Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

I see good old Moggy has asked the PM to dissolve parliament if they a no deal Brexit is ruled out. Is that what taking back control looks like?

Pr4wn wrote:I see good old Moggy has asked the PM to dissolve parliament if they a no deal Brexit is ruled out. Is that what taking back control looks like?

Under the cool, calm demeanor the man is starting to panic.  I wonder what he has to say now that the WTO have clarified that unless there is some sort of agreement between the UK and EU then we wont actually still be able to trade as is.

from Reuters:

Pro-brexit campaigners say even if Britain and the EU fail to agree terms for their divorce, Article 24 of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade would let them keep trading as now for up to a decade.  

"People would carry on pretty much as is," Richard Tice, vice-chairman of pro-Brexit campaign group Leave Means Leave, told BBC Radio this week.  Although there is a clause in the rules that allow for interim agreements, WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell said it also requires the two sides to provide a plan and reasonable time-frame for their deal to take shape: a distant prospect.  

"This presupposes, of course, that both the UK and the EU agree on the process of negotiating a deal, whatever form that deal may take.  It would also require that both parties agree to the interim deal," He said.

Trade lawyers are exaserpated that Article 24 keeps surfacing, despite their attempts to knock it down.

Further evidence that No Deal will be a complete disaster, not just for the NHS, Haulage, Agriculture and the economy, but now for trade aswell.  Straight from the horses mouth.  Although Im sure some members here will be able to provide evidence to the contrary, or do we just need to apply some independant thought?

Sony moving Europe HQ to Netherlands from the UK as a direct result of Brexit.
Airbus stating they'll do the same if it's a no deal.
Dyson, the business champions of Brexit moving their HQ to Singapore.

Last one out of the country turn the lights off.

Samo wrote:

Under the cool, calm demeanor the man is starting to panic.  I wonder what he has to say now that the WTO have clarified that unless there is some sort of agreement between the UK and EU then we wont actually still be able to trade as is.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the idea of a ten-year transitional period; I've only heard from politicians that no deal will = tariffs.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Under the cool, calm demeanor the man is starting to panic.  I wonder what he has to say now that the WTO have clarified that unless there is some sort of agreement between the UK and EU then we wont actually still be able to trade as is.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the idea of a ten-year transitional period; I've only heard from politicians that no deal will = tariffs.

JRM still consistently maintains that No Deal will LOWER tariffs, despite that claim being consistently proven false.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Under the cool, calm demeanor the man is starting to panic.  I wonder what he has to say now that the WTO have clarified that unless there is some sort of agreement between the UK and EU then we wont actually still be able to trade as is.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the idea of a ten-year transitional period; I've only heard from politicians that no deal will = tariffs.

JRM still consistently maintains that No Deal will LOWER tariffs, despite that claim being consistently proven false.

Well it depends. No deal will likely raise tariffs with the EU, yes, but it has the potential to lower tariffs with non-EU nations because the UK will be free of the common external tariff, and also the UK would be free to sign its own trade deals.

And it'll be having to wh0re itself to anyone that'll listen.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Under the cool, calm demeanor the man is starting to panic.  I wonder what he has to say now that the WTO have clarified that unless there is some sort of agreement between the UK and EU then we wont actually still be able to trade as is.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the idea of a ten-year transitional period; I've only heard from politicians that no deal will = tariffs.

JRM still consistently maintains that No Deal will LOWER tariffs, despite that claim being consistently proven false.

Well it depends. No deal will likely raise tariffs with the EU, yes, but it has the potential to lower tariffs with non-EU nations because the UK will be free of the common external tariff, and also the UK would be free to sign its own trade deals.

Trade deals which could takes years to set up, until then tariffs need to be indentical between parties. If we lower one we need to lower them all. Which makes trading without a deal a nightmare.

Hero wrote:And it'll be having to wh0re itself to anyone that'll listen.

Good grief, the way some people carry on, you'd be amazed to learn that there's about 160 countries outside the EU!

Oh certainly, we're basically the guy who used to like living in the city in a high paid job that's decided it's too much hassle and instead we'll move to the countryside and take up whittling. We'll now sell our whittled bits of wood to people at village fetes.

Hero wrote:Oh certainly, we're basically the guy who used to like living in the city in a high paid job that's decided it's too much hassle and instead we'll move to the countryside and take up whittling. We'll now sell our whittled bits of wood to people at village fetes.

Sounds good. Living in a city is bloody awful.

The problem is I suppose that the high paid city job chaps never cared about the country whittlers until the country whittlers voted.

Now whittlers are being talked about. That must be some kind of bonus

SecretFly wrote:The problem is I suppose that the high paid city job chaps never cared about the country whittlers until the country whittlers voted.

Now whittlers are being talked about.  That must be some kind of bonus

Why would they care about the whittlers? Not part of their job description any more than it's part of a whittlers job to pontificate on city chaps.

