Brexit

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Still using totally flawed logic with polls that have been and still are largely wrong and unreliable.

People have put you right on this before so I won't rerun the argument.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Of course it's not worse than remaining. It paves the way to a trade deal with the EU, negotiations for which have not yet begun.

JRM simply held the view that it was better to negotiate from scratch, from outside the EU.

Of course it is worse than remaining (from his point of view).

We enter negotiations with the EU working from a starting point where if they do literally nothing we remain in the backstop arrangements. No trade deals with anyone else.

To achieve the latter we’d need to make huge concessions to the EU.

I on the other hand think the deal is good, mainly because it’s close enough to remaining for my taste.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

He's not changed his mind, Dave, he's just been forced into answering a different question. May's deal or no Brexit.

Two quotes from Jacob Rees-Mogg one in July last year and one today.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, July 2018 on May’s deal: ‘This is the greatest vassalage since King John paid homage to Phillip II at Le Goulet in 1200. It is not something I would vote for nor what the British people voted for.’

Rees-Mogg today: ‘I’m ready to back this deal.’

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by denphone

Two quotes from Jacob Rees-Mogg one in July last year and one today.

Are you saying he's a self serving hypocrite Den?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Are you saying he's a self serving hypocrite Den?

l will let others answer that Mr K.

He also said this week that he had done some thinking that he had not done before, and had begun to see Brexit as a process rather than as an event.*

What everyone seems to have forgotten is that once we are a sovereign nation state again we negotiate and sign treaties with the EU as a third party, not as a member obliged to accept the acquis.

Had the WA been the last word on our future relationship with the EU then it would have been a disaster, but it is not.

*Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan has been making this point for years - he has always argued for gradual divergence from EU law wherever it suited us, rather than an ideological sudden break.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

He also said this week that he had done some thinking that he had not done before, and had begun to see Brexit as a process rather than as an event.*

What everyone seems to have forgotten is that once we are a sovereign nation state again we negotiate and sign treaties with the EU as a third party, not as a member obliged to accept the acquis.

Had the WA been the last word on our future relationship with the EU then it would have been a disaster, but it is not.

*Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan has been making this point for years - he has always argued for gradual divergence from EU law wherever it suited us, rather than an ideological sudden break.

It could be though without significant concessions to the EU. If we found it difficult to realise they held all the cards after all the backstop enshrines it in international law.

Unless the Tories plan is to sacrifice Northern Ireland at a later date.

[mrmistoffelees]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47718367



Meanwhile, leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has said he will only back the government's Brexit deal if the DUP does.

On Tuesday, he had hinted he could back the prime minister's plan, at the risk of there not being any Brexit at all.

But in a piece for the Daily Mail, he said his support is conditional on the DUP's decision.

So far, the DUP has not indicated that it is prepared to back the government's deal unless there are changes to the Irish border backstop.

On Tuesday, Sammy Wilson, the party's Brexit spokesperson, said a long delay of up to a year would be preferable to the deal.

But the DUP said its position as a whole remains unchanged.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

He also said this week that he had done some thinking that he had not done before, and had begun to see Brexit as a process rather than as an event.*

What everyone seems to have forgotten is that once we are a sovereign nation state again we negotiate and sign treaties with the EU as a third party, not as a member obliged to accept the acquis.

Had the WA been the last word on our future relationship with the EU then it would have been a disaster, but it is not.

*Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan has been making this point for years - he has always argued for gradual divergence from EU law wherever it suited us, rather than an ideological sudden break.

Sorry but I do not have any posh french words to describe the blatant revisionism going on here. Mogg, Johnson and co. were extremely clear on what May's deal represented to them. There was no ambiguity: the term "Vassal state" springs to mind ...

They are political liars & chancers, seeking to reward themselves and their associates. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Sorry but I do not have any posh french words to describe the blatant revisionism going on here. Mogg, Johnson and co. were extremely clear on what May's deal represented to them. There was no ambiguity: the term "Vassal state" springs to mind ...

They are political liars & chancers, seeking to reward themselves and their associates. Nothing more.

I’m not here to defend Mogg or anyone in particular. As it happens I think Mogg is being a little revisionist of his own position. I’m just trying to ensure the discussion is a little closer to the totality of what people have said, rather than obsessing over selective one-liners that validate our existing viewpoints.

Acquis communautaire isn’t just fancy French for the sake of it. It is one of the key principles of the European Union and its existence is the reason for one of the main principled objections to UK membership. The Acquis is the body of EU law, but it is also the principle that once an area of national competence has become part of the body of EU law, it remains there permanently, and EU membership mandates full compliance with it.

As a third party, the UK can form treaties with the EU (or any other state, or supra-national institution) that allow cooperation on issues where it is in the mutual interest of the UK and whoever else. That means we may operate in line with the Acquis in some things, but crucially because we are not members of the EU we are not bound by all of it.

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think the speed you slip into the pejorative shows that you are worried. You should be. If the Hard Brexiters do not swallow their pride, lose face and sign up to Mrs May's deal then they will lose the prize. We will get a watered down Brexit and maybe no Brexit at all.

Even, *gasp*, JC is now uttering phrases like "MPs should consider public vote on Brexit deal".

Things like the Petition and the March in London will vividly remind the MP's in Parliament that they need to vote in the country's interests and conclude this debacle with a solution that tries to be inclusive to both sides and failing that, asks the people to make the final decision.

What is a hard Brexiteer?

I am sick of these unjustly qualifying terms being used. There is no such thing. You want to Remain, you are not a hard Remainer. A person who wants to leave is not a hard leaver.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

What is a hard Brexiteer?

I am sick of these unjustly qualifying terms being used. There is no such thing. You want to Remain, you are not a hard Remainer. A person who wants to leave is not a hard leaver.

Isn't it used as a definition of the way of wanting to leave? e.g hard brexiteer wants to leave with no deal etc. Presumably there's only one current way to remain in the EU hence no, hard remainer?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Isn't it used as a definition of the way of wanting to leave? e.g hard brexiteer wants to leave with no deal etc. Presumably there's only one current way to remain in the EU hence no, hard remainer?

Exactly. The fact that Parliament is having so many votes suggests that it has moved on from the binary.
A hard Remainer could be someone who wants to join the Eurozone.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Isn't it used as a definition of the way of wanting to leave? e.g hard brexiteer wants to leave with no deal etc. Presumably there's only one current way to remain in the EU hence no, hard remainer?

We voted out perhaps remainers are hard of hearing a swell as hard of understanding.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

We voted out perhaps remainers are hard of hearing a swell as hard of understanding.

There are many ways of leaving the EU as is obvious, because you or others want to leave in one specific manner does not equal that ALL those who wanted to voted to leave wish to do so by the same method.

It's used as a way to differentiator, so why you see it to take a dig at people who who are sympathetic to remain I don't know ?