Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The EU has said ever since the Chequers proposal was published that key aspects in it were unacceptable. I don't see why that should change just because Theresa May has hopped on a plane. The only people who've changed their minds on Chequers have been BoJo and David Davis.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

We voted to become a 3rd country - do you get it yet?

We have tried to protect our interests and the EU 27 have done the same. It is called Reality ..

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

More fool them. Onwards to Brexit day.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Macron is spot on regards the Great Democracy Swindle:

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

He seems very perceptive, can we vote for him ;)

TM has cocked up big time, now the idiots will take over the asylum......God help us...

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

If I was the NHS, I would sue the Leave Campaign for using the NHS logo without permission. Use of a brand indicates approval which the campaign didn't have.

---------- Post added at 21:18 ---------- Previous post was at 21:02 ----------

Pressure's on!
https://www.ft.com/content/95466282-...4-55b72926558f

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-m...-work-11503460

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Good for them. I wonder how many people read that from cover to cover? Even if they did, it was not more than a page on the impact on the economy, wasn't it?

Frankly, the public are not as stupid as you think. Those who voted to leave the EU simply voted to leave. The details are for the politicians, just like it is for manifesto commitments.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

No he isn’t. Utter rubbish.

They weren’t in government to “leave” the next day in the first place!!!

I’m sick of repeating the same stuff all the time.

The Leave campaign were just a campaign. They ceased to be a campaign after 23rd June 2016. They had no responsibility to enact the result and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly delusional.

We keep bringing up the same shit about lies. Both campaigns lied.

We are going round in circles, yet again about lies and that people didn’t know what they were voting for, bollocks. I know what voted for and expect the choice that won to be carried out in its entirety because I do not want the UK in a corrupted EU.

Brexit is happening. That’s what won the Democratic vote and the result must be enacted.

---------- Post added at 03:11 ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 ----------

And it did not need. The NHS is a public body, not a corporation.

And to be frank, even if it was, suing them is petty.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I have mentioned this before but it seems closer now: Brexit means Corbyn.

Labour 'could win 1.5m more votes' by backing Brexit referendum

If Corbyn can be persuaded or more likely made to change his position on Brexit, after all he is a arch Leaver but still a politician, Labour will win a GE if called.

May is desperate and realises this:

That’s why I’m calling on Labour to rule out a second referendum and not take us back to square one.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

You seem quite pleased. Unfortunately, the EU's intransigence, if it continues, will simply lead to a 'no deal'. That means WTO, of course.

So any leavers who are cock-a-hoop at the EU's 'rejection' of the Chequers proposals need to ponder the fact that this just means we are one step closer to that position.

Frankly, if I were TM, I would announce at the Conservative Party Conference that although Britain had put 'the only proposal in town' to the EU, it was clear that they still wanted concessions from us despite the fact that they knew there was no room to maneouvre politically in the UK. Consequently, the UK would now be putting all its energy into preparing for a 'no deal' scenario, but that our negotiators would be on hand to resume negotiations if the EU came up with suitable proposals which the UK government would be able to accept. In the meantime, we would be asking the EU for a Canada-style UK trade deal.

It is clear that a 'no deal' will also hurt the EU. If anything will bring them to their senses, that will. Some EU leaders really think that by holding out, we will change our minds about Brexit. How wrong they are!

---------- Post added at 07:55 ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 ----------

Of course TM wants Labour to rule out another referendum. She has enough to contend with, without having to constantly engage in that nonsense.

The public has more sense than to vote a Marxist, terrorist supporting geezer like the current Leader of the Labour Party into power. Most don't want another referendum anyway. The result is likely to be the same as last time, of course.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The ownership doesn't matter. You have to sue to deter others and protect your reputation.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Andrew, yes it does matter. NHS is a tax payer funded public institution, so in essence it belongs to the people, not one single person or entity.

As for Corbyn, there will not be a General Election, any time soon, the fixed term Parliament Act says so. There would have to be a vote put to parliament.

Labour had this apparent glorious Manifesto, where they supported Brexit, if they did an about turn they would lose a lot of UKIP votes.

These people in the Remain camp hoping for a another referendum, do you think if Remain won, it would all be hunky dory?

You are delusional. There would be untold demands for another vote, why should you get another vote and it be implemented when the 2016 result is ignored?

And we keep going having tons of votes because undemocratic, selfish people who will not accept the democratic result in 2016, want us to keep going until they get the result they want.

We had a vote, leave won. Thus, we are leaving the EU on 29th March 2019.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I'm pretty surprised the heads of state went in so hard to be honest. Chequers was never going to fly - trusting the UK to collect EU tariffs after the UK has been censured for not collecting tariffs properly in the past was never an option. Countries don't trust each other, hence the need for a solid governance system in trade deals.

However, Theresa May was probably the EUs best bet for a deal, hence the reluctance to say an outright 'no' from the start. If she goes, will her replacement be more amenable to what the EU wants? I would say almost certainly no, May was probably the most EU friendly potential leader of the Conservative party at present. Therefore the other heads of state and the EU have a vested interest in keeping her in power. To go in hard just before the party conference sounds like they have given up on keeping May in power.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
 

This could actually strengthen May if she now came out and said, 'Well, we tried, but the fact that the EU is not prepared to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement clearly shows that there is no possibility of a deal until they decide to engage. Accordingly, we will now conentrate on making the necessary WTO arrangements to secure our future enhanced prosperity'.

At that point, I think TM's fortunes will change.