Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't know why you and others continue to clutch at straws like this.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[heero_yuy]

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

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.

Ah, clarity is sweet!

[pip08456]

(quote)The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.(/quote)

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ah, clarity is sweet!

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 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

(quote)The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.(/quote)

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

Has nobody ever amended an Act of Parliament? Ever?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.[COLOR="Silver"]

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

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. [SEPH]: Yes.

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. [SEPH]: Yes.


I’d hope before sacrificing a chunk of GDP that a Government would consider the likelihood of both. [SEPH]: Yes - but our guvmin isn't good enough and Labour would be worse.


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. [SEPH]: I don't mind a second referendum although I prefer not. If you've read my previous posts, I'd like to leave this nasty EU run for the benefit of Germany and France. On the other hand if we remain, it'll be fun sticking it to them as we can do from outside the Euro tent and outside the 'ever-closer-union' chains.



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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The easiest free trade deal ever? Not quite. We can't accept no deal either.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

It would still up for negotiation.

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

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

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.

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

[Sephiroth]

This deal might have been acceptable had we not seen evidence of the bad faith and bullying of the EU. We can't trust them to negotiate in true good faith via the weasel words "best endeavours".\contained in the political protocol.

There are apologists for the EU on this thread who defend the obvious intention of the EU to squeeze the most out of Brexit that they can at the UK's expense rather than supporting a campaign to stand up to the EU and send them into a spin over the 39 billion etc.

It is very clear to me that it has been the EU's plan, at the behest of the perfidious Irish government, to carve Ulster out of the UK. The Draft Agreement does little to thwart that.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This deal might have been acceptable had we not seen evidence of the bad faith and bullying of the EU. We can't trust them to negotiate in true good faith via the weasel words "best endeavours".\contained in the political protocol.

There are apologists for the EU on this thread who defend the obvious intention of the EU to squeeze the most out of Brexit that they can at the UK's expense rather than supporting a campaign to stand up to the EU and send them into a spin over the 39 billion etc.

It is very clear to me that it has been the EU's plan, at the behest of the perfidious Irish government, to carve Ulster out of the UK. The Draft Agreement does little to thwart that.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.[COLOR="Silver"]

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.

It would still up for negotiation

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

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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.