Samo wrote:James Dyson believes in Brexit that much that upping sticks and moving to Singapore. You know, that country that have just signed a massive FTA with the EU.

I honestly cant see how people still buy into this nonsense. The wool has well and truly been pulled over peoples eyes.

Yeah but Dyson shafted production to Singapore yonks ago, so feck him and his 'oovers.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like i said empty sound bytes from May. Her cross-party talks is complete nonsense given she refuses to talk about customs unions or any other sort of trade deals and ruling out suggestions. She has made it clear that she refuses to discuss removing her red lines or compromising.

She's hamstrung by the referendum result, her party's manifesto, the DUP and many in her own party. She clearly feels that a lot of what you think should happen is going against several principles. Doesn't help the situation, but if people don't understand that, it's hardly her fault. Corbyn et al banging on and on about things she feels are non-starters is pretty lame.

Assuming the EU aren't going to re-negotiate any substantive details of the agreement already reached, I can't see much of a way out except a referendum asking one of two things:

1) Out with no-deal (default in any case as it stands)
2) Out with previously agreed deal that Parliament rejected

Option 2 would need significant time to arrange (so, request for A50 extension with fingers crossed that E27 agree), primarily so expert independent lawyers and whomever else is needed can explain exactly what voting for either option would mean prior to a vote.

We're screwed, basically.

Basically, she was BSing to everyone. She told the house yesterday that she was open to talks and opinions - that is her side of things. Corbyn then claimed it was an empty gesture as she wasn't for budging which she denied. But Ian Blackford (SNP Leader) seem to back what Corbyn said as she was not for listening. She has wasted two and a half years and has finally got round to claiming to do what the SNP suggesting as soon as the Brexit result was announced. Various MPs yesterday cornered her and asked if she'd put up votes on things such as a CU or another referendum or pausing activation of Article 50 and she could not bring herself to say she would do that.

On your final point we were screwed a very long time ago only the Tories are in complete denial.

Ah, forgot. Sorry. SNP infallible. Had the solution all along. Everyone else go home - the SNP have sorted it; what a relief.

She's spoken to people. They disagree on what's doable. End of. As much a fault of Blackford/Corby etc as May. If they suggest rubbish that they know she won't/can't agree to, who's more at fault? They're all as bad as each other. If she (and her party/Cabinet) think some lines are uncrossable for referendum/manifesto reasons, why is it that you and your ilk know better?

I'm not a May supporter per se, but the bollox peddled on both sides is amazing.

You really are kidding yourself aren't you? Who insisted on Brexit being a Tory exclusive matter? And who is it two and a half years later who are no further down the line nearer to a deal? Answer to both are the Tories. Who then claims to want cross-party ideas two and a half years after the SNP (and others) suggested it and then dismiss every idea put forward by these cross-parties? Answer again the Tories.

But of course it is everyone's fault.

WTF has the rest of the Commons been doing for over 2 years if it's been so obvious that May et al were so obviously stupid? Why has it taken until now for anyone to attempt to wrest control of this from the Government?

You don't get it about why these oh-so hopeful suggestions are non-starters do you? Like it or lump it, May and others see them as non-constructive and non-starters given the referendum outcome etc.

The same as they did when new labour were fecking up everything, I guess.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The duty of the opposition is not to blindly oppose everything the Government proposes.

Never said blindly..

Winston Churchill..."The duty of an opposition is to oppose the Government"

Corbyn has offered an olive branch..Permanent CU..

She should find the Bollox and take it.

"...make them too greedy to oppose us." said Longshanks.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Under the cool, calm demeanor the man is starting to panic.  I wonder what he has to say now that the WTO have clarified that unless there is some sort of agreement between the UK and EU then we wont actually still be able to trade as is.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the idea of a ten-year transitional period; I've only heard from politicians that no deal will = tariffs.

JRM still consistently maintains that No Deal will LOWER tariffs, despite that claim being consistently proven false.

Well it depends. No deal will likely raise tariffs with the EU, yes, but it has the potential to lower tariffs with non-EU nations because the UK will be free of the common external tariff, and also the UK would be free to sign its own trade deals.

Trade deals which could takes years to set up, until then tariffs need to be indentical between parties.  If we lower one we need to lower them all. Which makes trading without a deal a nightmare.

Did you see James Delingpole on This Week last night when confronted with this issue? His "I don't know" right at the end was the equivalent of one of Duty's disappearances when faced with a difficult question.

superflyweight wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Under the cool, calm demeanor the man is starting to panic.  I wonder what he has to say now that the WTO have clarified that unless there is some sort of agreement between the UK and EU then we wont actually still be able to trade as is.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the idea of a ten-year transitional period; I've only heard from politicians that no deal will = tariffs.

