Jump to content

BREXIT


JohnfromUK
 Share

Recommended Posts

The remoaners state they don't want to leave the EU without "a deal", on this basis they are trying to pass a law making it illegal for the UK to leave the EU without a "deal" thereby forcing the government to postpone the legal leaving date of 31 October! Allegedly to give the UK time to negotiate a "deal" which parliament and the remainers in parliament find acceptable! What if Parliament and the remainers do not find any new "deal" acceptable?...........what if the EU won't renegotiate May's already three times rejected WA "deal"? Does the UK just keep on postponing the leaving date ad infinitum?........

From the above it seems obvious remainers are not genuine in their claim they want new deal, in order for the UK to leave with a "deal" but are trying to prevent the UK ever leaving the EU by using the law to overturn the democratic will of the people by endlessly extending the date of the UK's departure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

The remoaners state they don't want to leave the EU without "a deal", on this basis they are trying to pass a law making it illegal for the UK to leave the EU without a "deal" thereby forcing the government to postpone the legal leaving date of 31 October! Allegedly to give the UK time to negotiate a "deal" which parliament and the remainers in parliament find acceptable! What if Parliament and the remainers do not find any new "deal" acceptable?...........what if the EU won't renegotiate May's already three times rejected WA "deal"? Does the UK just keep on postponing the leaving date ad infinitum?........

From the above it seems obvious remainers are not genuine in their claim they want new deal, in order for the UK to leave with a "deal" but are trying to prevent the UK ever leaving the EU by using the law to overturn the democratic will of the people by endlessly extending the date of the UK's departure!

Yes, and Boris is supposed to be the undemocratic one.

I just hope that whatever he has planned works. This whole debacle (caused by remain MPs, who refuse to enact the result) has gone on far too long.

We need to leave and get on with our future, whatever that may be.

Edited by Newbie to this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

The remoaners state they don't want to leave the EU without "a deal", on this basis they are trying to pass a law making it illegal for the UK to leave the EU without a "deal" thereby forcing the government to postpone the legal leaving date of 31 October!

Key to all of this is what is meant by "a deal".

Currently we are in the EU, including the single market and customs union

Eventually we are to be (all being well) outside the EU, including outside the single market and customs union.  How we are able to trade then is what is really important - not the transition period from March (now October) 2019 to December 2020 - which is something of a short term 'red herring'.

The May 'deal' was ONLY for a transition period intended to last from March 2019 to December 2020 that kept us (pretty much) in the single market and customs union for that period whilst we regained some control in others, notably immigration.  During the transition, trade deals, fishing rights, long term residence rights etc. would be negotiated for trading post the full leave of December 2020.  The 'elephant in the room' that was the red line for many was the so called 'backstop' that meant that the full exit in December 2020 could be prevented at the EU (only) discretion, so in theory we could never leave if they said not.  That was totally unacceptable.  It also involved paying £39 billion for those roughly 20 months as well which was pretty unacceptable too.

To get a transition arrangement, you need to know where you are starting from (which we all do) and where you are to finish - which no one does.  The SENSIBLE thing would have been to discuss the post December 2020 trade deals so that everyone knew where we would finish.  The EU flatly refused to discuss this until the transition deal was signed.  That should have been a BIG red flag. 

The 'deal' so called is really a red herring - what is important is the post leaving arrangements (i.e. those that would apply after December 2020 in the event of a deal) because that is the long term future.

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ this.

No deal, oops I mean catastrophic no deal does not mean no deal, it means new yet to be determined deal. Which i admit is a bit more of a mouthful.

Lets just end this (one way or another) so we can get on with life.

Edited by SpringDon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Whilst the focus of this planned prorogation appears to be around forcing through no deal could it not equally be used as a way of forcing through a modified version of the WA?

That is his intention and has been all along in my opinion.He has no wish to leave with no deal but needs to be seen to be prepared to. All the remainers are focusing on that one point because it is the best line to follow in order to stop Brexit. 

My worry is that all he appears to want to renegotiate is with regards to the backstop within the WA.

The backstop removal/amendment is not the only problem within the treaty.

It concerns me that he will try to put the treaty through once again with only that one amendment and it may pass this time.

My personal opinion has not changed throughout this whole debacle and is that the EU will not give us a deal that will meet the referendum requirements and we should therefore leave cleanly and negotiate from outside without the chains of any prior withdrawal agreement.

That alone will be difficult in itself.

Edited by Good shot?
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

It concerns me that he will try to put the treaty through once again with only that one amendment and it may pass this time.

Provided the WA 'deal' only lasts to December 2020, then I don't think that is desirable, but I don't see it as a show stopper providing the backstop is removed.  With the backstop in - we could (possibly) never escape - and that is a complete No No.  Whether £39 billion is good value is another matter.  No one has yet told me what the £39 billion is for?

