|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Dec 5, 2018 13:23:27 GMT
I emailed my MP Gary Streeter to find out what his stance would be at the vote next week. I stated that I was unhappy because I had voted to leave and the Withdrawal Agreement could leave us shackled to the EU without being a member if the NI backstop was invoked. For many Brexiteers this is the sticking point with the WA. His reply made some sense because he states that the backstop is, as we all know, a last resort if a border agreement cannot be thrashed out by Jan 2021. However because free movement of people will stop on March 29 next year, the EU will not want us in a customs union without freedom of movement for one day longer than is necessary. This appears to be the "calculated risk" that the Attorney General spoke about couple of days ago. What are people’s thought on this? As I understand it there is no legal means of triggering a unilateral withdrawal from the backstop. But [From Sky News] Legal advice: A dangerous precedent
The advice claims that by offering Northern Ireland full access to the single market for goods, and the Customs Union, without the corresponding obligations of membership, the "four freedoms" will be split.
This could set a dangerous future precedent for any other members of the EU who want to exit.
The extent of the EU customs territory for trade negotiation will be uncertain.
There could also be problems extending from the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, having a knock-on effect of other countries with overseas territories like Spain and the Canary Islands.
So, it appears that the Govt is relying on the uncomfortable position for the EU of allowing a non-member state having access to the SM, especially in creating a precedent for future states who may want to leave. That puts the backstop on a political footing which is the 'calculated risk'. How much do we trust EU politicians to be open to removing the pressure of their split of the 4 freedoms rather than having legal control ourselves? |
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Dec 5, 2018 13:37:35 GMT
Pragmatically speaking this whole Brexit stuff has been a complete car crash from the get go:
1. The question was voted on before anyone knew what the options were.
2. The campaigners on all sides lied to the public.
3. The public voted based on almost zero knowledge.
4. Article 50 was invoked prematurely.
5. Negotiations were rushed and hacked into rough clumps of partial-agreement as a result.
6. The ongoing bickering has spilled out into an all out stalemate.
7. The nett effect is likely to be a new public vote which no one will agree on the result of.
8. The Pound has tanked during the whole process.
9. The end result will be a lukewarm squib however it turns out.
Basically MPs of all parties caused a massive ongoing ruckus which has achieved precisely nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Dec 5, 2018 14:01:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 5, 2018 15:04:21 GMT
I emailed my MP Gary Streeter to find out what his stance would be at the vote next week. I stated that I was unhappy because I had voted to leave and the Withdrawal Agreement could leave us shackled to the EU without being a member if the NI backstop was invoked. For many Brexiteers this is the sticking point with the WA. His reply made some sense because he states that the backstop is, as we all know, a last resort if a border agreement cannot be thrashed out by Jan 2021. However because free movement of people will stop on March 29 next year, the EU will not want us in a customs union without freedom of movement for one day longer than is necessary. This appears to be the "calculated risk" that the Attorney General spoke about couple of days ago. What are people’s thought on this? Easy. There is no guarantee that FoM will end next year. The single reason given by your MP for the EU not wanting the UK to stay too long in the backstop is not defined. Ask your MP to show you the exact chapter that states this will be the case in CONJUNCTION with the Government's White Paper on future immigration. He won't be able to as the White Paper won't be published until after May signs the WA. The WA rambles on about citizens rights and Chapter 4 in Political Declaration says the future framework must; "It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom."But the the rest of the PD is pretty thin and of course not legally binding at all . Mobility section IX of political declaration The other question would be, why is the the backstop there in the first place? If the EU don't like it and the UK have had resignations over it why is it in the legally binding treaty? By who's insistence? Ireland, the UK and the EU have all unilaterally ruled out a hard border UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES so why the need for the backstop. It's not on the WTO's behalf who have also ruled out a hard border even under a No Deal scenario. Much easier to have a time limited transition/implementation period which is 'election proof' as it's not activated by politics, keeps both parties focused and is a definite date in the future for business' to work towards. Here's the thing. If the EU were so set against