Brexit

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

My point still stands..

Which point?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You don't understand. Article 24 provides for the status quo to be maintained while a trade agreement is being negotiated. Once again, you are putting forward problems that don't exist.

Why can you not post solutions instead of objections? That would be much more constructive and stop this thread going around in circles.

A plan and schedule MUST be in place and agreed by BOTH sides before Article24 can be invoked.

It's not objections, it's statement of fact. get those two things achieved and the country can quite rightly leave on those terms.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Seen it. I have provided the Brexit answer to this. So what is your point?

Those who are opposed to Brexit are desperate to make people believe that Article 24 is impossible. Even the anti-Brexit BBC has now finally conceded that it is, indeed, possible, and given that GATT provides for it, doesn't it just show how establishment figures and organisations try to mislead us?

My point is that those seem more credible sources than Brexit Central or yourself, no offence, so I am inclined to believe them.

Neither of those sources have claimed it's impossible, just very unlikely to the point of not being worth discussing as a serious option.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

The important term in this is "agreement". At the moment with a no deal exit, there is no agreement.

We need to accept that we are not going to get the withdrawal agreement through parliament. So what the new PM needs to do is to acknowledge that, and the concerns expressed about a 'no deal', and propose instead that we agree with the EU a set of objectives to be resolved for a trade agreement. As my Brexit link stated, this does not have to be a detailed document and could be agreed relatively quickly. Any tricky areas could be expressed in terms of matters to be resolved.

Parliament could then be reassured that we would have 10 years to agree a trade deal from outside of the EU, and if Canada could do it in 7 years, that should be a doddle, given we already meet EU standards on the goods we export to them.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

A plan and schedule MUST be in place and agreed by BOTH sides before Article24 can be invoked.

It's not objections, it's statement of fact. get those two things achieved and the country can quite rightly leave on those terms.

NOT difficult.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We need to accept that we are not going to get the withdrawal agreement through parliament. So what the new PM needs to do is to acknowledge that, and the concerns expressed about a 'no deal', and propose instead that we agree with the EU a set of objectives to be resolved for a trade agreement. As my Brexit link stated, this does not have to be a detailed document and could be agreed relatively quickly. Any tricky areas could be expressed in terms of matters to be resolved.

Parliament could then be reassured that we would have 10 years to agree a trade deal from outside of the EU, and if Canada could do it in 7 years, that should be a doddle, given we already meet EU standards on the goods we export to them.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------



NOT difficult.

Neither is understanding this

A plan and schedule MUST be in place and agreed by BOTH sides before Article24 can be invoked.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We need to accept that we are not going to get the withdrawal agreement through parliament. So what the new PM needs to do is to acknowledge that, and the concerns expressed about a 'no deal', and propose instead that we agree with the EU a set of objectives to be resolved for a trade agreement. As my Brexit link stated, this does not have to be a detailed document and could be agreed relatively quickly. Any tricky areas could be expressed in terms of matters to be resolved.

Parliament could then be reassured that we would have 10 years to agree a trade deal from outside of the EU, and if Canada could do it in 7 years, that should be a doddle, given we already meet EU standards on the goods we export to them.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------



NOT difficult.

Achievable by 31st October?

If not difficult, why hasn't it been done already?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

My point is that those seem more credible sources than Brexit Central or yourself, no offence, so I am inclined to believe them.

Neither of those sources have claimed it's impossible, just very unlikely to the point of not being worth discussing as a serious option.

You don't say why you believe that the Brexit link is not a credible way forward. Do you seriously believe that the EU would not accept this solution when a 'no deal' is the only remaining alternative?

Of course not.

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Neither is understanding this

A plan and schedule MUST be in place and agreed by BOTH sides before Article24 can be invoked.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------



Achievable by 31st October?

If not difficult, why hasn't it been done already?

Because Theresa May opted for the Withdrawal Agreement, that's why!

A plan and a schedule could be agreed with the EU very quickly and it doesn't have to be detailed. If padding was necessary, a lot of the wording can be lifted from the draft withdrawal agreement!

Such negativity is incredible! Do you create so many problems if your wife wants you to do anything?