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

To get a transition arrangement, you need to know where you are starting from (which we all do) and where you are to finish - which no one does.  The SENSIBLE thing would have been to discuss the post December 2020 trade deals so that everyone knew where we would finish.  The EU flatly refused to discuss this until the transition deal was signed.  That should have been a BIG red flag. 

Good summary John :good:

Heres a crazy idea.
We leave on 31/10 legally , and without gashing of teeth, and have ...A 6 month transition period to help business, and go some way to securing our trading arrangements ?
We could even pay them some money for it ! Obviously not £39 bn.

Or we can follow the path that has been forced upon us , and come out with no deal, and see what happens ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KFC said:

I find it absolutely ludicrous the there's so much gnashing of teeth and beating of gums, not mention toddler-like tantrums, from the remoaners about BoJo trampling over democracy when their sole aim is to keep us welded to an unelected, undemocratic commission over whom we have no power whatsoever🤔

And they are also working against the democratic decision of the referendum.

The Tories just have not thought this process through. The decision was to leave but there was no process put in place by which that could happen in an orderly and organised way. Clearly we should have left by now but shutting down debate is not the way to achieve anything other than crashing out with no deal. 

Holding the the government to account to deliver the acceptable deal it promised, is working for the democratic decision of the referendum. The Government is unable to secure the deal it promised and then shutting down the protest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Good summary John :good:

Heres a crazy idea.
We leave on 31/10 legally , and without gashing of teeth, and have ...A 6 month transition period to help business, and go some way to securing our trading arrangements ?
We could even pay them some money for it ! Obviously not £39 bn.

Or we can follow the path that has been forced upon us , and come out with no deal, and see what happens ?

I think the EU consider this the UK trying to have our cake and eat it, no deal or a modified WA more likely in my humble opinion. I'm still skeptical as to whether or not Boris actually has the kahoonas to go through with no deal, an outcome quite likely to lead to the end of his tenure as PM. Lack of faith in him not helped by his unwillingness to be transparent over why he is proroguing Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

The Tories just have not thought this process through. The decision was to leave but there was no process put in place by which that could happen in an orderly and organised way. Clearly we should have left by now but shutting down debate is not the way to achieve anything other than crashing out with no deal. 

Holding the the government to account to deliver the acceptable deal it promised, is working for the democratic decision of the referendum. The Government is unable to secure the deal it promised and then shutting down the protest. 

Can you please evidence any references via mass mainstream media or highlight in the paraphernalia posted at great expense through all of our letterboxes where we were promised any form of deal prior to the referendum vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rather like the idea of ending the longest session of parliament for umpteen years where a new session gets a new speaker. The sour grapes brigade are seething about not being able to persist in destroying democracy as I beleive any debates in process terminate and need to be started again in the new session... with the new speaker sitting. 

I understand any new PM gets to have a queens speech - but it seems remainers don't like the idea of Boris getting that opportunity to lay out his stall and make a mandate to stop the rabid claims from pillocks that he has no mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

The Tories just have not thought this process through.

Correct , Boris and the new cabinet have thought it through, and come up with a highly audacious plan to achieve Brexit. 
More power to them !

 

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

The decision was to leave but there was no process put in place by which that could happen in an orderly and organised way.

The process via A50 is clear, the obstacles have been put in place by the EU and remainer MPs with a little help from foreign businessmen and their British acolytes.

 

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

Clearly we should have left by now but shutting down debate is not the way to achieve anything other than crashing out with no deal. 

They have had time to debate, and they have used it to stall and plot.
Replace the government with Corbyn as caretaker PM ? How much more undemocratic do you want to get?

And they talk about coups ??

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

Holding the the government to account to deliver the acceptable deal it promised, is working for the democratic decision of the referendum. The Government is unable to secure the deal it promised and then shutting down the protest. 

The government tried a deal that was acceptable to the EU , Parliament rejected it, if the people were asked, they would probably have rejected it.

So what deal do you think parliament would have accepted ? 
If it was just down to MPs to decide, and remain was tabled, what do you think would happen ?
And THEN , what do you think would have happened ?

The government NOW is clearly delivering what the people voted for, if they have it wrong , they will pay dearly at the forthcoming election...YET , the opinion polls say completely different ?

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I think the EU consider this the UK trying to have our cake and eat it, no deal or a modified WA more likely in my humble opinion.

ANY favourable deal for us is cake and eat it territory , as far as Brussels is concerned.

Does Boris have the balls ?
Yes I think he has !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sportsbob said:

Can you please evidence any references via mass mainstream media or highlight in the paraphernalia posted at great expense through all of our letterboxes where we were promised any form of deal prior to the referendum vote?

