UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What I have suggested is that the new trade deals and other measures such as free ports will transform our economy. I have always said that you cannot forecast with any degree of accuracy how much extra income we will get from all this. However, to twist that into postulating that we don't know whether we will benefit at all is a bit of a stretch, even by your standards.

The mere fact that we are presenting new opportunities of this kind to business is known to lead to a positive response. Just like reducing high taxation leads to more yield for the Inland Revenue. It is a known known.

Although some cannot seem to grasp the concept.[

It's because you're negating the downside. For it to be a boost to our economy it needs to excede the benefit to it from the single market and the related trade deals. Not simply be a plus over no trade deals at all.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's because you're negating the downside. For it to be a boost to our economy it needs to excede the benefit to it from the single market and the related trade deals. Not simply be a plus over no trade deals at all.

When has the EU ever passed a directive aimed at helping businesses and reducing their costs? The single market is aimed at forcing higher costs onto the "little guys". The way the EU puts it, is a "level playing field". Nobody is allowed to have an advantage over the likes of Germany and France. The "little guys" can't really complain because billions are sent their way, eg Poland gets 9 billion Euros a year. It's called gerrymandering in any other setting.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's because you're negating the downside. For it to be a boost to our economy it needs to excede the benefit to it from the single market and the related trade deals. Not simply be a plus over no trade deals at all.

One of the main reasons why people voted to leave was to forge new trade deals to enable the country to be better off than if we stayed within the EU. I agree that the measure should be to exceed the benefit from the single market and it is my belief that this will indeed be the case.

I agree that there are some benefits of being in the EU, but there are many disbenefits too. Many remainers seem blind to these disadvantages.

Anyway, back to new developments.

BJ wants a vote on the new Withdrawal Bill as soon as possible, but the 541 page document was only issued on Saturday (and very few people had seen it before then).

How can there be an informed debate/decision on a huge document, with immense implications of how we go forward as a country, in such a short time?

Some more updates.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...0859498cfb1fe6

The Guardian’s Scotland editor, Severin Carrell, is in court in Edinburgh where Lord Carloway has rejected a call by the UK government to halt proceedings because the prime minister has met his legal requirements under the Benn act. (See my earlier post.)

The judge said he would continue with the case until it was clear that Downing Street had complied with the act in full – ie sought and, if it is offered, accepted a Brexit extension from the EU. A date for the next hearing is yet to be fixed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...0898437061a91f

The European commission has confirmed that – despite the prime minister’s unconventional approach to requesting a further Brexit delay – Brussels is considering the terms of a further prolongation of the UK’s membership.

A European commission spokeswoman said:

President Tusk is now consulting leaders of the EU27 on this and it is first and foremost for the UK to explain the next steps. We from our side, of course, follow all the events in London this week very closely.

What I can also add, the ratification process has been launched on the EU side. Michel Barnier debriefed EU ambassadors of the EU27 yesterday and he will debrief the European parliament’s Brexit steering group this afternoon in Strasbourg. And as I mentioned, he will also debrief the college of commissioners.

The request to extend article 50 was made by the UK’s permanent representative to the EU. President Tusk acknowledged receipt of the request on Saturday and stated that he’s now consulting with the EU27. So this form does not change anything.

[Dave42]

speakers rejects government plan for vote

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Dave42

speakers rejects government plan for vote

Speaker John Bercow says it is clear that the motions before the house are “in substance the same” and that the matter was decided as recently as 48 hours ago.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Dave42

speakers rejects government plan for vote

You would have thought they would have learnt from May's experience.

---------- Post added at 15:56 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

I was puzzled why the Government pulled the vote on Saturday, wasn't that the whole point of the Saturday sitting?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Ok, here we go...

https://www.politics.co.uk/reference...itical-artiesp

https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../337/33706.htm note: this is from parliament itself not sure how much more proof you could ask for?

I can provide many many more, but, I'll ask you to provide one single solitary source that shows that a UK member of parliament is the delegate of their constituency.

Where in any of my postings have I said MPs are delegates?

Clue - nowhere, so don't refer such nonsensical questions my way - my point still stands and I stand by my original point. MPs were instructed to leave the EU via the Democratic result of 2016 and were subsequently elected on the premise that they would implement the result of the EU referendum - they are not there to put our best interests at all, we are not children, we are entitled to a view and a right to vote a way we choose, they asked for our opinion, we gave it and now they must do as we told them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

doesn't alter one iota what I said.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

Where in any of my postings have I said MPs are delegates?

Clue - nowhere, so don't refer such nonsensical questions my way - my point still stands and I stand by my original point. MPs were instructed to leave the EU via the Democratic result of 2016 and were subsequently elected on the premise that they would implement the result of the EU referendum - they are not there to put our best interests at all, we are not children, we are entitled to a view and a right to vote a way we choose, they asked for our opinion, we gave it and now they must do as we told them.

Why are we going around this yet again? There was no mandate for No Deal and our MP's have a duty to act in the best interests of the country, not to be delegates. No Deal, in the view of our Parliament (remember, the one that Leave insist should be sovereign?), is not in the best interests of the country.

[Pierre]

1. Parliament vote for a referendum.

2. Parliament agree to implement the result of the referendum.

3. Parliament vote to trigger Article 50.

4. Parliament Reject May's deal 3 times

5. Parliament accuse Johnson of not trying to get a deal.

6. Parliament pass the Benn Act in 1 day to ensure no deal.

7. Johnson gets a deal.

8. Parliament enforce Johnson to trigger the Benn Act even though there is a deal.

9. Parliament now want god knows how many weeks to review and debate the deal, even though they accuse it of being substantially the same as May's deal.

10. Even if deal is passed through, Parliamentarians threaten to add amendments onto any Withdrawal legislation for example (to ensure UK stays in CU, to ensure a 2nd Referendum is held etc, etc) Basically amendments to wreck the bill and stop it from happening.


This is why Parliament is not fit for purpose. A general election is required. We must have a majority Government in place.

[1andrew1]

Good thread from Sky News's Lewis Goodall explaining the situation. It begins

Bercow has many detractors but hard to see how he’s wrong here. It would be very odd, 36 hours after the House says no meaningful vote til the WAB passes, for the House to have...a meaningful vote

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...93330306650118

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Why are we going around this yet again? There was no mandate for No Deal

According to who?

we voted for Leave, no deal is a form of Leave, Mandate fulfilled.

and our MP's have a duty to act in the best interests of the country

they're not though.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

Where in any of my postings have I said MPs are delegates?

Clue - nowhere, so don't refer such nonsensical questions my way - my point still stands and I stand by my original point. MPs were instructed to leave the EU via the Democratic result of 2016 and were subsequently elected on the premise that they would implement the result of the EU referendum - they are not there to put our best interests at all, we are not children, we are entitled to a view and a right to vote a way we choose, they asked for our opinion, we gave it and now they must do as we told them.

Wrong... They do as they believe what is best for their country. Don't like it? elect others...

As this is going round and round, I'll not comment further on this one but politely withdraw and wish you a happy Monday

[Taf]

Boris' letter didn't do any good then?