Which doesn't seem to be working.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Yeah it has to be some crazy shit like that to make sense. But at some point i would have thought the UK will still want an FTA with the EU at which point they will still have to agree a deal. And probably similar to the one currently on offer.
I'm from Northern Ireland and to be honest i think most people here wouldn't mind staying in the single market if it meant preserving the current status quo and the Good Friday Agreement.
I think thats fair enough and it could have been easily solved by now if the Tories didn't have to keep the DUP headbangers happy. Given the unique status of Northern Ireland and the ongoing peace process after (and really before) the government should have stated that NI will stay in the SM and CU regardless of the referendum result.
Oh dear.
I don't think there is much wrong with that to be honest.
Just because someone can laugh it off doesn't mean that we don't have a racist bufoon for a PM.
Laughing at his racist comment doesn't mean they approved of it, thought it wasn't racist or offensive.
And if you can't see how our OM using such wildly racist language doesn't empower and encourage racists and racism then you have a problem imo.
Why does that make it any less racist? Or make him any less unfit to be PM?
He's always been pro-Brexit though, hasn't he? His half-hearted campaigning for Remain didn't disguise that.
Financial Times said:
If you didn’t laugh you’d cry.
He hasn’t actually changed his stance then. Still insisting on negotiating a new deal and then putting it on a 2nd Ref. Only clarification here being that he will not campaign either for his deal or against it, but stay neutral. Big reveal from Jezza.
Our prime minister didn't know this? Where do we get these people from?
Corbyn seems to have decided his 'negotiate with me and then I'll campaign against it' policy was a bit ludicrous after all, so he's cleverly replaced it with a 'negotiate with me but I don't care what happens either way' policy.He hasn’t actually changed his stance then. Still insisting on negotiating a new deal and then putting it on a 2nd Ref. Only clarification here being that he will not campaign either for his deal or against it, but stay neutral. Big reveal from Jezza.
Just be honest Corbyn, whatever your beliefs on the EU actually are tell us and explain them, and if you don't have any feck off out of politics, you've picked the wrong hobby.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's never going to work, it's just bravado to keep kidding the gullible Brexiters.
Oh Jeremy, Oh Jeremy,
'Twixt Leave and Remain thou art torn
Prime Minister thou shalt ne'er be
Astride thy unicorn.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There's no need to lie.I just remembered he was the one who excused Trump for his treatment of Asylum seekers, putting people including children in cages by saying 'In China they treat people worse'.
This has pretty much always been Labour policy, nothings changed.
Those such as Watson who believe they can do a better job of campaigning for remain can still do so, why they're unhappy that they get to be the focal point rather than Corbyn says a lot.
How exactly is that doing anything he said. And with the context of the discussion being whether Trump was worse, then it's a perfectly valid point. Trump's time will end, whether in a year or 5, the other two are there until their death.
So again, there's no need to lie!
Agreed, there's no need to lie.
will be a fight to get that through conference - but even if they do they will have to be honest and say that for them to negotiate a new deal and then go through the process of putting that to a referendum (and implementing the result) is in reality I think at least a years extension?
it was always labours stance that negotiating a new deal in 3 months was not possible - so presumably they want 6 months for that - and then the referendum process is i believe at least 22 weeks - and then add a month for implementation and yeah minimum a year (presuming the negotiations can be done in that time and there are not multiple legal challenges to a referendum question)
I hope we get a second referendum and I would certainly vote to remain - I think this is a better solution than the libs saying simply revoke - but people need to be honest that its at least a year away and for that (along with presumably a mix of labour people saying they are pro / anti / neutral on brexit) will be a tough sell in a general election campaign
Turning back to the European parliament for a moment, here is the text of the Brexit motion that MEPs will be voting on.
And here is an extract from what it says about a no-deal Brexit.
The European parliament ...
Notes that there can be no transition period in the absence of the withdrawal agreement nor any ‘mini-deals’ put in place to help mitigate the disruption of a disorderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU;
Stresses that further negotiations between the EU and the UK after the UK has withdrawn from the EU without a deal can only take place on condition that the UK honours its obligations and commitments in respect of citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the Good Friday agreement in all its parts;
Notes that in the case of a ‘no-deal exit’, the UK’s financial and other obligations will still exist; affirms that in such a case it will refuse to give consent to any agreement or agreements between the EU and the UK unless and until the UK honours its commitments;
Recalls that, once such commitments are met, future EU-UK relations negotiations will require strong safeguards and level playing field provisions with a view to safeguarding the EU’s internal market and avoiding placing EU firms at a potential unfair competitive disadvantage; reiterates in that respect the conditions set out in its resolution of 14 March 2018 not least as regards ensuring high levels of environmental, employment and consumer protection; notes that any free trade agreement that fails to respect such levels of protection would not be ratified by the European parliament.
And here is an extract from what it says about a no-deal Brexit.
The European parliament ...
