Brexit

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Thank you for highlighting the fact that Article 24 is even admitted by the BBC as being possible, which has been denied up until now by many antiBrexiteers.

The key paragraphs are:

It would mean no tariffs or taxes would be imposed on goods crossing borders between the UK and its largest trading partner, the European Union.

The trouble with that argument is that you can only use Article 24 if two parties are willing to make an agreement - in this case, the UK and the EU. Neither can impose it on the other.

That's a bit different from 'impossible' and sounds doable to me, particularly as the EU wants a non-tariff arrangement as much as we do.

The big advantage of this is that we will have a ten year protection period so that we can negotiate a trade deal, which gives us plenty of time to resolve the Irish border question. The £39bn would be paid provided that the EU agreed to such an arrangement.

As far as I can see, this is the only means of exiting the EU that is available to us, given that we have a stubborn rump of Conservative MPs who refuse to vote for the 'no deal' solution and the EU will not re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.

Article 24 is of course an option that can be delivered.

There's a slight issue that under the terms of Article 24 that EU & the UK could only invoke Article 24 on the provisio we have a “plan and schedule” agreed for concluding a final deal.



Achievable by Halloween ? I highly doubt it.


Another extension anyone?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

One court case against the huge benefits gained is a great use of resources. This is a move to raise the standards of democracy in this country and I welcome it.

So many anti-free speech and democracy deniers contributing to this thread. Makes you want to pull your hair out that there are people in this country who would be in favour of thought control and totalitarianism. This is not the country we are, and we don't want such politics here, thanks very much.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

And that is not a crime.

If we invent stuff as we are going along here - So we can 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.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------



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.

How about, you let me answer the question rather than answering for me...

IF there's any evidence that remain campaigners made statements that could be construed as misconduct in public office then they should absolutely be investigated and if warranted charged accordingly.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Thank you for highlighting the fact that Article 24 is even admitted by the BBC as being possible, which has been denied up until now by many antiBrexiteers.

The key paragraphs are:

It would mean no tariffs or taxes would be imposed on goods crossing borders between the UK and its largest trading partner, the European Union.

The trouble with that argument is that you can only use Article 24 if two parties are willing to make an agreement - in this case, the UK and the EU. Neither can impose it on the other.

That's a bit different from 'impossible' and sounds doable to me, particularly as the EU wants a non-tariff arrangement as much as we do.

The big advantage of this is that we will have a ten year protection period so that we can negotiate a trade deal, which gives us plenty of time to resolve the Irish border question. The £39bn would be paid provided that the EU agreed to such an arrangement.

As far as I can see, this is the only means of exiting the EU that is available to us, given that we have a stubborn rump of Conservative MPs who refuse to vote for the 'no deal' solution and the EU will not re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.

Do you not understand that no deal is not an agreement?

"The trouble with that argument is that you can only use Article 24 if two parties are willing to make an agreement - in this case, the UK and the EU. Neither can impose it on the other."

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So many anti-free speech and democracy deniers contributing to this thread. Makes you want to pull your hair out that there are people in this country who would be in favour of thought control and totalitarianism. This is not the country we are, and we don't want such politics here, thanks very much.

Read Hugh's post - it's about misconduct in public office. You may be happy to drag us down to the standards of democracy in North Korea and Venezuela. I'm not.

[Carth]

Apparently the guy started down the line of bringing private prosecutions against those in power three years ago. Says it took a while to narrow the list of 'targets' down to just the one.

IMO if it goes ahead, the others who were in the list are just as culpable and should be dragged into it - misconduct in positions of high power - let's get em all in

oh, and carries a life sentence

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

How about, you let me answer the question rather than answering for me...

IF there's any evidence that remain campaigners made statements that could be construed as misconduct in public office then they should absolutely be investigated and if warranted charged accordingly.

You say that now - but your prior post was very one sided as usual.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Mick

Well I don't and don't talk to me about raising the standards of democracy because that is you being a total hypocrite, when you and or your remainer buddies go on and on about nullifying the referendum result of 2016.

There is no benefits to this court case at all - it just turns this country in to something resembling North Korea, you really want to take this country down this path?

It just utter crazy, prosecuting a politician for lying during a political campaign.

Remainer buddies? How about everyone has their own opinion on the subject rather than clumping everyone together

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

You say that now - but your prior post was very one sided as usual.

Not really, i thought it was self explanatory. apologies if not the case.

Whilst I'm an ardent remainer, I try to maintain a balanced view, and have prior in this thread corrected people when they have blamed Brexit for things such as a loss of motor vehicle manufacturing jobs etc.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Article 24 is of course an option that can be delivered.

There's a slight issue that under the terms of Article 24 that EU & the UK could only invoke Article 24 on the provisio we have a “plan and schedule” agreed for concluding a final deal.



Achievable by Halloween ? I highly doubt it.


Another extension anyone?

For a sense of perspective, read this.

https://brexitcentral.com/managed-no...ariffs-quotas/

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do you not understand that no deal is not an agreement?


---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------


Read Hugh's post - it's about misconduct in public office. You may be happy to drag us down to the standards of democracy in North Korea and Venezuela. I'm not.

Ah, you're catching up eventually.

For starters, the Brexit Party has not advocated for a no deal exit. They advocated for a WTO exit (article 24). (Just thought I'd throw that in).

Perhaps if the EU had offered or agreed to a deal and allowed it to be put on the table to be agreed we may be further ahead without such a divide having been created.

When whoever you are negotiating with refuses to come to a deal without first getting an agreement from you to have your hands tied you would be a fool not to walk away or at least offer article 24 as an alternative.

If the backstop, as the EU have continually emphasised, is only temporary and they do not want to implement it then the 10yr article 24 option should cry out for acceptance.

If not, the backstop is not as temporary as we are told and designed purely to keep us in the EU indefinitely.

Originally Posted by Mythica

Remainer buddies? How about everyone has their own opinion on the subject rather than clumping everyone together

Is this you showing the "voice of reason" card?

Forgive me if I ignore it. Us Brexiteers on here, get clumped together all the time by most of you Remainer lot.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do you not understand that no deal is not an agreement?

No, a 'no deal' means no withdrawal agreement. What is proposed is that we simply agree to pin down what needs to go in the trade agreement, and that will be the rationale for invoking the protection agreement.

You are clutching at straws here, Andrew. An Article 24 arrangement is perfectly possible and in fact it is the key to our leaving the EU.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Article 24 is of course an option that can be delivered.

There's a slight issue that under the terms of Article 24 that EU & the UK could only invoke Article 24 on the provisio we have a “plan and schedule” agreed for concluding a final deal.



Achievable by Halloween ? I highly doubt it.


Another extension anyone?

Given the choice of second referendum, election or extension, an extension will always win. Now we've gone past the deadline of a European election, there's less to lose by it and a new prime minister will be more readily forgiven.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Ah, you're catching up eventually.

For starters, the Brexit Party has not advocated for a no deal exit. They advocated for a WTO exit (article 24). (Just thought I'd throw that in).

Perhaps if the EU had offered or agreed to a deal and allowed it to be put on the table to be agreed we may be further ahead without such a divide having been created.

When whoever you are negotiating with refuses to come to a deal without first getting an agreement from you to have your hands tied you would be a fool not to walk away or at least offer article 24 as an alternative.

If the backstop, as the EU have continually emphasised, is only temporary and they do not want to implement it then the 10yr article 24 option should cry out for acceptance.

If not, the backstop is not as temporary as we are told and designed purely to keep us in the EU indefinitely.

Exactly, pip. Couldn't have put it better!

RE: Article 24:https://fullfact.org/europe/article-24/

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUKKCN1PH24V