Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
sun_tzu said:
I think the only way they give on the backstop is if Ireland asks them to (to avoid a no deal).... And I don't see that happening
Click to expand...
What realistic and practical thing could the EU give UK negotiators on the back stop though? I mean practical solutions... what happens if no deal is agreed when the back stop ends? Why have a back stop at all then, we've already had loads of negotiations the past 2 years and achieved nearly nothing... What's going to change that makes expecting better results reasonable?

If the back stop were solved the tories would be tearing themselves apart over some other pseudo problem.
 
May’s last ditch attempt to convince Brexiteers to vote for her deal.

 
Brexirt! So bad they named it twice!
 
Just made a concerted effort to apologize to the public for the stupidity that is brexit. For the good of the nation and with heavy hearts but for the queen and country we've decided not to leave eu.

Problem solved?
 
RochaRoja said:
It means the British military so pretty much.
Click to expand...

Come on now, its super important to get justice for the brave lad who murdered a captured prisoner in cold blood and was then charged and imprisoned by the British Army who told him he'd let down the entire military by his criminal actions.
 
Boris Johnson talking about the 'British deep state'..

Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, told LBC this morning that any move by parliament to frustrate Brexit would be seen by voters as a “betrayal” by the “deep state”. Speaking about what would happen if MPs tried to stop Brexit happening, he said:

I think that people will feel betrayed. And I think they will feel that there has been a great conspiracy by the deep state of the UK, the people who really run the country.

He also said MPs involved in these manoeuvres were “playing with fire”.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-minute-bid-to-rescue-her-deal-politics-live

Despicable cnut. He's cribbing straight out of Steve Bannon's handbook now.
 
At least he's under no illusion that his former cabinet, his government or his party run his country :lol:.
 
To be fair, he knows a thing or two about betraying the people.
 
May says No Brexit more likely than No Deal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46856149
Speaking to factory workers, Mrs May will say on Monday: "As we have seen over the last few weeks, there are some in Westminster who would wish to delay or even stop Brexit and who will use every device available to them to do so."

She is to add that she now believes MPs blocking Brexit is more likely than a no-deal scenario.

Mrs May will say: "I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy.

"Imagine if an anti-devolution House of Commons had said to the people of Scotland or Wales that despite voting in favour of a devolved legislature, Parliament knew better and would overrule them. Or else force them to vote again.

"What if we found ourselves in a situation where Parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?

"People's faith in the democratic process and their politicians would suffer catastrophic harm. We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum."
Click to expand...
 
711 said:
The clarification hasn't been made yet Paul. Barnier has said he is prepared to make one, we are waiting to see if does and what it will be.
Click to expand...

Paul the Wolf said:
But what do you expect him to say, something along the lines of "we will try to negotiate a deal as quickly as possible".
One thing the Brexiters have got right is that the UK will be stuck in limbo indefinitely but the alternative is even worse unless they cancel the whole thing.
Click to expand...

We do know now.