Notes that there can be no transition period in the absence of the withdrawal agreement nor any ‘mini-deals’ put in place to help mitigate the disruption of a disorderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU;
Stresses that further negotiations between the EU and the UK after the UK has withdrawn from the EU without a deal can only take place on condition that the UK honours its obligations and commitments in respect of citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the Good Friday agreement in all its parts;
Notes that in the case of a ‘no-deal exit’, the UK’s financial and other obligations will still exist; affirms that in such a case it will refuse to give consent to any agreement or agreements between the EU and the UK unless and until the UK honours its commitments;
Recalls that, once such commitments are met, future EU-UK relations negotiations will require strong safeguards and level playing field provisions with a view to safeguarding the EU’s internal market and avoiding placing EU firms at a potential unfair competitive disadvantage; reiterates in that respect the conditions set out in its resolution of 14 March 2018 not least as regards ensuring high levels of environmental, employment and consumer protection; notes that any free trade agreement that fails to respect such levels of protection would not be ratified by the European parliament.
Why should the EU be pulling together with Britain to sort this mess out? They didn't vote for this, they didn't and don't want it, why should they make any concessions at all or be held to ransom by the whims and wishes of a corrupt elite who are desperate to be out before the tax avoidance regs come into force in January to keep their immoral Ill gotten mountains of cash out of sight and untaxed?
I don't see why the referendum process couldn't run in parallel to the negotiations somewhat. Obviously it sets a timetable on the negotiations but we'll have that anyway with the extension date. I'm not certain whether these would be political declaration level discussions or more extensive but i assume the former.
Not arguing with your overall point though, it should be clear to everyone this is a lengthy delay. I don't think many will like the prospect of another 12 months of brexit.
You can't see the difference between campaigning for remain and being neutral? Although I'm remembering McDonnell saying Labour would campaign for remain to be fair rather than Corbyn, with a distinct lack of enthusiasm. You can probably find quotes from Corbyn saying most things.
Not interested in Watson, sorry.
Labour MPs will still be campaigning for remain as will Momentum it just won't be party official policy. I don't think anyone who could be convinced to vote remain would now not do so since it's not an official policy.
you would need to know what the deal was to decide how the question can be asked
and then of course selecting who the official campaign partner will be for it etc then the campaigning period
genuinely don't think its possible to do anything rather than pass the early legislation which is perhaps 4 weeks max time saved
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This only in effect, restates what has been the EU position since day 1. The EU demands a WA is signed and ratified by the UK Parliament before it even begins to discuss Trade issues. The UK's approach as always been the opposite, to agree (optimistically, over a two year transition period) a trade deal, then a WA agreement can then be reached. Each side (understandably) reluctant to give a hostage to fortune, to the other side
So in three years (plus), nothing basically has changed at all. Despite May changing her mind and agreeing to the WA being agreed first she did however always imply "nothings agreed until everything is agreed" but then seemed to have change her mind on that; its no wonder the EU read the wrong signals from us. Now with Boris seeming to want to focus on getting some sort of movement on the back-stop, he is giving the impression that this will be enough to get both sides (who lets be honest are both dreading a no deal outcome) to agree to some sort of 'eleventh -hour' negotiated deal.
The problem is, that as many people have been saying, a lot more is known now about what Brexit means, or what it doesn't mean, than at the referendum. However a little learning can be a dangerous thing, most leavers now know things they didn't know, principally that the only way they will be likely to get what they want in Brexit is through a no deal and remainers know any sort of 'deal' agreed is less than what we have now and so revoking A50 is the only way out for them, that's why Swinson is betting the house on this for an upcoming GE.
Corbyn's been playing for a GE all along and it has to be said he has played a 'blinder' on that one, but he's missed the boat, by the time the GE, (known as the Brexit GE) comes along Swinson will have stripped him of the mantle for Revoking A50 and the Tories/TBP will have stolen a number of his northern seats. Jeremy's like a player running the full length of the pitch evading tackle after tackle, rounding the goalkeeper, then firing wide!
And if you believe that, you bought into the blatant lies of the Leave campaign.
This isn't an "EU position". The EU cannot negotiate a trade deal with the UK, unless it leaves first (via a WA or no-deal). It's enshrined in EU law that the EU can't negotiate trade agreements with existing members of the Union. And that law makes complete sense because the member still has representatives in positions of power within the EU structure (like MEPs) that can influence decisions. It needs to first leave, relinquish its seats, settle its bills, and then the negotiations can begin. Hence the "future relationship" stuff was part of the Political Declaration accompanying the WA, but without being in any way binding.
So basically the Leave campaign was, yet again, promising unicorns. That they would agree a trade deal with the EU to avoid the no-deal "Project Fear" scenario, when they knew that wasn't possible. Like they knew that there was no easy solution to the Irish border, but they called it a "red herring". Now they tell us we knew what we voted for, when they clearly lied about what was achievable and discredited anyone pointing that out. Lies, upon lies, upon lies.....
Last edited:
am I right in thinking that if the W.A. is not signed the "financial obligations" will be lower as part of the financial agreement was for continued access to the single market for the transition period?
?
I didn't say EU position I said EU demands = EU rules; that UK does not have such rules so its a UK approach....what are you going on about?
OK just re-read, you have read it as me saying the EU is taking a position or approach, be choice, but I am saying that the EU demands are its rules, that it cannot negotiate until we've left. Sorry for confusion, think we are still on the same page?
Last edited:
Yeah whatever man, read your own posts. It's not a "position", it's not a "demand". It's a legal bloody requirement. An EU law the UK voted into effect too, via its MEPs.
What you're saying is that UK brexiteer position was that the EU would break its laws to favour a departing member. Absolute fantasy.
Not even officially departing which is the issue. Because as long as they don't sign a WA the UK can decide to not leave at any point which means that it would be very easy to blackmail other member states.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date