Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

. Due to obvious pressure from UKIP in strategic conservative seats. Labour also suffered greatly from support for UKIP. Arguably Labour only due so well in the election because the Europe Question had been settled in the referendum. Labour may find themselves impacted if they support remain and fudged Brexit hence no clear Brexit policy from Labour.

You have been very adept at ignoring questions so I don’t see why you should be so exorcised now.

You have consistently ignored my answers that are often available if you read the posts you are quoting.

It’s not difficult. He is obviously trying to get a hard brexiteer in power such as David Davies. Or someone thT is happy to take us out with no deal.

I, and I don’t think anyone else has, suggested another deal is achievable. It’s this deal or no deal. Go fo no deal, see what happens.

No deal is achievable from the backbenches according to you.

Specifically, and given nobody thinks there’s room for further negotiation, what is the advantage of removing the PM over leaving her in as a fall guy for “no deal”?

They want her removed because she can’t be trusted to deliver any Brexit when push comes to shove.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

You have consistently ignored my answers that are often available if you read the posts you are quoting.

Another non-answer, you think you’re being clever..............

Newsflash, you’re not.

No deal is achievable from the backbenches according to you.

you’ve said that twice now, I haven’t seen anyone else state that but you?

given nobody thinks there’s room for further negotiation, what is the advantage of removing the PM over leaving her in as a fall guy for “no deal”?

Well, I don’t know, but seeing that the EU know exactly what her goals are, and what she is prepared to accept, why not replace her with someone else.? In any event it would be after we had left anyway.

They want her removed because she can’t be trusted to deliver any Brexit when push comes to shove.

Master of the bleedin’ obvious

And some think these guys could negotiate a better deal with the EU - they’ve managed to increase TM’s support amongst the public.

Not what they were planning, methinks...

From tomorrow’s Times.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And some think these guys could negotiate a better deal with the EU - they’ve managed to increase TM’s support amongst the public.

Exactly. The lie that the Brexiters could negotiate better than May has well and truly be proven to be exactly that. And now, Brexiters are having to face up to the reality that what they were being offered was Project Unicorn which is not going down well in some quarters.

---------- Post added 21-11-2018 at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was 20-11-2018 at 23:52 ----------

It's long been said that our Brexit secretaries haven't been the brightest lights on the street. Here's something that tickled me; if only it wasn't true!

David Davis has been ridiculed for suggesting the UK could enter a post-Brexit transition period after leaving the EU with no deal.
The Conservative MP, who was Brexit secretary for two years before resigning in July, was branded “deluded” over an opinion piece which appeared to show he did not understand fundamental aspects of the withdrawal negotiations.
In an article for the Conservative Home website, he wrote: “If we need to leave with no deal and negotiate a free trade agreement during the transition period, so be it. Let’s be clear and honest and tell the EU that’s what we are prepared to do.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8642526.html

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

.
I, and I don’t think anyone else has, suggested another deal is achievable. It’s this deal or no deal. Go fo no deal, see what happens.

We'll know on 27 November if technically we can cancel Article 50 from a UK perspective so that could be another outcome, albeit one I think unlikely.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Another non-answer, you think you’re being clever..............

Newsflash, you’re not.

you’ve said that twice now, I haven’t seen anyone else state that but you?



Well, I don’t know, but seeing that the EU know exactly what her goals are, and what she is prepared to accept, why not replace her with someone else.? In any event it would be after we had left anyway.

Master of the bleedin’ obvious

I thought Brexit couldn’t be stopped? If it’s obvious she can’t be trusted to deliver Brexit then it must be possible?

It’s been stated multiple times that it’s May’s deal or no deal. The follow on from that (if you genuinely believe it) is that’s the ERG, DUP, etc can achieve no deal from the backbenches.

I don’t know why you think I’m trying to be clever, I’m stating facts that you are uncomfortable with but that’s not the same thing.

---------- Post added at 08:32 ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We'll know on 27 November if technically we can cancel Article 50 from a UK perspective so that could be another outcome, albeit one I think unlikely.

