|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 21, 2018 9:37:49 GMT
I think the current hardening of positions will lead to a no deal. That then will have to be ratified by Parliament, which it will not be. So we are left in limbo. That will lead to a General Election, which again could lead to a hung Parliament. Let the people vote on the final deal so we can move on. The so-called 'hard' Brexit does not have to be ratified by Parliament. It is already written in Law that we WILL leave on 29th March 2019. This has already been voted upon in the HoC. interesting debate there is one significant issue which has not been aired. If there was another referendum there is NO option to remain we would have to apply to join like any other Country so that would mean the end of the rebate and joining the Euro etc. Also bearing in mind how we are currently being humilated what do sort of deal do you think we would get if we have to crawl cap in hand to the EU!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 9:37:51 GMT
I think the current hardening of positions will lead to a no deal. That then will have to be ratified by Parliament, which it will not be. So we are left in limbo. That will lead to a General Election, which again could lead to a hung Parliament. Let the people vote on the final deal so we can move on. The so-called 'hard' Brexit does not have to be ratified by Parliament. It is already written in Law that we WILL leave on 29th March 2019. This has already been voted upon in the HoC. It does. The terms of leaving "vote" was a concession made after all the Lords amendments.There is no majority for a hard Brexit. That's why we need a vote before March |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 9:50:18 GMT
The so-called 'hard' Brexit does not have to be ratified by Parliament. It is already written in Law that we WILL leave on 29th March 2019. This has already been voted upon in the HoC. interesting debate there is one significant issue which has not been aired. If there was another referendum there is NO option to remain we would have to apply to join like any other Country so that would mean the end of the rebate and joining the Euro etc. Also bearing in mind how we are currently being humilated what do sort of deal do you think we would get if we have to crawl cap in hand to the EU!! Trevor A welcome contribution. I would argue the term "humiliation" is being used as a cover for the shambolic preparations and negotiating tactic by this awful Government. We shouldn't, again, let spurious points replace a proper debate over the pros and cons of EU membership |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 21, 2018 10:07:51 GMT
interesting debate there is one significant issue which has not been aired. If there was another referendum there is NO option to remain we would have to apply to join like any other Country so that would mean the end of the rebate and joining the Euro etc. Also bearing in mind how we are currently being humilated what do sort of deal do you think we would get if we have to crawl cap in hand to the EU!! Trevor A welcome contribution. I would argue the term "humiliation" is being used as a cover for the shambolic preparations and negotiating tactic by this awful Government. We shouldn't, again, let spurious points replace a proper debate over the pros and cons of EU membership I agree Nobby that Her Majesty's Government have handled this appalling and it goes back to a few key issues: the schisms in the political party's over Europe (Corbyn has no time for the EU),this has led to internal appeasement over what Brexit should look like, the worst of all world's. Camerons mistaken belief that when he called the Referendum there was a 60/40 in favour of remaining, ergo no preparation for a No vote so we were way down the track before anyone could articulate what leaving entailed. tge inability of self serving politicians to work together to put a negotiating position together that the majority would get behind. Finally a complete misreading that the 27 would not give us a good deal as that would domino other eurosceptic Countries into potential stay or go referendum. I live in Trevor my name is Clive |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 10:08:28 GMT
The so-called 'hard' Brexit does not have to be ratified by Parliament. It is already written in Law that we WILL leave on 29th March 2019. This has already been voted upon in the HoC. It does. The terms of leaving "vote" was a concession made after all the Lords amendments.There is no majority for a hard Brexit. That's why we need a vote before March My understanding... "The vote will be either to take the agreement on the table, or to walk away with no agreement at all." Therefore, no agreement on the table, then we walk away. Parliamant Link |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 10:14:25 GMT
Trevor A welcome contribution. I would argue the term "humiliation" is being used as a cover for the shambolic preparations and negotiating tactic by this awful Government. We shouldn't, again, let spurious points replace a proper debate over the pros and cons of EU membership I agree Nobby that Her Majesty's Government have handled this appalling and it goes back to a few key issues: the schisms in the political party's over Europe (Corbyn has no time for the EU),this has led to internal appeasement over what Brexit should look like, the worst of all world's. Camerons mistaken belief that when he called the Referendum there was a 60/40 in favour of remaining, ergo no preparation for a No vote so we were way down the track before anyone could articulate what leaving entailed. tge inability of self serving politicians to work together to put a negotiating position together that the majority would get behind. Finally a complete misreading that the 27 would not give us a good deal as that would domino other eurosceptic Countries into potential stay or go referendum. I live in Trevor my name is Clive Hi Clive, Cameron did screw up. When he went to the EU seeking reforms, he was just told to go away. Privately, he was telling EU leaders that the vote was in the bag, and there was nothing to worry about. This was one of the key reasons the EU told him to do one! This actually had a big impact. Remainers argue that to change the EU, we had to be in it. Cameron's experience showed that in reality, we had very little influence within the EU. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 10:55:29 GMT