the backstop then May's red line should have been No Backstop and prepare for No Deal. If the EU really didn't like the backstop they would have binned it for something else. If they had gone through the red line and tripped into No Deal it proves they wanted it all along and it would have benefited them as leverage in any future trade talks and we were better off out under No Deal. Alternatively you could just ask him to listen more carefully at PMQ's when the Prime Minister stated the EU said if there was no backstop there was no trade deal. " But there is no alternative deal that honours our commitments to Northern Ireland which does not involve this insurance policy. And the EU would not have agreed any future partnership without it. Put simply, there is no deal that comes without a backstop, and without a backstop there is no deal." - Thersea May, 26 November, Hansard. |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Dec 5, 2018 15:15:11 GMT
Ooowah, is it a smoking gun buffalo Bill... |
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Dec 5, 2018 15:21:29 GMT
We need to go back to the first referendum all those years back then And nip that fucker in the bud Fair enough mate, we just shouldn't be doing it full stop IMHO. Ask the public what they think and we'd still be hanging gay folks from lamp posts! We'd never move on. It's the job of our elected MP's not only to take the time and trouble to understand legislation properly but also to provide leadership, to take us to a better place as a civilisation if that doesn't sound too pompous and unlikely, which it does! How do you know the public would be hanging gays from lamposts ? That's a very unscientific guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 5, 2018 15:33:04 GMT
Fair enough mate, we just shouldn't be doing it full stop IMHO. Ask the public what they think and we'd still be hanging gay folks from lamp posts! We'd never move on. It's the job of our elected MP's not only to take the time and trouble to understand legislation properly but also to provide leadership, to take us to a better place as a civilisation if that doesn't sound too pompous and unlikely, which it does! How do you know the public would be hanging gays from lamposts ? That's a very unscientific guess. Well of course I don't, but you get the point, we'd never move on. An analogy is if all the role of government is simply to reflect and carry out the will of the majority of the people on each issue in turn then that would be like a company simply asking the employees what it should do each time there is a decision to be made. Automate that process? No. Driver less trains? No. Function outside of hours? No. Inflation busting pay rise? yes. They'd never progress and would be out of business in a few short weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Dec 5, 2018 15:40:40 GMT
How do you know the public would be hanging gays from lamposts ? That's a very unscientific guess. Well of course I don't, but you get the point, we'd never move on. An analogy is if all the role of government is simply to reflect and carry out the will of the majority of the people on each issue in turn then that would be like a company simply asking the employees what it should do each time there is a decision to be made. Automate that process? No. Driver less trains? No. Function outside of hours? No. Inflation busting pay rise? yes. They'd never progress and would be out of business in a few short weeks. We don't have referenda on Trains. We DID have one on the EU. The vote was out. Your reply is a bunch of obfuscating fucking rubbish ! |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Dec 5, 2018 16:05:50 GMT
One thing that always narks me is the '5th largest economy in the world' bit. Do people really think there's anywhere to go but down from this? for a relatively small country we have been punching well above our weight financially for years because of our EU membership, not despite it. We’ve been punching above our weight financially for centuries, for hundreds of years before we joined the “Common Market”. We are where we are because of who we are (or were) as a people, not because of the EU. We were punching above our weight because we had the best warships at our disposal to impose our will on any country we chose,(outlawed by the U.N.)we made a lot of wealth out of slaves (might also be frowned on nowadays) we also gained a few bob pillaging,is that the future you see for Britain? we are a part of EUROPE we may be a proud island race but we are Europeans. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 5, 2018 16:16:28 GMT
Well of course I don't, but you get the point, we'd never move on. An analogy is if all the role of government is simply to reflect and carry out the will of the majority of the people on each issue in turn then that would be like a company simply asking the employees what it should do each time there is a decision to be made. Automate that process? No. Driver less trains? No. Function outside of hours? No. Inflation busting pay rise? yes. They'd never progress and would be out of business in a few short weeks. We don't have referenda on Trains. We DID have one on the EU. The vote was out. Your reply is a bunch of obfuscating fucking rubbish ! We did, and we should not have, this is what happens when you punctuate a political system of elective representation with a random referendum about twice a century. You end up with a policy (leave the EU in this case) which is due to be implemented by an elected parliament who for the most part believe it to be palpable nonsense which may crash the economy and set us back years. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 5, 2018 16:18:39 GMT
