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status...64642832261120

So if the above happens will the ERG stop whining and back it or will they find some other reason to cry treachery?

Re: Brexit
 

I have a feeling (no evidence) that May has managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat somehow

Re: Brexit
 

she must think she got something for her to go to Strasbourg

Re: Brexit
 

The BBC article refers to 2020, when the actual target date is 2025.
As I've already pointed out, the UK had an opt out on the Working Time Directive. That opt-out was overridden.

Denmark and Sweden signed up to this.

Re: Brexit
 

You are selectively interpreting the phrase “completing the Economic and Monetary Union”.

It means completing a series of reforms in this context - not forcing countries outside the eurozone to adopt it.

Ironically, the proposed reforms give more power to the democratically elected European Parliament and give less power to the behind closed doors meetings of the Eurogroup of finance ministers. The reforms, in theory, reduce the power and influence of France and Germany.

Indeed, presumably the United Kingdom is a signatory to that?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

So the best way to control the direction of the EU in line with the will of citizens would be to have working groups from each government, like finance ministers from each Member State getting together and agreeing between themselves?

Re: Brexit
 

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...28060381638657

Re: Brexit
 

My verdict: :redcard:

Re: Brexit
 

Labour are unimpressed.
https://news.sky.com/story/live-ther...rough-11662218

Re: Brexit
 

Hillary Benn just asked a question as to whether the European Court of Justice would have a say in the interpretation of these “legally binding changes” affecting any ruling of an arbitration panel. The answer didn’t console John Redwood.

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

The Government motion tomorrow says: “which reduces the risk the UK could be deliberately held in the Northern Ireland backstop indefinitely”.

Does it reduce the risk or eliminate it? If the latter why is more vague terminology being put before the House?

Re: Brexit
 

^^^^^^^^ Blah Blah Blah ..


Onwards and Upwards :D

Re: Brexit
 

Some of us are discussing Brexit and the Parliamentary process. I understand it’ll involve difficult concepts for you so perhaps best to just go to bed and hope it’s a bad dream. :dunce:

Have you fixed your countdown?

Re: Brexit
 

Isn't that what the original agreement amounted to? Apart from the time it would take to finalise any "formal dispute", all the EU has to do is proclaim they showed "good faith".
From "Legal position on the Withdrawal Agreement" document, Dec 2018.

Re: Brexit
 

These significant changes to the backstop were always on the cards,Just had to wait for the EU to have a bumrush ... :p:

Re: Brexit
 

There’s no meaningful changes here. The words have been shuffled around on the side document but the basics are the EU only has to demonstrate good faith to the CJEU, it’s own highest court.

Re: Brexit
 

Some interesting Tweets from Sky's Kate McCann:
- Brexiteer Sir Mike Penning: I can now vote for the deal
- A lot rests on how the DUP interpret tonight. Feeling that if they back deal it becomes v difficult for Conservatives not to do the same. If DUP say no, one senior minister tells me: "We're screwed".
- One pro-Brexit Conservative MP (opposed to deal) says the new stuff looks "ropey" but will be enough for a number of Brexiteers who were looking for a way to "climb down". They'll make a call based on Martin Howe QC's legal advice (star chamber), not Cox.
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann

Re: Brexit
 

That was never the case. It has always been AND STILL IS, that by refusing to come to an agreement on alternative arrangements, the backstop remains.
Original draft agreement on the backstop.

No subsequent agreement = backstop remains.

Re: Brexit
 

May has them exactly where she wants them. They know that the day after tomorrow Parliament will vote down no deal, leaving no choice but to extend. In that time? Who knows what could happen in that time.

May is handing them the chance to deliver Brexit tomorrow.

Re: Brexit
 

I reckon she could get it through tomorrow.

Re: Brexit
 

So the deal is still the same deal.

Deal or no deal.

Time for a people vote.
Q1. LEAVE OR REMAIN
Q2. If Leave wins by 50.1%
Vote for Deal or No Deal.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 01:39 ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 ----------

Re: Brexit
 

Yeah the changes don’t seem to really be changes but better language with which to sell it and ones which might help the U.K.in a court case over the backstop.

What it does do is give Brexiters an excuse to vote for the deal and the press are backing the deal this morning..

Re: Brexit
 

All comes down to what the Attorney General says now.

I think it will get through by the skin of it's teeth.

Re: Brexit
 

I hope it does. Sick of it. No deal should be avoided. However if the ERG do throw their toys out of the pram then they risk a less 'clean' Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

I think more than the AG the legal opinion of Nigel Dodds and the ERG appointed lawyers to consider it will carry more weight.

If 116 more MPs vote for this than the last deal it’ll show them up as the spineless clueless shower many suspected them to be. Two more months of uncertainty for business, Parliamentary and civil service time wasted to achieve nothing.

Re: Brexit
 

The ERG should be renamed to ‘Moggmentum" - they are exactly the same as Momentum, only in the Right Wing.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Fair enough & fair comment.

Re: Brexit
 

It's the only 'brexit', you're going to get folks and probably the best we can get. Considerably worse than our current deal, and not brexit at all. But might be enough to give the nutters a climb down. What's laughable is absolutely nothing has changed. Aren't politicians a laugh ! ;)

Re: Brexit
 

So how is this any different to before? If it is so cut and dried that the backstop is only temporary, why the need for a possible "formal dispute"? If the result of the "formal dispute" goes against the UK, which it probably will, then the backstop becomes permanent.

