Brexit

[slewthy]

I think the only individual here that is not pursuing a self serving agenda is TM. I bet she cant wait to leave the job!! She must be sick to the back teeth of all this.

Gove's speech before the no confidence vote was very good but surely a grand maneuver in aid of his own career trajectory. You could almost see it in May's eyes behind him - 'yep, you speak well, better than me and if you want my job, you are welcome to it!'

 

[MPx]

Short memory Buddsy - that's exactly what Cameron did after firing the starting gun...   

That was the opportunity to put a Brexiteer in the hot seat - but MPs were wise to that and ensured the power stayed with those who have absolutely no confidence or belief in a future for the UK outside the EU.  At that point the negotiation was lost.  No deal is our only hope now but it is looking very unlikely already and less likely by the day.

[ChrisJ]

Write to your MP and tell them so. I have.

[oilmagnet477]

'No Deal' is actually already legislated for as a default position if a deal can't be struck - MPs may not like it and have come to the realisation too late that this is what they put in place.

If there were to be a second referendum - it would logically need to say:

1. Accept the newly agreed deal that Parliament has supported or

2. Don't leave.

HOWEVER.............

IF the F*ckers at Westminster CAN agree a deal then we leave on those terms - no need for a second referendum!

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

That's only half the story. Even if the PM does cobble together enough votes from a rainbow alliance to pass a revised deal, it's then got to be agreed by the other 27 states of the EU.

[ChrisJ]

When everyone voted in the referendum - i.e. before the result was known, what was your expectation of what would occur in the unlikely event that Leave won the vote.

Mine was that we would:

• Leave the Single Market
• Leave the Customs Union
• Leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ
• Stop paying anything further to the EU
• Stop accepting any laws/regulations from the EU
• Take back control of those areas that had been ceded to the EEC/EU - i.e. farming, fisheries etc.
• Have the same visa regulations for every non UK (and Irish) citizen - allowing the UK to tweak these regulations depending upon our requirements.

As far as I can remember, we were told that if leave won the vote all of the above would happen - by both sides of the debate.

There was nothing about having to have a "deal" prior to leaving, It was vote to leave and we have all the above.

It seems to me that it is the losing side of the referendum that is stating that we cannot leave without a deal.

 

So @oilmagnet477, I think that your option number 2 should read "Leave without a deal" as that is what was voted for in the referendum

 

 

 

 

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

^^^^ 100% agree with your pre-referendum thinking (plus end to free movement of people).

That's why I voted Remain.

[PaulLF1]

Chris J, excellent post and more or less why I voted leave.

The government did not need to talk to the EU, they were told by the result of the referendum, that the people wanted to leave the EU.

So why negotiate with the EU. It has been a total waste of time and proved by parliament voting the deal down.

So quite simple, we leave and stick 2 fingers up to the EU.

The last 2 years should have been spent on how the UK was going to manage, instead of talking to those parasites who run the EU.

Edited January 18, 2019 by PaulLF1

[Barrykearley]

@ChrisJ spot on - that was exactly what was in the propaganda leaflet on behalf of leave.

[C8RKH]

6 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

@ChrisJ spot on - that was exactly what was in the propaganda leaflet on behalf of leave.

And Remain I believe....!

[ChrisJ]

@LotusLeftLotusRight - Irrespective of whether you voted leave or remain, if this was what the expectation of what leave meant, then why is it being redefined ?

My last point was re the free movement of people. I personally would prefer to give priority (or at least equal priority)  to those countries that we have historic links to - i.e. Commonwealth, over those that have come together as completely disparate countries. In most cases the Commonwealth countries speak English, their rule of law is the same as ours and most of them have fought on our side in the past.

Couple of points I missed out that did influence me, but I don't think formed part of the general expectaton:

One I mentioned above is that our rule of law is "common law" whereas the majority of Europe is based upon the Napoleonic code. These two are fundamentally different. I have always understood this as (oversimplification) under common law everything is permitted unless it is restricted, whereas under Napoleonic code, everything is restricted unless permitted - hence why the reams of rules and regulations emanating from the EU to regulate everything from bananas (No. 2257/94) to the annoying Internet cookie regulation.

Tariffs set by the EU are not necessarily in the UK's interests as they protect products that are produced in the rest of EU from world competition, so potentially forcing us to pay higher prices.

[C8RKH]

Bang on @ChrisJ.. Just one small point the law here in Scotland has many major and minor variations to the law in England as in Scotland more Roman law principles were retain I believe whereas wasn't English (rUK) more Norman based?  A small trifling point but you do state very well and clearly a major difference between the UK and the EU re the interpretation of laws.

[JG220]

15 hours ago, Buddsy said:

I dont know why the MPs feel they have the duty to take a no deal off the table?

Seems to me most people now just want a no deal then to start a fresh? 

 

buddsy

I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. 

However, if you had another vote with no deal on the ballot, at least you could be sure.

[JG220]

2 hours ago, ChrisJ said:

When everyone voted in the referendum - i.e. before the result was known, what was your expectation of what would occur in the unlikely event that Leave won the vote.

Mine was that we would:

• Leave the Single Market
• Leave the Customs Union
• Leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ
• Stop paying anything further to the EU
• Stop accepting any laws/regulations from the EU
• Take back control of those areas that had been ceded to the EEC/EU - i.e. farming, fisheries etc.
• Have the same visa regulations for every non UK (and Irish) citizen - allowing the UK to tweak these regulations depending upon our requirements.

As far as I can remember, we were told that if leave won the vote all of the above would happen - by both sides of the debate.

There was nothing about having to have a "deal" prior to leaving, It was vote to leave and we have all the above.