I emailed my MP Gary Streeter to find out what his stance would be at the vote next week. I stated that I was unhappy because I had voted to leave and the Withdrawal Agreement could leave us shackled to the EU without being a member if the NI backstop was invoked. For many Brexiteers this is the sticking point with the WA. His reply made some sense because he states that the backstop is, as we all know, a last resort if a border agreement cannot be thrashed out by Jan 2021. However because free movement of people will stop on March 29 next year, the EU will not want us in a customs union without freedom of movement for one day longer than is necessary. This appears to be the "calculated risk" that the Attorney General spoke about couple of days ago. What are people’s thought on this? There is something in that plus we would effectively be getting certain aspects of EU membership for free during this period but then you hear there is no legal way to leave the backstop which makes me uncomfortable but here is my thing there is is always a way of leaving any agreement you can break any agreement / contract by simply stopping that usually incurs a penalty so what would the penalty be here, who could take us to court the EU is not a country ? I can understand politicians not discussing breaking agreements but Poland , East Germany can leave the soviet bloc, I'm pretty damn sure we could leave a trading arrangement if it came to it. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 5, 2018 16:21:22 GMT
Fair enough mate, we just shouldn't be doing it full stop IMHO. Ask the public what they think and we'd still be hanging gay folks from lamp posts! We'd never move on. It's the job of our elected MP's not only to take the time and trouble to understand legislation properly but also to provide leadership, to take us to a better place as a civilisation if that doesn't sound too pompous and unlikely, which it does! How do you know the public would be hanging gays from lamposts ? That's a very unscientific guess. I’d of thought it’s more likely to be bus shelters not so far to lift them At least is a new atempt at project fear |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 5, 2018 16:24:24 GMT
We’ve been punching above our weight financially for centuries, for hundreds of years before we joined the “Common Market”. We are where we are because of who we are (or were) as a people, not because of the EU. We were punching above our weight because we had the best warships at our disposal to impose our will on any country we chose,(outlawed by the U.N.)we made a lot of wealth out of slaves (might also be frowned on nowadays) we also gained a few bob pillaging,is that the future you see for Britain? we are a part of EUROPE we may be a proud island race but we are Europeans. You may consider yourself European But thankfully over 52 % of the electorate thought different And for clarification 52% is a majority |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Dec 5, 2018 16:28:57 GMT
We don't have referenda on Trains. We DID have one on the EU. The vote was out. Your reply is a bunch of obfuscating fucking rubbish ! We did, and we should not have, this is what happens when you punctuate a political system of elective representation with a random referendum about twice a century. You end up with a policy (leave the EU in this case) which is due to be implemented by an elected parliament who for the most part believe it to be palpable nonsense which may crash the economy and set us back years. Nice try,but remember you can lead a man to knowledge but you can`t make him think  |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Dec 5, 2018 16:30:31 GMT
We were punching above our weight because we had the best warships at our disposal to impose our will on any country we chose,(outlawed by the U.N.)we made a lot of wealth out of slaves (might also be frowned on nowadays) we also gained a few bob pillaging,is that the future you see for Britain? we are a part of EUROPE we may be a proud island race but we are Europeans. You may consider yourself European But thankfully over 52 % of the electorate thought different And for clarification 52% is a majority 52% of the people who bothered to vote,bet you don`t fancy a re-run do you? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Dec 5, 2018 16:36:04 GMT