Dear Prime Minister, Thank you for your letter of 14 January 2019. As you are well aware, we regret but respect the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. We also consider that Brexit is a source of uncertainty and disruption. In these challenging times, we therefore share with you the determination to create as much certainty and clarity as possible for citizens and companies in a situation where a Member State leaves the European Union after more than four decades of closest economic and political integration. That is why the Withdrawal Agreement that you and the Leaders of the 27 EU Member States agreed after long negotiations is so important. It represents a fair compromise and aims to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, thereby limiting the negative consequences of Brexit. That is also why we wish to establish as close as possible a relationship with the United Kingdom in the future, building on the Political Declaration, which the Leaders of the 27 EU Member States agreed with you. It is also why we want negotiations to this effect to start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. As you know, we are not in a position to agree to anything that changes or is inconsistent with the Withdrawal Agreement, but against this background, and in order to facilitate the next steps of the process, we are happy to confirm, on behalf of the two EU Institutions we represent, our understanding of the following points within our respective fields of responsibility. A. As regards the President of the European Council: On the 13 December, the European Council (Article 50) decided on a number of additional assurances, in particular as regards its firm commitment to work speedily on a subsequent 2/5 agreement that establishes by 31 December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered. The European Council also said that, if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would only apply temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that a hard border is avoided, and that the European Union, in such a case, would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop, and would expect the same of the United Kingdom, so that the backstop would only be in place for as long as strictly necessary. In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted. As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). B. As regards the President of the European Commission: The Political Declaration agreed at the November Special European Council (Article 50) describes a future relationship of unprecedented depth and breadth, reflecting the continuing strength of our shared values and interests. The Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration represent a fair balance of European Union and United Kingdom interests. They will ensure a smooth withdrawal and a strong future relationship in the interests of all our citizens. As the European Council has already stated, it will embark on preparations for a future partnership with the United Kingdom immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement. As regards the European Commission, we will set up the negotiating structure for these negotiations directly after 3/5 signature to ensure that formal negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, having in mind the shared ambition of the European Union and the United Kingdom to have the future relationship in place by the end of the transition. Should national ratifications be pending at that moment, the Commission is ready to propose provisional application of relevant parts of the future relationship, in line with the legal frameworks that apply and existing practice. The Commission is also ready to engage with you on a work programme as soon as the United Kingdom Parliament has signalled its agreement in principle to the Withdrawal Agreement and the European Parliament has approved it. There is an important link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, reflecting Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. As stated in Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement and reflected also in Paragraph 138 of the Political Declaration, the European Union and the United Kingdom have committed to use best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration. In light of your letter, the European Commission would like to make the following clarifications with regard to the backstop: The Withdrawal Agreement including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland embodies the shared commitment by the European Union and the United Kingdom to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland as part of ensuring the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The Commission can confirm that, just like the United Kingdom, the European Union does not wish to see the backstop enter into force. Were it to do so, it would represent a suboptimal trading arrangement for both sides. The Commission can also confirm the European Union’s determination to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that would ensure the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing. The European Commission can also confirm our shared understanding that the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland:  Do not affect or supersede the provisions of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 in any way whatsoever; they do not alter in any way the arrangements under Strand II of the 1998 Agreement in particular, whereby areas of North-South cooperation in areas within 4/5 their respective competences are matters for the Northern Ireland Executive and Government of Ireland to determine;  Do not extend regulatory alignment with European Union law in Northern Ireland beyond what is strictly necessary to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and protect the 1998 Agreement; the Withdrawal Agreement is also clear that any new act that the European Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee;  Do not prevent the United Kingdom from facilitating, as part of its delegation, the participation of Northern Ireland Executive representatives in the Joint Committee, the Committee on issues related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, or the joint consultative working group, in matters pertaining directly to Northern Ireland. The European Commission also shares your intentions for the future relationship to be in place as quickly as possible. Given our joint commitment to using best endeavours to conclude before the end of 2020 a subsequent agreement, which supersedes the Protocol in whole or in part, the Commission is determined to give priority in our work programme to the discussion of proposals that might replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. In this context, facilitative arrangements and technologies will be considered. Any arrangements which supersede the Protocol are not required to replicate its provisions in any respect, provided that the underlying objectives continue to be met. Should the parties need more time to negotiate the subsequent agreement, they could decide to extend the transition period, as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. In that case, the Commission is committed to redouble its efforts and expects the same redoubled efforts from your negotiators, with the aim of concluding a subsequent agreement very rapidly. Were the backstop to enter into force in whole or in part, it is intended to apply only temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Commission is committed to providing the necessary political impetus and resources to help achieving the objective of making this period as short as possible. To this end, following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, and until a subsequent agreement is concluded, the Commission will support making best use of the high level conference foreseen in the Political Declaration to meet at least every six months to take stock of progress and agree the appropriate actions to move forward. 5/5 Finally, in response to your concern about the timetable, we would like to make it clear that both of us will be prepared to sign the Withdrawal Agreement as soon as the meaningful vote has passed in the United Kingdom Parliament. This will allow preparations for the future partnership with the United Kingdom immediately thereafter to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._and_President_Tusk_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf

As I was saying.
 
Delayed a month for those letters. A whole fecking month and they're pointless. At any other time this would be a humiliation that would see her immediately resign.

Brexit wasn't even an issue most cared about until the referendum, until the Tories allowed this idiocy to happen. We deserve better (maybe)

I genuinely hate her, her speech today is her stirring up anti-parliament sentiment and a complete deflection of blame. Voting down your deal is part of the democratic process to find the best way forward not a frustration.
She's also moaning about no alternatives proposed when she hasn't reached out to other parties or allowed any motions on it yet.
 
Last edited:
Paul the Wolf said:
We do know now.