Trevor A welcome contribution. I would argue the term "humiliation" is being used as a cover for the shambolic preparations and negotiating tactic by this awful Government. We shouldn't, again, let spurious points replace a proper debate over the pros and cons of EU membership I agree Nobby that Her Majesty's Government have handled this appalling and it goes back to a few key issues: the schisms in the political party's over Europe (Corbyn has no time for the EU),this has led to internal appeasement over what Brexit should look like, the worst of all world's. Camerons mistaken belief that when he called the Referendum there was a 60/40 in favour of remaining, ergo no preparation for a No vote so we were way down the track before anyone could articulate what leaving entailed. tge inability of self serving politicians to work together to put a negotiating position together that the majority would get behind. Finally a complete misreading that the 27 would not give us a good deal as that would domino other eurosceptic Countries into potential stay or go referendum. I live in Trevor my name is Clive Hi Clive, Oldie, hiding (as if) my real name of Les. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 10:57:29 GMT
I agree Nobby that Her Majesty's Government have handled this appalling and it goes back to a few key issues: the schisms in the political party's over Europe (Corbyn has no time for the EU),this has led to internal appeasement over what Brexit should look like, the worst of all world's. Camerons mistaken belief that when he called the Referendum there was a 60/40 in favour of remaining, ergo no preparation for a No vote so we were way down the track before anyone could articulate what leaving entailed. tge inability of self serving politicians to work together to put a negotiating position together that the majority would get behind. Finally a complete misreading that the 27 would not give us a good deal as that would domino other eurosceptic Countries into potential stay or go referendum. I live in Trevor my name is Clive Hi Clive, Cameron did screw up. When he went to the EU seeking reforms, he was just told to go away. Privately, he was telling EU leaders that the vote was in the bag, and there was nothing to worry about. This was one of the key reasons the EU told him to do one! This actually had a big impact. Remainers argue that to change the EU, we had to be in it. Cameron's experience showed that in reality, we had very little influence within the EU. That's so not true. One prime example. Thatcher was a key player, many would argue THE key player, in creating the Single Market. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 11:08:51 GMT
It does. The terms of leaving "vote" was a concession made after all the Lords amendments.There is no majority for a hard Brexit. That's why we need a vote before March My understanding... "The vote will be either to take the agreement on the table, or to walk away with no agreement at all." Therefore, no agreement on the table, then we walk away. Parliamant LinkThe Department for Exiting the European Union has now conceded that it will be up to Commons Speaker John Bercow to decide the matter at the time. The concession Government statement |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 21, 2018 12:35:46 GMT
Hi Clive, Cameron did screw up. When he went to the EU seeking reforms, he was just told to go away. Privately, he was telling EU leaders that the vote was in the bag, and there was nothing to worry about. This was one of the key reasons the EU told him to do one! This actually had a big impact. Remainers argue that to change the EU, we had to be in it. Cameron's experience showed that in reality, we had very little influence within the EU. That's so not true. One prime example. Thatcher was a key player, many would argue THE key player, in creating the Single Market. I favour us now toughing it out, May cannot concede anymore so we shoukd leave on WTO terms which isnt the end of the world as over 40% of our trade already comes under WTO. The key issue is the Irish border which in truth looks insoluble at the moment we either have a two tier Customs arrangement in the UK or reimpose the border, neither are constitutionally acceptable.In truth nothing will change on 30th March 2019 however it plays right into the Dublins Government objective for a united Ireland. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 12:59:06 GMT
That's so not true. One prime example. Thatcher was a key player, many would argue THE key player, in creating the Single Market. I favour us now toughing it out, May cannot concede anymore so we shoukd leave on WTO terms which isnt the end of the world as over 40% of our trade already comes under WTO. The key issue is the Irish border which in truth looks insoluble at the moment we either have a two tier Customs arrangement in the UK or reimpose the border, neither are constitutionally acceptable.In truth nothing will change on 30th March 2019 however it plays right into the Dublins Government objective for a united Ireland. The debate over WTO on here was long and hard. The truth is under WTO there will be significant prices gives on staples such as food and crippling Tarriffs on our agricultural exports. All of which hits those on the lowest incomes in the UK the hardest. Interesting move here. Legal action to revoke article 50 referred to European court of justice flip.it/lA4uYB |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 9:26:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 10:00:32 GMT
One for the anti immigration lobby Instead of immigration myths we now have facts. But will we act upon them? | David Olusoga flip.it/qcC3Vp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 8:26:44 GMT
White House notifies Congress: US/UK Trade deal at the front of the queue "Under fast-track trade rules, the US Trade Representative cannot start trade negotiations until 90 days after notifying Congress. Last night he sent that notification to Congress. The letter from the US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, to Congress said the USTR planned to start talks between “the first and fifth largest economies in the world … as soon as it is ready after it exits the European Union on March 29, 2019.” The United States wants to develop “cutting edge obligations for emerging sectors where U.S. and U.K. innovators and entrepreneurs are most competitive.” The UK – US free trade deal will cover the biggest transatlantic bilateral trading relationship in the world, right over the airspace of Ireland… The letter also reveals that although the EU prevents the UK from formally negotiating a trade deal until after Britain escapes from the EU’s grip, Liam Fox and he have established a US-UK Trade & Investment Working Group which is “laying the groundwork for a potential future free trade agreement”. Turns out when Cameron asked Obama to say “Britain would be at the back of the queue” he was totally lying wrong…" US/UK Trade Deal