We’ve been punching above our weight financially for centuries, for hundreds of years before we joined the “Common Market”. We are where we are because of who we are (or were) as a people, not because of the EU. We were punching above our weight because we had the best warships at our disposal to impose our will on any country we chose,(outlawed by the U.N.)we made a lot of wealth out of slaves (might also be frowned on nowadays) we also gained a few bob pillaging,is that the future you see for Britain? we are a part of EUROPE we may be a proud island race but we are Europeans. We are proud Europeans because of our geographic location . That won't change post Brexit . What we aren't is European by some political definition . I love Europe in all its cultural glory but utterly reject the concept of a political and economic superstate. There is no appetite for this anywhere in Europe with the exception of Brussels |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 5, 2018 16:36:30 GMT
You may consider yourself European But thankfully over 52 % of the electorate thought different And for clarification 52% is a majority 52% of the people who bothered to vote,bet you don`t fancy a re-run do you? Do I want a re-run no as I believe the first vote should stand If there is bring it on I’m ready to grind the remainers into the dust Leave will win with a bigger margin unless of course the remainers rig the question |
|
|
|
Post by neworleanstokie on Dec 5, 2018 17:45:56 GMT
We were punching above our weight because we had the best warships at our disposal to impose our will on any country we chose,(outlawed by the U.N.)we made a lot of wealth out of slaves (might also be frowned on nowadays) we also gained a few bob pillaging,is that the future you see for Britain? we are a part of EUROPE we may be a proud island race but we are Europeans. We are proud Europeans because of our geographic location . That won't change post Brexit . What we aren't is European by some political definition . I love Europe in all its cultural glory but utterly reject the concept of a political and economic superstate. There is no appetite for this anywhere in Europe with the exception of Brussels Harry if that's the case why do I have a European passport? The accurate statement would be we are part of a political Europe today but we won't be after Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Dec 5, 2018 17:47:22 GMT
Pragmatically speaking this whole Brexit stuff has been a complete car crash from the get go: 1. The question was voted on before anyone knew what the options were. 2. The campaigners on all sides lied to the public. 3. The public voted based on almost zero knowledge. 4. Article 50 was invoked prematurely.
5. Negotiations were rushed and hacked into rough clumps of partial-agreement as a result. 6. The ongoing bickering has spilled out into an all out stalemate. 7. The nett effect is likely to be a new public vote which no one will agree on the result of. 8. The Pound has tanked during the whole process. 9. The end result will be a lukewarm squib however it turns out. Basically MPs of all parties caused a massive ongoing ruckus which has achieved precisely nothing. Article 50 should have been invoked within a week of the referendum, the ridiculous delay just confirmed what the EU knew, the UK politicians had no stomach for Brexit and took full advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Dec 5, 2018 18:23:02 GMT
We were punching above our weight because we had the best warships at our disposal to impose our will on any country we chose,(outlawed by the U.N.)we made a lot of wealth out of slaves (might also be frowned on nowadays) we also gained a few bob pillaging,is that the future you see for Britain? we are a part of EUROPE we may be a proud island race but we are Europeans. You may consider yourself European But thankfully over 52 % of the electorate thought different And for clarification 52% is a majority Is this the same 52 % that now say they want too stay in !!! Brexiteers quoting the will of the people until it doesn't suit them!! Brexiteers running chicken of the will of the people!!! |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 5, 2018 18:27:13 GMT
You may consider yourself European But thankfully over 52 % of the electorate thought different And for clarification 52% is a majority 52% of the people who bothered to vote,bet you don`t fancy a re-run do you? Why should we pander to those who couldn't be bothered to vote? |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Dec 5, 2018 18:27:44 GMT
52% of the people who bothered to vote,bet you don`t fancy a re-run do you? Do I want a re-run no as I believe the first vote should stand If there is bring it on I’m ready to grind the remainers into the dust Leave will win with a bigger margin unless of course the remainers rig the question I think we all know that the question will be rigged, there’s nothing so certain. The question should be Mays deal or no deal, but it won’t be. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 5, 2018 18:34:28 GMT
You may consider yourself European But thankfully over 52 % of the electorate thought different And for clarification 52% is a majority Is this the same 52 % that now say they want too stay in !!! Brexiteers quoting the will of the people until it doesn't suit them!! Brexiteers running chicken of the will of the people!!! Difference is your 52% is purely speculation and is probably bolocks Mine is proven fact |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Dec 5, 2018 18:35:33 GMT