I don’t know if we will know then, I think it’s just the hearing it could be a few weeks before we know.

I’m not sure if it’s just an advice ruling for the Court of Session in Edinburgh, who will ultimately rule on the back of advice from the ECJ.

In my opinion only, I can’t envisage a scenario where the ECJ would not allow a democratically elected government of a Member State to decide it has incorrectly or inappropriately applied it’s Treaty rights in relation to Article 50 and condemn its citizens to life outside the Union. Short-lived coalition Governments across the EU have in the past lasted shorter than the A50 process.

I’m not saying that is what happened in the case of the UK, but the decision would become binding to other scenarios like the one described above.

Originally Posted by Hugh

And some think these guys could negotiate a better deal with the EU - they’ve managed to increase TM’s support amongst the public.

Not what they were planning, methinks...

From tomorrow’s Times.

Here are the details of the poll:

Originally Posted by The Times

A week ago 33 per cent of voters backed Mrs May staying in her post and 47 per cent wanted her to go, a YouGov poll for The Times showed. Now 46 per cent say that she should stay and 34 per cent want her to stand down. The poll of 1,647 adults was taken on Monday and Tuesday.

The poll also shows that Mrs May’s fortunes have most improved among Tory voters. A week ago 43 per cent who voted Conservative in the 2017 general election said that they wanted her to stand down. Now only 27 per cent want her to resign. The proportion of 2016 Leave voters who want her to resign has dropped from 55 per cent a week ago to 39 per cent now.

Massive turnaround for her. I suspect mostly because of the rebellion and May's tenacity. I was, am, not a massive fan of Theresa May but I have to give her credit for sticking around to get the job in the face of a rebellious party and poor election results. While the likes of Boris did nothing in their departments and then ran away again she stuck at it.

It does make you wonder if we were taking the ERG too seriously though. The party and the country have endured a melodrama of wondering when Jacob Rees Mogg and Steve Baker would fire the starting gun and when the moment came, complete with Mogg grandstanding in Parliament and Baker holding press conferences, nothing happened.

Steve Baker especially has been protrayed as the silent powerbroker of the Conservative Party, the genius behind Brexit. Maybe he was just more willing to talk to journalists writing books about Brexit....

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

If the electorate accept the May deal as Brexit it will only confirm what many suspected.

It was about racism and xenophobia.

That's a pretty sweeping statement to make, and playing the 'racist' card makes you look silly. Do you work for the BBC?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

That's a pretty sweeping statement to make, and playing the 'racist' card makes you look silly. Do you work for the BBC?

It’s hardly silly, I see you’ve selectively removed my lines about how it leaves us adhering to EU rules and standards - so it wasn’t about red tape. That’ll hinder our ability to negotiate trade deals - so again it wasn’t about that.

That only leaves freedom of movement. Which ironically when you ask they mean foreigners coming here, not white English people retiring to the Spain.

(sorry, freedom of movement and blue passports).

[Carth]

oh I'm awfully sorry, I thought you meant all people who voted leave did so due to "racism and xenophobia"

. . . actually I still think you meant that

[jfman]

If only there was a way to send people back to the colonies... like losing relevant documentation proving their right to reside here.

[Carth]

Reading through the article you linked Mr k, it's not just Brexit to blame . . . however the word Brexit grabs the headlines yet again

[jonbxx]

We had a Brexit update at work Yesterday from the chap who is heading that project. Our UK head is regular contact with the government and even speaks regularly to Theresa May about Brexit to get some reassurances.

Due to the timelines and lack of clarity, we are now in full 'prepare for no deal' mode shifting legal and tax entities out of the UK. Of special interest was the logistics for Ireland, looking at options for air freight (expensive) or shipping from mainland Europe (takes a long time)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t know why you think I’m trying to be clever, I’m stating facts that you are uncomfortable with but that’s not the same thing.[COLOR="Silver"]
.

The point is you haven't stated any facts.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The point is you haven't stated any facts.

In your opinion only. Further discussion is pointless if you won’t read, or are unable to understand, the posts I’m making.