Let's not forget. The US is the UK's biggest trading partner, not the EU. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 9:48:57 GMT
So, tonight Theresa May gives her last proposal to the EU. Afterwards, all the Leaders will sit down for dinner, but Theresa May is not invited. Just how fecking rude is that? Seriously. Why does anyone want to 'remain' in this political union?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 17, 2018 10:58:39 GMT
So, tonight Theresa May gives her last proposal to the EU. Afterwards, all the Leaders will sit down for dinner, but Theresa May is not invited. Just how fecking rude is that? Seriously. Why does anyone want to 'remain' in this political union? All part of the choreography, I wouldn't get too upset. There are valid reasons for getting out from a political perspective, not being invited to dinner isn't really one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 17, 2018 11:02:47 GMT
White House notifies Congress: US/UK Trade deal at the front of the queue "Under fast-track trade rules, the US Trade Representative cannot start trade negotiations until 90 days after notifying Congress. Last night he sent that notification to Congress. The letter from the US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, to Congress said the USTR planned to start talks between “the first and fifth largest economies in the world … as soon as it is ready after it exits the European Union on March 29, 2019.” The United States wants to develop “cutting edge obligations for emerging sectors where U.S. and U.K. innovators and entrepreneurs are most competitive.” The UK – US free trade deal will cover the biggest transatlantic bilateral trading relationship in the world, right over the airspace of Ireland… The letter also reveals that although the EU prevents the UK from formally negotiating a trade deal until after Britain escapes from the EU’s grip, Liam Fox and he have established a US-UK Trade & Investment Working Group which is “laying the groundwork for a potential future free trade agreement”. Turns out when Cameron asked Obama to say “Britain would be at the back of the queue” he was totally lying wrong…" US/UK Trade Deal
Let's not forget. The US is the UK's biggest trading partner, not the EU. A trade deal was always on the cards and I agree that it was Cameron requesting Obama to say that. The question was and is always going to be at what price. The US are not in the mood to be benign benefactors and will want their pound of flesh too (well, chlorinated chicken). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 11:35:19 GMT
White House notifies Congress: US/UK Trade deal at the front of the queue "Under fast-track trade rules, the US Trade Representative cannot start trade negotiations until 90 days after notifying Congress. Last night he sent that notification to Congress. The letter from the US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, to Congress said the USTR planned to start talks between “the first and fifth largest economies in the world … as soon as it is ready after it exits the European Union on March 29, 2019.” The United States wants to develop “cutting edge obligations for emerging sectors where U.S. and U.K. innovators and entrepreneurs are most competitive.” The UK – US free trade deal will cover the biggest transatlantic bilateral trading relationship in the world, right over the airspace of Ireland… The letter also reveals that although the EU prevents the UK from formally negotiating a trade deal until after Britain escapes from the EU’s grip, Liam Fox and he have established a US-UK Trade & Investment Working Group which is “laying the groundwork for a potential future free trade agreement”. Turns out when Cameron asked Obama to say “Britain would be at the back of the queue” he was totally lying wrong…" US/UK Trade Deal
Let's not forget. The US is the UK's biggest trading partner, not the EU. A trade deal was always on the cards and I agree that it was Cameron requesting Obama to say that. The question was and is always going to be at what price. The US are not in the mood to be benign benefactors and will want their pound of flesh too (well, chlorinated chicken). C'mon Stuart, don't start with that chlorinated chicken nonsense. A Free Trade Deal does not mean that the US can sell anything they want in the UK. Any goods/foods etc still have to meet the Market Standards for which it's intended, therefore, if chlorinated chicken does not meet the UK Standards, the US cannot sell it in the UK. That applies to any market anywhere in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 17, 2018 11:55:49 GMT
A trade deal was always on the cards and I agree that it was Cameron requesting Obama to say that. The question was and is always going to be at what price. The US are not in the mood to be benign benefactors and will want their pound of flesh too (well, chlorinated chicken). C'mon Stuart, don't start with that chlorinated chicken nonsense. A Free Trade Deal does not mean that the US can sell anything they want in the UK. Any goods/foods etc still have to meet the Market Standards for which it's intended, therefore, if chlorinated chicken does not meet the UK Standards, the US cannot sell it in the UK. That applies to any market anywhere in the world. It was a play on word with regards to the pound of flesh reference. For what it is worth I agree that emotive phrases including the 'privatisation of the NHS'is unhelpful. With regards to standards, isn't part of the benefit of leaving is that we can do things our own way? If we choose to loosen some areas and accept different standards (not necessary but including lower) then that is a good thing? |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 17, 2018 11:59:11 GMT
It's all crap. Negotiated by crap. We'll end up with crap. Then the crap will all go off to their Tuscan holiday homes and leave us in the crap.
Great. Have a crap life being British.
|
|