52% of the people who bothered to vote,bet you don`t fancy a re-run do you? Why should we pander to those who couldn't be bothered to vote? And do we also not pander to those who voted leave on the false promises of Boris and co? |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Dec 5, 2018 18:37:41 GMT
52% of the people who bothered to vote,bet you don`t fancy a re-run do you? Do I want a re-run no as I believe the first vote should stand If there is bring it on I’m ready to grind the remainers into the dust Leave will win with a bigger margin unless of course the remainers rig the question I admire your confidence is my only comment  |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 5, 2018 18:43:22 GMT
Why should we pander to those who couldn't be bothered to vote? And do we also not pander to those who voted leave on the false promises of Boris and co? You pander to the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Dec 5, 2018 18:44:09 GMT
We are proud Europeans because of our geographic location . That won't change post Brexit . What we aren't is European by some political definition . I love Europe in all its cultural glory but utterly reject the concept of a political and economic superstate. There is no appetite for this anywhere in Europe with the exception of Brussels Harry if that's the case why do I have a European passport? The accurate statement would be we are part of a political Europe today but we won't be after Brexit. Mate I would be more than happy to remain in a trading block . The direction of travel unfortunately is towards a federal union of sovereign countries dominated by Germany . As I've said many times the Euro zone can only be truly successful with totall political , economic and administrative control from a centralised treasury in Brussels. It's not how I see my countries future |
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Dec 5, 2018 19:38:54 GMT
Pragmatically speaking this whole Brexit stuff has been a complete car crash from the get go: 1. The question was voted on before anyone knew what the options were. 2. The campaigners on all sides lied to the public. 3. The public voted based on almost zero knowledge. 4. Article 50 was invoked prematurely.
5. Negotiations were rushed and hacked into rough clumps of partial-agreement as a result. 6. The ongoing bickering has spilled out into an all out stalemate. 7. The nett effect is likely to be a new public vote which no one will agree on the result of. 8. The Pound has tanked during the whole process. 9. The end result will be a lukewarm squib however it turns out. Basically MPs of all parties caused a massive ongoing ruckus which has achieved precisely nothing. Article 50 should have been invoked within a week of the referendum, the ridiculous delay just confirmed what the EU knew, the UK politicians had no stomach for Brexit and took full advantage. Actually I'd argue that any negotiations should have started before Article 50 was invoked. I know the Europeans didn't want to discuss it formally but informally it could have started. From a Brexit perspective (I'm speaking neutrally here) the leave campaign had zero policy other than "leave" that's not a solid foundation for anything. The process of Brexit would have benefited from a year long discussion to settle core issues before creating a deadline. It's nothing more than business common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 20:08:56 GMT
I've been watching some of the BBC Parliament coverage of the Brexit debate today.
The vast majority of MP's who've spoken have said they won't be supporting May's deal and most are fully committed to remaining in the EU and are urging all other MP'S to vote the same way. They are nearly all pushing for a second referendum with remain as an option (they haven't said what the alternative question should be). They are full of praise for the levels of EU immigration and freedom of movement, ease of foreign travel, benefits of the current trading policy, the freedom the EU gives the UK to determine it's own sovereignty (!) etc etc. Almost none have any negative thing to say about the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Dec 5, 2018 20:17:12 GMT
Article 50 should have been invoked within a week of the referendum, the ridiculous delay just confirmed what the EU knew, the UK politicians had no stomach for Brexit and took full advantage. Actually I'd argue that any negotiations should have started before Article 50 was invoked. I know the Europeans didn't want to discuss it formally but informally it could have started. From a Brexit perspective (I'm speaking neutrally here) the leave campaign had zero policy other than "leave" that's not a solid foundation for anything. The process of Brexit would have benefited from a year long discussion to settle core issues before creating a deadline. It's nothing more than business common sense. I'm pretty sure that the Europeans and the UK government were in constant negotiations from the moment the result was announced. I'd also wager that that there were desperate discussions on all sides as to how to thwart Brexit. You say the leave campaign had 'zero policy other than leave'. Who from the leave campaign were actually involved in the Brexit negotiations? It was an establishment stitch up from start to finish and I think the majority of the country truly knows that. |
|
