Brexit (Old)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It wasn't informed as the leave deal was not done and various leave politicians offered contradictory messages eg still staying in EEA, not staying in the EEA.
The UK Government should have negotiated with the EU without the disadvantageous time pressure of Article 50 which favours the hand of the EU then offered the country the two choices.

This is nonsense on stilts.

If the exit deal is deliberately designed to inform the referendum debate, then the only incentive is for the exit deal to be bad, in order to influence the result to remain.

The only way to fairly hold the referendum was the way it was actually held: without a deal on the table, so the argument could be settled on points of principle and a long-term view of where the U.K. sees itself in the world, not on the grubby details of any political deal.

That, also, is why *there*will*not*be*a*second*referendum* - the debate was held, and the vote was cast, *without* being unduly influenced by a political circus that, 20 years from now, will have thoroughly faded from memory.

[pip08456]

It was quite simple.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by pip08456

It was quite simple.

that part was yes but the aftermath as been anything but simple

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

It was quite simple.

If only the ensuing bit was as well!. Act in haste, repent at your leisure.

Do we have a deal?

https://www.ft.com/content/19529d88-...5-04b8afea6ea3

Originally Posted by Financial Times

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has said the main elements of an exit treaty text are ready to present to the UK cabinet on Tuesday, according to diplomats briefed on the discussions.

Speaking after late-night talks that ran to almost 3am, Michel Barnier told ministers from the EU’s remaining 27 member states that “the parameters of a possible agreement are very largely defined” but still require political endorsement.

While guarded and making clear that exchanges with London are continuing, Mr Barnier’s private comments have raised expectations in some national capitals that a breakthrough on a withdrawal text is within reach this week. Diplomats underlined that everything will turn on whether Theresa May will be able to muster support from her cabinet.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

This is nonsense on stilts.

If the exit deal is deliberately designed to inform the referendum debate, then the only incentive is for the exit deal to be bad, in order to influence the result to remain.

The only way to fairly hold the referendum was the way it was actually held: without a deal on the table, so the argument could be settled on points of principle and a long-term view of where the U.K. sees itself in the world, not on the grubby details of any political deal.

That, also, is why *there*will*not*be*a*second*referendum* - the debate was held, and the vote was cast, *without* being unduly influenced by a political circus that, 20 years from now, will have thoroughly faded from memory.

"If the exit deal is deliberately designed to inform the referendum debate, then the only incentive is for the exit deal to be bad, in order to influence the result to remain."
The rest of your post is based on this one weak assumption. There are ways to ensure these things are done fairly.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Damien

Do we have a deal?

https://www.ft.com/content/19529d88-...5-04b8afea6ea3

just cant see how any deal can get past parliament as both brexiteers and remainers are gonna vote against it

Originally Posted by ianch99

Incorrect .. as we can now all plainly see ..

Who is this "we" ?

Is it just the minority of democracy abusers who paraded around London a few weeks ago, thinking throwing their toys out their pram one more time, will get them another referendum?

[Sephiroth]

The EU will never agree a deal with us during the Article 50 period unless it's on their own terms. 2 years have proved this. Article 50 had to be served because otherwise the EU wouldn't even have looked at us in a potential Brexit context.

The difference between then and now is that what I said above was not obvious to most hopeful Leavers and certainly wasn't in the mind of most Remainers. One MP, David Gauke, came out publicly before the Referendum to explain why he was voting Remain - it was the uncertainties and unknowns we would be in for.

For all that might have been, the EU has shown itself to be perfidious and nasty. That's enough reason to leave; were we now to rescind Article 50, we'll be the laughing stock with far less influence than we previously thought we had.

Also we can't allow that perfidious Varadkar to be the tail that wags the dog, albeit a currently stupid dog. If the Customs Union exit rules are to be governed by the ECJ, we'll never be able to leave because the ECJ interprets everything according to the extant treaties which don't allow what we want in terms of sovereignty.

SHort of a treaty that varies the current rules, no deal would be best.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Dave42

that part was yes but the aftermath as been anything but simple

You can thank remainers for that. The simple way was to let the Government negotiators get on with their job and negotiate from a position of strength.
Remainers didn't like that though which led to court cases, judicial decisions etc that left the EU in the driving seat.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

You can thank remainers for that. The simple way was to let the Government negotiators get on with their job and negotiate from a position of strength.
Remainers didn't like that though which led to court cases, judicial decisions etc that left the EU in the driving seat.

The trouble is Theresa May whether through her own naked political ambition or by being poorly advised called a General Election which weakened utterly any position of strength HMG had in their negotiations with the EU.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by denphone

The trouble is Theresa May whether through her own naked political ambition or by being poorly advised called a General Election which weakened utterly any position of strength HMG had in their negotiations with the EU.

Undoubtedly true. But she wouldn't have negotiated a "better" deal because the EU wouldn't have played nicely.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Undoubtedly true. But she wouldn't have negotiated a "better" deal because the EU wouldn't have played nicely.

you mean her own party wont play nicely they more divided than ever

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Undoubtedly true. But she wouldn't have negotiated a "better" deal because the EU wouldn't have played nicely.

The EU are out to protect their own interests. It seems that this, as well as the idea that German car manufacturers wouldn't force a deal, has caught too many people by surprise.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Dave42

you mean her own party wont play nicely they more divided than ever

Also true to whatever extent it would have been. After all 52/48 permeated Parliament. But the EU, who are out for their own interests, obviously, are immovable. So we should just get out.