JRM still consistently maintains that No Deal will LOWER tariffs, despite that claim being consistently proven false.

Well it depends. No deal will likely raise tariffs with the EU, yes, but it has the potential to lower tariffs with non-EU nations because the UK will be free of the common external tariff, and also the UK would be free to sign its own trade deals.

Trade deals which could takes years to set up, until then tariffs need to be indentical between parties.  If we lower one we need to lower them all. Which makes trading without a deal a nightmare.

Did you see James Delingpole on This Week last night when confronted with this issue?  His "I don't know"  right at the end was the equivalent of one of Duty's disappearances when faced with a difficult question.  

It would be glorious if it wasnt so serious.

Not sure where all these famed 'disappearances' are from. Admittedly, I'm not on here 24/7.

And personally, I wish more political journalists and politicians would say 'don't know' if they genuinely don't know about a topic, rather than bluster and waffle their way through (the tedious 'Question Time' show a perfect example of this).

Ah yes. Delingpole should be admired. Take note, all.

Duty281 wrote:Not sure where all these famed 'disappearances' are from. Admittedly, I'm not on here 24/7.

And personally, I wish more political journalists and politicians would say 'don't know' if they genuinely don't know about a topic, rather than bluster and waffle their way through (the tedious 'Question Time' show a perfect example of this).

It would be fine to say "I don't know" if he hadn't previously been confidently spouting out sh1te about how great things would be under WTO when he clearly knows less than f**k all about it.

If more Leave campaigners had said 'I don't know' in 2016, we might not be in this predicament.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:If more Leave campaigners had said 'I don't know' in 2016, we might not be in this predicament.

Unfortunately most of them are now doubling down on their cowpat and blaming either the EU or the 'Remoaners' and the voters are eating it up.

Owen Paterson was on Adam Boulton's show the other day, and Boulton asked him what the problem was with extending Article 50, if it meant getting a good deal. Owen Paterson started saying the usual '17.4 million people voted Leave and it would be a betrayal if we didn't leave', to which Adam Boulton said that while they voted to leave, they didn't vote for when we would leave. The best Paterson could do in response was to mumble something about the public knowing what Article 50 entails (I don't remember timelines being mentioned at all during the referendum).

I do think this is where talk of a second referendum muddies the waters. If Leave-minded MPs felt more confident that Brexit was definitely going ahead and wasn't in danger of being reconsidered and possibly overturned, then more of them might be open to the idea of us taking more time to come to an agreement on what deal we should / might be able to have. If they see an extension as a ploy to get a second referendum, which isn't necessarily the case, they'll dig in their heels, and No Deal may be more likely.

Government are now planning for Martial Law in the event of No Deal.

Martial Frak Law. Go ahead and tell me how No Deal is still a good idea.

Martial law now hey ??..Love those Western movies of yesteryear..

Just project Fear bollox..She wants to get her deal passed..

We were running out of food and water last week..

If the Govt were worried they would agree a permanent CU..

Repeat after me........THERE WON'T BE A NO DEAL BREXIT

See May has told Ministers privately she is taking No deal off the table....Who knew ??

She goes from placating one set of Tories to the other set daily..

All we are getting is politics when Poverty is at record levels and People are seeing operations cancelled or are waiting months to top the Op list.

Very sad.

OK, so we know Parliament has now officially voiced its disapproval of No Deal. And officially voiced its approval of May's deal if she can get the backstop changed.
Hopefully now even less chance of no deal, since everyone knows it would be an economic disaster
(including those who deny it, I believe - they know it would be, but are willing to sacrifice other peoples' futures for their own beliefs).
Problem is whether May can get the EU to change anything - unlikely but who knows?

EU have just said they aren't negotiating...So Brady's bill is irrelevant....

What we know..

1. Britain is leaving on March 29..

2. May's deal is the only real way to leave if No deal is off the table..

Looks like May's deal it is....A half in half out Brexit that was rejected by a record margin two weeks ago..

Deary me..

We know little more this evening than we knew last night. I was surprised that the Dromey/Spelman amendment won by such a narrow margin; I was expecting something a bit bigger.

So it's either May's deal or no deal. No deal looks ever more likely after the three amendments of Reeves, Cooper and Grieve were rejected.

The EU are unlikely to agree to extend article 50 (if Parliament asks for such an extension) and they are even less likely to renegotiate what's on the table. Another referendum looks a dead option. Rumours of a GE have, for now, died down.

59 days until exit. By the time we get to the next meaningful vote (13th-14th February, I believe) we'll be down to 43 days.

All I pray is that someone other than the British (and the EU) compile the next Oxford English Dictionary Edition.