Dear Prime Minister, Thank you for your letter of 14 January 2019. As you are well aware, we regret but respect the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. We also consider that Brexit is a source of uncertainty and disruption. In these challenging times, we therefore share with you the determination to create as much certainty and clarity as possible for citizens and companies in a situation where a Member State leaves the European Union after more than four decades of closest economic and political integration. That is why the Withdrawal Agreement that you and the Leaders of the 27 EU Member States agreed after long negotiations is so important. It represents a fair compromise and aims to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, thereby limiting the negative consequences of Brexit. That is also why we wish to establish as close as possible a relationship with the United Kingdom in the future, building on the Political Declaration, which the Leaders of the 27 EU Member States agreed with you. It is also why we want negotiations to this effect to start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. As you know, we are not in a position to agree to anything that changes or is inconsistent with the Withdrawal Agreement, but against this background, and in order to facilitate the next steps of the process, we are happy to confirm, on behalf of the two EU Institutions we represent, our understanding of the following points within our respective fields of responsibility. A. As regards the President of the European Council: On the 13 December, the European Council (Article 50) decided on a number of additional assurances, in particular as regards its firm commitment to work speedily on a subsequent 2/5 agreement that establishes by 31 December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered. The European Council also said that, if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would only apply temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that a hard border is avoided, and that the European Union, in such a case, would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop, and would expect the same of the United Kingdom, so that the backstop would only be in place for as long as strictly necessary. In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted. As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). B. As regards the President of the European Commission: The Political Declaration agreed at the November Special European Council (Article 50) describes a future relationship of unprecedented depth and breadth, reflecting the continuing strength of our shared values and interests. The Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration represent a fair balance of European Union and United Kingdom interests. They will ensure a smooth withdrawal and a strong future relationship in the interests of all our citizens. As the European Council has already stated, it will embark on preparations for a future partnership with the United Kingdom immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement. As regards the European Commission, we will set up the negotiating structure for these negotiations directly after 3/5 signature to ensure that formal negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, having in mind the shared ambition of the European Union and the United Kingdom to have the future relationship in place by the end of the transition. Should national ratifications be pending at that moment, the Commission is ready to propose provisional application of relevant parts of the future relationship, in line with the legal frameworks that apply and existing practice. The Commission is also ready to engage with you on a work programme as soon as the United Kingdom Parliament has signalled its agreement in principle to the Withdrawal Agreement and the European Parliament has approved it. There is an important link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, reflecting Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. As stated in Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement and reflected also in Paragraph 138 of the Political Declaration, the European Union and the United Kingdom have committed to use best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration. In light of your letter, the European Commission would like to make the following clarifications with regard to the backstop: The Withdrawal Agreement including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland embodies the shared commitment by the European Union and the United Kingdom to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland as part of ensuring the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The Commission can confirm that, just like the United Kingdom, the European Union does not wish to see the backstop enter into force. Were it to do so, it would represent a suboptimal trading arrangement for both sides. The Commission can also confirm the European Union’s determination to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that would ensure the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing. The European Commission can also confirm our shared understanding that the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland:  Do not affect or supersede the provisions of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 in any way whatsoever; they do not alter in any way the arrangements under Strand II of the 1998 Agreement in particular, whereby areas of North-South cooperation in areas within 4/5 their respective competences are matters for the Northern Ireland Executive and Government of Ireland to determine;  Do not extend regulatory alignment with European Union law in Northern Ireland beyond what is strictly necessary to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and protect the 1998 Agreement; the Withdrawal Agreement is also clear that any new act that the European Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee;  Do not prevent the United Kingdom from facilitating, as part of its delegation, the participation of Northern Ireland Executive representatives in the Joint Committee, the Committee on issues related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, or the joint consultative working group, in matters pertaining directly to Northern Ireland. The European Commission also shares your intentions for the future relationship to be in place as quickly as possible. Given our joint commitment to using best endeavours to conclude before the end of 2020 a subsequent agreement, which supersedes the Protocol in whole or in part, the Commission is determined to give priority in our work programme to the discussion of proposals that might replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. In this context, facilitative arrangements and technologies will be considered. Any arrangements which supersede the Protocol are not required to replicate its provisions in any respect, provided that the underlying objectives continue to be met. Should the parties need more time to negotiate the subsequent agreement, they could decide to extend the transition period, as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. In that case, the Commission is committed to redouble its efforts and expects the same redoubled efforts from your negotiators, with the aim of concluding a subsequent agreement very rapidly. Were the backstop to enter into force in whole or in part, it is intended to apply only temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Commission is committed to providing the necessary political impetus and resources to help achieving the objective of making this period as short as possible. To this end, following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, and until a subsequent agreement is concluded, the Commission will support making best use of the high level conference foreseen in the Political Declaration to meet at least every six months to take stock of progress and agree the appropriate actions to move forward. 5/5 Finally, in response to your concern about the timetable, we would like to make it clear that both of us will be prepared to sign the Withdrawal Agreement as soon as the meaningful vote has passed in the United Kingdom Parliament. This will allow preparations for the future partnership with the United Kingdom immediately thereafter to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._and_President_Tusk_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf

As I was saying.
Click to expand...
Seems too little and too late don't it? Leaving it so late wasn't the right decision, I think. I have to admit it's very wall of text for my little brain to take in quickly, but just listening to the commentators the only thing that jumped out at me was that during any backstop the UK would retain it's veto on any new EU law applying to the UK. The EU would not like that one little bit as a long term prospect, if I were May I'd hammer away at that as 'evidence' (yeah, I know) that no permanent backstop will take place.

Ooh, late news, 'one or two' MPs have switched. Too little seems about right.
 
711 said:
Seems too little and too late don't it? Leaving it so late wasn't the right decision, I think. I have to admit it's very wall of text for my little brain to take in quickly, but just listening to the commentators the only thing that jumped out at me was that during any backstop the UK would retain it's veto on any new EU law applying to the UK. The EU would not like that one little bit as a long term prospect, if I were May I'd hammer away at that as 'evidence' (yeah, I know) that no permanent backstop will take place.

Ooh, late news, 'one or two' MPs have switched. Too little seems about right.
Click to expand...

I think even if more had have been given by the EU(although I can't see what could have been) it wouldn't have made much difference imo.
The hardline Brexiters want a complete break and the soft Brexiters (ie leaving in name only) don't like it because the Uk may as well stay in.

Neither the Uk nor the EU want to backstop to continue indefinitely but there's no real solution.
 
711 said:
Seems too little and too late don't it? Leaving it so late wasn't the right decision, I think. I have to admit it's very wall of text for my little brain to take in quickly, but just listening to the commentators the only thing that jumped out at me was that during any backstop the UK would retain it's veto on any new EU law applying to the UK. The EU would not like that one little bit as a long term prospect, if I were May I'd hammer away at that as 'evidence' (yeah, I know) that no permanent backstop will take place.

Ooh, late news, 'one or two' MPs have switched. Too little seems about right.
Click to expand...

That's been out there for weeks and is really only a clarification of the withdrawal terms anyway. It has to relate to the backstop not the UK so it's not a veto on any EU laws just those that affect the agreement. It's worthless and has already been declared as such by everyone.
 
saivet said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-46814527

This article gave me a chuckle
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't people vote for Brexit when you can have a Brexit Box.

What does mystify me is that people say, if might be a bit chaotic to start with after a few months it will be back to normal.
What happens after a few months to get things back to normal, surely it just gets worse and worse and worse...
 
unchanged_lineup said:
May says No Brexit more likely than No Deal.

Speaking to factory workers, Mrs May will say on Monday: "As we have seen over the last few weeks, there are some in Westminster who would wish to delay or even stop Brexit and who will use every device available to them to do so."

She is to add that she now believes MPs blocking Brexit is more likely than a no-deal scenario.

Mrs May will say: "I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy.

"Imagine if an anti-devolution House of Commons had said to the people of Scotland or Wales that despite voting in favour of a devolved legislature, Parliament knew better and would overrule them. Or else force them to vote again.

"What if we found ourselves in a situation where Parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?

"People's faith in the democratic process and their politicians would suffer catastrophic harm. We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum."
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46856149
Click to expand...

Yeah imagine if the people of Northern Ireland or Scotland had voted to stay within the EU but were being dragged out anyway.

Also imagine if the people of Northern Ireland had voted overwhelmingly to put an agreement in place for closer ties with the Republic and a chance for peace after decades of violence. And that might all be ripped up because some pig fecking public school boy thought calling a referendum on EU membership was a good idea.

Shit happens Theresa, the government have a duty to do whats best for the people, the economy and the country. And theres plenty of evidence that is pointing towards that not being Brexit.
 
Smores said:
That's been out there for weeks and is really only a clarification of the withdrawal terms anyway. It has to relate to the backstop not the UK so it's not a veto on any EU laws just those that affect the agreement. It's worthless and has already been declared as such by everyone.
Click to expand...
Hence why I said too little and too late mate, but thanks for confirming.