It seems to me that it is the losing side of the referendum that is stating that we cannot leave without a deal.

 

So @oilmagnet477, I think that your option number 2 should read "Leave without a deal" as that is what was voted for in the referendum

 

 

 

 

I don't remember it quite like that. I recall that the answer to the regular question of 'what are we going to do about trade with our closest allies?' was that we would come to preferential arrangements (i.e not WTO) to enable trade. Those arrangement effectively meant some kind of deal. What was obvious at the time, but maybe not to all, was that in order to have those arrangements, the UK may have to accept some trading rules (like for example free movement, in the event of a customs union) and therefore to say that leave was a hard brexit vote, to me at least is somewhat stretching what was being pitched at the time. Unless of course people voting leave thought they could have their cake and eat it.

Edited January 18, 2019 by JG220

[Neal H]

My understanding was that we give notice and then in the intervening period negotiate a seperate trade deal (which we may have to pay for), but such a deal was not a pre-requisite of leaving. It has always been clear that WTO rules would apply if a seperate trade deal could not be negotiated.

In the intervening two years, no serious negotiation has taken place because the Prime Minister, the (majority of) Cabinet and Parliament, didn't want to leave.

[C8RKH]

There was no mention of leaving being subject to a deal with EU that needed a meaningful vote in Parliament to approve it and a second peoples vote by another referendum to further ratify it.

I think we can all agree on that.

The first thing that happened was the EU stated we could not negotiate any trade deals with anyone before we had left. They said then that if we wanted a deal wirh them, the EU, we would have to pay AND abide by their wishes.

That was the point to call their bluff and in parallel say thank you for the deal you have offered but no thanks whilst then immediately kicking off meaningful trade deals elsewhere.

Instead we cut our testicles off, fried them, added some French mustard then plated them up and served them to Junckers for his supper.

The reason for that was the opposition and traitor bluecoat Tories had tabled the demand for plarliament to approve any deal. That was not on the cards prior to the vote.

They never thought Leave would win and their response to losing has been to try to move the goalposts from Day 1. The SNP in Scotland did the same thing after Indyref 1.

 

[Neal H]

It is interesting that people who voted leave and people who voted remain have a completely different interpretation of what the referendum question actually meant, yet the question asked was a very simple one:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Remain a member of the European Union Leave the European Union

[oilmagnet477]

3 hours ago, ChrisJ said:

So @oilmagnet477, I think that your option number 2 should read "Leave without a deal" as that is what was voted for in the referendum

Sorry CJ - I agree with everything else you have said but if the second question is 'Leave without a deal' then surely that represents where we already are. As I stated, a vote for a no deal has no mandate as it has already been legislated for.

Either way, it strikes me that a second referendum solves nothing.

Imagine if (most likely IMHO) leave increase the margin of the win. Parliament are still supposed to cobble together a deal, agreeable to the majority (27 EU states included).

If remain were to win a second vote but imagine that they win with a similar but reversed margin (52:48) but with a lower turnout - the original 17million+ votes that originally won the 2016 vote could be overturned by a remain result with a smaller vote - say 16m votes - I don't even think the Politicians are dumb enough to inflict that on the Country (but then again.......)

What really surprised me was that however large the margin was for TM's deal being rejected, if the lousy Tory MPs had voted with the PM, the deal would have passed 320 v 314. Whatever happened to party politics, when you voted for a party who stood for what you believed rather than the individual.............?

[Barrykearley]

Yeah but - the deal is shit.

i for one don’t want a deal, it was never part of the independence campaign and I don’t know why it’s being discussed in parliament 

[ChrisJ]

@oilmagnet477 All the "elites" are saying "but no-one voted for no deal", which is strange as that is exactly what I think was voted for. So if "no deal" was on the referendum, it would be very obvious that this is what was wanted if it got a majority.

If Parliament "negotiate" another crap deal (and why wouldn't they on their current performance), what choice would your two options give to the population. Remain cannot and should not be on any future ballot until we have left the EU - as we have already decided to leave with the once in a generation "People's vote".

Let's leave as per the instruction given.

If in a few years time people want to campaign to re-join, I have no problem with that, but you must enact the first result otherwise what happens for any future election/referendum. The precedent would have been set that if you jump up and down and make enough noise, the vote would have to be taken again.

@Barrykearley Because they like jumping up and down going waaaaahhhhhhhh!

 

[Barrykearley]

Leave means leave.

it doesn’t mean deal - it means leave wih no deal.

[C8RKH]

3 hours ago, Neal H said:

It is interesting that people who voted leave and people who voted remain have a completely different interpretation of what the referendum question actually meant, yet the question asked was a very simple one:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Remain a member of the European Union Leave the European Union

Agreed. Where in that box does it say subject to the deal being known, ratified, etc?  It just says we leave. So why aren't we just leaving?

 

[slewthy]

Well thats exactly what the Eurocrats are terrified of and its probably the only bargaining chip we have left.

Lets hope thats TM's grand plan???!!..??

[Barrykearley]

But I never knew my house would plummet in value, interest rates rocket, unemployment soar, food shortages, no medicine and small puppies die.......

oh hang on 🤔

[Black Forest Power]

15 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Agreed. Where in that box does it say subject to the deal being known, ratified, etc?  It just says we leave. So why aren't we just leaving?

 

Well, it is like getting asked by your wife: Do you want to remain being married with me or do you want to leave?

Sure, you can walk just out of the house but there were some treaties signed by both parties before. Usually both, at least one party, and for sure legislation wants to dissolve and terminate the marriage mostly in conjunction with a deal.