LEAVE
Verb:
1. To go away from
2. Allow or cause to remain
3. To discuss meaning of indefinitely
4. To get out immediately
5. To Stop the right of exit
6. To prevaricate
7. To stall democracy
8. To sneer democracy
9. To be against referendums
10. To be in favour of People's Votes
11. To talk endlessly
12. To vote endlessly
13. To insult plebs
14. To sneer snobs

No deal is less likely than before (thank goodness - only selfish, ego-driven people would accept it) but not as unlikely as if Reeves, Cooper and/or Grieve had passed.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No deal is less likely than before (thank goodness - only selfish, ego-driven people would accept it) but not as unlikely as if Reeves, Cooper and/or Grieve had passed.

That's exactly why it's more likely - because those amendments have been rejected, meaning the chances of alternatives to no deal going through have been reduced.

I guess you didn't see Spellman's amendment.
But I'm sure you, like other rational people with the best interests of the majority, are hoping that no deal doesn't happen and that we get a deal passed.

Britain is increasingly looking like a complete basket case that doesn't know its arse from its elbow. How on earth are the deluded Brexiteers expecting to saunter around the world collecting trade deals after this complete mess?

The government has had two and a half years to sort this out and we still don't know what situation the country will be in come 29th March. It's an utter disgrace.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I guess you didn't see Spellman's amendment.

Yes, hence my previous comment on it. It is a non-binding amendment. Everyone knew, already, that the majority of Parliamentarians would be against a no-deal exit; this just confirmed it. But it has done nothing to alter the situation - it's either May's deal or no deal.

Ah - non-binding. Like the referendum. So we should ignore them both?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ah - non-binding. Like the referendum. So we should ignore them both?

Two entirely different things. The referendum, whilst advisory (like in 1975 and the Scottish one in 2014), had a promise from the government to implement its outcome, and has since been enshrined via Acts of Parliament. The non-binding amendments yesterday are merely a signal of the House of Commons' intentions which Theresa May can use the next time she goes over the channel.

Yes, it has since been enshrined via Acts of Parliament. But presumably if that hadn't happened, you'd have been fine with it because it was originally non-binding. Unless you're a hypocrite, which I'm sure you're not.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, it has since been enshrined via Acts of Parliament. But presumably if that hadn't happened, you'd have been fine with it because it was originally non-binding. Unless you're a hypocrite, which I'm sure you're not.

You're arguing two different things here - one is the parliamentary process, one is a public referendum. They're entirely different. That's before you get on to the fact that no-deal cannot be (to borrow a phrase) taken off the table until either a deal is agreed or article 50 is revoked.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, it has since been enshrined via Acts of Parliament. But presumably if that hadn't happened, you'd have been fine with it because it was originally non-binding. Unless you're a hypocrite, which I'm sure you're not.

You're arguing two different things here - one is the parliamentary process, one is a public referendum. They're entirely different. That's before you get on to the fact that no-deal cannot be (to borrow a phrase) taken off the table until either a deal is agreed or article 50 is revoked.

Yes it can.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I guess you didn't see Spellman's amendment.

Yes, hence my previous comment on it. It is a non-binding amendment. Everyone knew, already, that the majority of Parliamentarians would be against a no-deal exit; this just confirmed it. But it has done nothing to alter the situation - it's either May's deal or no deal.

If parliament are against No-Deal its either Mays deal or No Brexit. Enough Tory MP’s have faith in Mays deal that they’ll keep voting for it because in their mind you need to keep No Deal on the table for negotiation purposes, but when push comes to shove enough of them will vote to avoid a No Deal.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, it has since been enshrined via Acts of Parliament. But presumably if that hadn't happened, you'd have been fine with it because it was originally non-binding. Unless you're a hypocrite, which I'm sure you're not.

You're arguing two different things here - one is the parliamentary process, one is a public referendum. They're entirely different.

Also, maybe I'm not a great judge of character.

So May whips her backbenchers to vote against her deal..

Wins and is Winston Churchill reborn according to the Mail.

No wonder newspaper sales are dropping..British people deserve better than the press they have.

A lot of British people get the press they deserve.

There's also a possibility that once the EU have told May to go away with the latest proposal and the threat of no deal gets ever closer, that an amendment similar to the Cooper amendment will get enough parliamentary support next time round.

Well exactly. It wasn't yesterday's amendments or bust.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:See May has told Ministers privately she is taking No deal off the table....Who knew ??

She goes from placating one set of Tories to the other set daily..

All we are getting is politics when Poverty is at record levels and People are seeing operations cancelled or are waiting months to top the Op list.

Very sad.

Crime too, I guess. Fraud, corruption, greed. 40 years of those at least. And billionaires, nepotism, cronyism, lying gets, homelessness, bull$hit and bollux. Hands in the till-ism....

The crime survey says overall levels of crime are in decline. Meanwhile, absolute poverty in the UK is falling and relative poverty is fairly stable.

Poverty is exactly the same as it always was.
I only say that so that one of Truss, Duty or myself must be correct.