Originally Posted by Mick

And that is not a crime.

If we invent stuff as we are going along here - So we can go after George Osborne, for lying saying there would be thousands of job losses right after a leave result, prosecute David Cameron for lying saying he would be around to enact the referendum result...

As already mentioned, Tony Blair for the Iraq War and WMD lie.... They were all in high office.

This list is endless, this is just a hit job on Boris because he is the scapegoat for the many pathetic Remainers who cannot accept the result that people in the UK do actually want to leave the corrupted EU.



Absolute one sided rubbish and you know it. Why don't we go after people who lied in the Remain camps who probably swayed people to vote Remain, like all the lies of project fear ?

Oh Remain lost, this is why so it doesn't matter to you. Gimme a break FFS.

A District Judge, with 41 years legal experience, disagrees with you.

In her written ruling, District Judge Margot Coleman said: "I accept that the public offices held by Mr Johnson provide status, but with that status comes influence and authority.

"I am satisfied there is sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of an issue to be determined at trial of this aspect."

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You don't say why you believe that the Brexit link is not a credible way forward. Do you seriously believe that the EU would not accept this solution when a 'no deal' is the only remaining alternative?

Of course not.

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------



Because Theresa May opted for the Withdrawal Agreement, that's why!

A plan and a schedule could be agreed with the EU very quickly and it doesn't have to be detailed. If padding was necessary, a lot of the wording can be lifted from the draft withdrawal agreement!

Such negativity is incredible! Do you create so many problems if your wife wants you to do anything?

I see... so why don't we just go back to the EU then when a new PM is chosen and present the new option of agreeing time lines for an A24 exit and see if they agree to it? If it's that easy of course.

Please don't bring my wife into this again. Thank you.

[Mr K]

Seems it's either Life in Prisonment or 10 Downing St. for Boris. He is probably just guilty of not fact checking the crap he puts his name to, and being stupid. In which case he's perfect for PM

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I see... so why don't we just go back to the EU then when a new PM is chosen and present the new option of agreeing time lines for an A24 exit and see if they agree to it? If it's that easy of course.

Please don't bring my wife into this again. Thank you.

Ha ha, you are an absolute scream!

I'm sure that 10 years is long enough, even for the EU!

---------- Post added at 13:53 ---------- Previous post was at 13:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Seems it's either Life in Prisonment or 10 Downing St. for Boris. He is probably just guilty of not fact checking the crap he puts his name to, and being stupid. In which case he's perfect for PM

Now we are getting into the realms of the ridiculous. I mean, even MORE ridiculous!

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ha ha, you are an absolute scream!

I'm sure that 10 years is long enough, even for the EU!

---------- Post added at 13:53 ---------- Previous post was at 13:52 ----------



Now we are getting into the realms of the ridiculous. I mean, even MORE ridiculous!

Sorry, you haven't answered the question. When a new PM is chosen why do they simply not go back to the EU with the A24 proposal?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Seems it's either Life in Prisonment or 10 Downing St. for Boris. He is probably just guilty of not fact checking the crap he puts his name to, and being stupid. In which case he's perfect for PM

He wasn't acting as somebody in public office. He was acting as an individual.

Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

Eg Police officers have been convicted for having consensual sex whilst on duty. It would be rather silly if that also applied outside work time.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

A District Judge, with 41 years legal experience, disagrees with you.

Wrong as usual HUGH.

In her written ruling, District Judge Margot Coleman said: "I accept that the public offices held by Mr Johnson provide status, but with that status comes influence and authority.

"I am satisfied there is sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of an issue to be determined at trial of this aspect."

To be determined means it is not a crime as yet but may be if the crown court sets a precedent.

She has done a Pontius Pilate and passed it on to someone else to decide.

[Mr K]

So he's either a lying minister or a lying individual..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Sorry, you haven't answered the question. When a new PM is chosen why do they simply not go back to the EU with the A24 proposal?

Who's to say they wouldn't? That is exactly what I am saying, isn't it? However, you have put the cart before the horse. The new PM would need to present all the arguments and all the alternatives to Parliament first and get their endorsement. That, in fact, is the main hurdle, not the EU!