 You can google and then ignore them as fake news and project fear.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

I rather like the idea of ending the longest session of parliament for umpteen years where a new session gets a new speaker. The sour grapes brigade are seething about not being able to persist in destroying democracy as I beleive any debates in process terminate and need to be started again in the new session... with the new speaker sitting. 

I understand any new PM gets to have a queens speech - but it seems remainers don't like the idea of Boris getting that opportunity to lay out his stall and make a mandate to stop the rabid claims from pillocks that he has no mandate.

Absolutely, getting rid of Bercow alone is a step forward.

25 minutes ago, oowee said:

Holding the the government to account to deliver the acceptable deal it promised, is working for the democratic decision of the referendum. The Government is unable to secure the deal it promised and then shutting down the protest. 

Protest and stalling is all that's been done by MPs for far too long, The idea Corbyn can become caretaker PM while not leaving the EU is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Absolutely, getting rid of Bercow alone is a step forward.

Protest and stalling is all that's been done by MPs for far too long, The idea Corbyn can become caretaker PM while not leaving the EU is ridiculous.

Bercow is a Tory and freed from the shackles of office no doubt will vote against the kipper. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, oowee said:

The Tories just have not thought this process through. The decision was to leave but there was no process put in place by which that could happen in an orderly and organised way. Clearly we should have left by now but shutting down debate is not the way to achieve anything other than crashing out with no deal. 

Holding the the government to account to deliver the acceptable deal it promised, is working for the democratic decision of the referendum. The Government is unable to secure the deal it promised and then shutting down the protest. 

The govenment has not shut down debate, any more than the remainers in parliament want to honour the democratic result of the referendum!

It is not the government who are unable to secure an acceptable "deal"............it is the EU who will not negotiate in order to secure one!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of cancelling parliament is not shutting down debate :lol:. Don't believe the carp given out by the kipper. 

 

The Government wants to have full access to the EU club without membership. Is it any surprise the EU said no?

Liam Fox said a post-Brexit free trade deal with the EU should be the “easiest in human history”. Well surprise surprise he was wrong. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

This whole debacle (caused by remain MPs, who refuse to enact the result)

No. Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs. The opposition's job is to oppose. That's what they did and there's nothing wrong with that. The debacle has been caused by Rees Mogg and his ERG pals voting against their own Tory government. And now that the No Deal scenario they've worked so hard to bring about is coming to pass they're looking around to shift the blame for the consequences onto other people. They're cowardly as well as dopey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

No. Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs. The opposition's job is to oppose. That's what they did and there's nothing wrong with that. The debacle has been caused by Rees Mogg and his ERG pals voting against their own Tory government. And now that the No Deal scenario they've worked so hard to bring about is coming to pass they're looking around to shift the blame for the consequences onto other people. They're cowardly as well as dopey.

Not all of the MPs I mention are in the opposition!!!

May's (one of the remainer MPs I mention, at the time PM) treaty is in no way, shape or form Brexit. That is why the ERG would not vote for it, even though Jacob Rees Mogg did on the 3rd time.

If May had accepted the FTA that was offered, this whole debacle would have been done and dusted and we would all be getting on with our lives.

The blame lies squarely with those that wish the democratic result of the referendum overturned!

Edited by Newbie to this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Key to all of this is what is meant by "a deal".

Currently we are in the EU, including the single market and customs union

Eventually we are to be (all being well) outside the EU, including outside the single market and customs union.  How we are able to trade then is what is really important - not the transition period from March (now October) 2019 to December 2020 - which is something of a short term 'red herring'.

The May 'deal' was ONLY for a transition period intended to last from March 2019 to December 2020 that kept us (pretty much) in the single market and customs union for that period whilst we regained some control in others, notably immigration.  During the transition, trade deals, fishing rights, long term residence rights etc. would be negotiated for trading post the full leave of December 2020.  The 'elephant in the room' that was the red line for many was the so called 'backstop' that meant that the full exit in December 2020 could be prevented at the EU (only) discretion, so in theory we could never leave if they said not.  That was totally unacceptable.  It also involved paying £39 billion for those roughly 20 months as well which was pretty unacceptable too.

To get a transition arrangement, you need to know where you are starting from (which we all do) and where you are to finish - which no one does.  The SENSIBLE thing would have been to discuss the post December 2020 trade deals so that everyone knew where we would finish.  The EU flatly refused to discuss this until the transition deal was signed.  That should have been a BIG red flag. 

The 'deal' so called is really a red herring - what is important is the post leaving arrangements (i.e. those that would apply after December 2020 in the event of a deal) because that is the long term future.

John - you're making too much sense. You sure you're on the right forum?

We voted to leave the EU  - so any decisions/votes that need to be made should be based on what deal we get and not whether we actually leave?

Boris is forcing the issue because Parliament has failed to agree on anything. 

At least this way, we should get some sort of end game/closure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...