Re: Brexit
 

You’ve got to hand it to Theresa May putting her deal up three times to get voted on.

Re: Brexit
 

Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General: "the legal risk remains unchanged".

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._co..___2_.pdf

Re: Brexit
 

well interesting 2 days ahead when deal voted down tonight and no deal voted down tomorrow

Re: Brexit
 

Doesn't look good for TM or indeed Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

I see the digs and counter digs have happened and it's the same people. Time outs issued yet again:

Polite Reminder:

Re: Brexit
 

DUP statement in approx five minutes, but, so far from their previous comments it's not looking good.

Re: Brexit
 

Gavin Esler summed up the new "deal".

And a International Law lawyer posted this Also, the Pound dropped sharply on hearing Cox’s legal device that the legal risk hadn’t changed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47539682

Re: Brexit
 

ERG voting against, DUP not decided yet.

I think May will lose by 80-100 votes tonight

Meaningful vote 3 already been discussed apparently

Re: Brexit
 

ERG 'do not recommend' voting for the deal.

Suggestion is they don't quite recommend voting against. Might abstain.

Re: Brexit
 

Niall Paterson Retweeted

David Blevins
‏
Verified account

@skydavidblevins
6m
6 minutes ago


More
DUP sources: “The party cannot support the Prime Minister’s deal in tonight’s vote.” #Brexit

Re: Brexit
 

Wonder if that will be a vote against or just an abstain?

Re: Brexit
 

If the EU is supposedly so eager to have a deal that removes the backstop, why isn't there a specific end date, instead of an open ended one? The UK has already shown "good faith" that we are trying to come up with an acceptable arrangement.


Is there anywhere else in the world, outside of any trade agreement and/or security issues, where one country demands that another sovereign state obey certain conditions in connection with it's border?

Re: Brexit
 

Both parties have shown good faith so far, the question of good faith comes in the trade deal negotiations. But a backstop obviously ceases to be a backstop when it is time-limited.
The island of Ireland may well have unique arrangements in place, but security is a key issue driving this.

Re: Brexit
 

Most unlikely but you have to remember this is Ireland. Remember that British citizens can live freely in Ireland and Irish citizens can do the same in the UK which includes being able to vote.

Re: Brexit
 

The whole thing is a nonsense, to my mind. If the EU meant what they said about neither side wanting the backstop, and if introduced it would be for the minimum time possible, they should jolly well have entered into a legal agreement to confirm that. The fact that they won't do this speaks for itself. The EU is conducting these negotiations in bad faith.

I know people are terrified at the prospect, but we really need to leave without a deal. Even just saying that this is the road we are now on will shower the EU refuseniks with cold water and they would at last wake up to the reality of their intransigence.

The EU will charge us for any extension of the Brexit date, and without a concrete plan in mind, they may well not agree it anyway as that would not solve anything.

Given that the EU have not come up with any legal assurances that clarify the UK's right to time-limit the backstop, MPs will vote down the deal tonight.

So unless we go for the 'no deal' option, there is nowhere else to go. All other options would be unacceptable to the electorate as this would not involve leaving the EU.

Interestingly, Jacob Rees Mogg believes there is a way of maintaining the status quo while a new trade deal with the EU is negotiated.

On 10 May, Jacob Rees Mogg stated:

"If you are in a negotiation for a free trade agreement, you can maintain your existing standards for ten years under WTO rules. So we have ten years from the point at which we leave the European Union to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which would mean we can carry on with our zero tariffs."

If he is right on this, leaving without a deal would be far better than the withdrawal agreement. Maybe that is what we should be getting a legal opinion on. We all know the score on the backstop, so no legal confirmation needed on the blindingly obvious.

Re: Brexit
 

DUP not backing revised deal


I wonder if not backing = abstention or actively voting against

Re: Brexit
 

It isn't a real backstop if it's time limited though. The point of it is to have something in place in case all else fails.

Re: Brexit
 

Surprisingly - House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, selects no amendments to tonights Meaningful votes and there were a few as per:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47539221

Re: Brexit
 

Well, if it's forever, it is unacceptable.

The backstop could easily be time-limited to provide the opportunity for negotiations to be exhausted. Parliament would never agree to the potential for a permanent backstop from which we could never extracate ourselves. Why would anyone think that would be acceptable?

All the EU had to do was to provide that the backstop was an integral part of the withdrawal agreement and that when the agreement came to an end with a new trade deal, or alternatively by six months' notice of termination by either side, all its provisions would end.

Why does the EU consider that to be so difficult? Because they are pulling a fast one, that's why. How gullible do they think we are?

Re: Brexit
 

The backstop is not time-limited. That is the central issue on this. The "good faith" that the EU has shown is to simply say no to any suggestion.

Re: Brexit
 

DUP confirmed as voting AGAINST deal.

Re: Brexit
 

Well they did also say you could have customs check in the Irish sea. The backstop applying to the whole UK was our idea.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

The backstop would go in any agreement. It's unlikely that we would never reach an agreement with the biggest economic block in the world.

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------

Personally if I was a Brexiter I would say go for it. Brexit is 100% locked, done, tonight if this bill passes. It's over and done with If they vote it down then yes maybe they'll get no deal or maybe there will be an extension and then who knows what'll happen.

Re: Brexit
 

A rather defeatest view, if I might say so. The EU want a deal, and we would be in a better position if we were negotiating it from outside the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

Why? We would be the ones without any trade deals and a pressing need to secure one. The EU literally signed a trade deal with Japan the other month, an economy bigger than ours.