I mentioned the continuation of the veto because I was unaware of it, so suspected others might be too. It would allow the UK to veto any new law from applying to the UK, which could over time amount to quite an advantage for the UK, in being allowed to pick and choose what does or doesn't apply to us. Being in that position as a willing EU member is one thing, but as a Leaver another. The EU wouldn't want that. A small straw to grasp for the Tory rebels maybe, but it's all I've been able to take from today's news so far.
 
711 said:
Hence why I said too little and too late mate, but thanks for confirming.

I mentioned the continuation of the veto because I was unaware of it, so suspected others might be too. It would allow the UK to veto any new law from applying to the UK, which could over time amount to quite an advantage for the UK, in being allowed to pick and choose what does or doesn't apply to us. Being in that position as a willing EU member is one thing, but as a Leaver another. The EU wouldn't want that. A small straw to grasp for the Tory rebels maybe, but it's all I've been able to take from today's news so far.
Click to expand...

There is no veto in the agreement. Here you have the concerned part, the last paragraph is important:

5. Where the Union adopts a new act that falls within the scope of this Protocol, but neither
amends nor replaces a Union act listed in the Annexes to this Protocol, the Union shall inform the
United Kingdom of this adoption in the Joint Committee. Upon request of the Union or the United
Kingdom, the Joint Committee shall hold an exchange of views on the implications of the newly
adopted act for the proper functioning of this Protocol within 6 weeks after the request.

As soon as reasonably practical after the Union has informed the United Kingdom in the Joint
Committee, the Joint Committee shall either:

(a) adopt a decision adding the newly adopted act to the relevant Annex of this Protocol; or

(b) where an agreement on adding the newly adopted act to the relevant Annex to this Protocol
cannot be reached, examine all further possibilities to maintain the good functioning of this
Protocol and take any decision necessary to this effect.

If the Joint Committee has not taken a decision within a reasonable time, the Union shall be
entitled, after giving notice to the United Kingdom, to take appropriate remedial measures. Such
measures shall take effect at the earliest 6 months after the Union informed the United Kingdom in
accordance with the first subparagraph, but in no event earlier than the date on which the newly
adopted act is implemented in the Union
Click to expand...
 
Sassy Colin said:
A think it's more a case that a Tory MP has resigned the whip, Gareth Johnson.
Click to expand...
Sky News just said one of the whips resigned. Wasn't paying 100% attention though, can't say who.

When brexiteers keep banging on about the damage to democracy (catastrophic damage in Mrs. May's words) that would be dealt by not committing economic suicide, what do they imagine happening? People not voting anymore? The queen telling parliament to sod off? Corbyn becoming dictator?

And how come they never get asked?
 
JPRouve said:
There is no veto in the agreement. Here you have the concerned part, the last paragraph is important:
Click to expand...
Thanks, I got the veto thing from a commentator, and I just believed him. If I read your stuff right, and god knows I'm no lawyer, the UK can fail to agree (ie veto) but then the EU can take 'remedial measures' in response. I suppose that would depend on what was being vetoed and what remedial measures could be seen as appropriate. I've dragged us off into a very hypothetical place now though, so I'll shut up and await the next development. Seems something might happen in the next day or two. :)
 
Just listening on Sky News - Tom Brake being interviewed - pro-Remain

His objection to the deal is because the agreement May has got is not a trade deal and means that the UK and EU will be discussing the trade deal for years to come.

Well, well. This sums up the farce and mess the Uk is in.

Both Brexiters and Remainers still have not understood that the part that gets the UK out of the EU is the withdrawal agreement.
No future trade agreements will happen until the UK have left and it will take years.

Welcome to Brexit you fools.
.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Just listening on Sky News - Tom Brake being interviewed - pro-Remain

His objection to the deal is because the agreement May has got is not a trade deal and means that the UK and EU will be discussing the trade deal for years to come.

Well, well. This sums up the farce and mess the Uk is in.

Both Brexiters and Remainers still have not understood that the part that gets the UK out of the EU is the withdrawal agreement.
No future trade agreements will happen until the UK have left and it will take years.

Welcome to Brexit you fools.
.
Click to expand...
Oh I think they know that... It's just convenient to ignore it (for both sides)
 
sun_tzu said:
Oh I think they know that... It's just convenient to ignore it (for both sides)
Click to expand...

But if they ignore it , we are still back to the remaining two choices which is No deal or Cancel. Cancel looks extremely unlikely so in effect the majority of MPs being Remain are in effect voting for No Deal.

Ironically if the deal gets voted down tomorrow by a lower number than the number of Labour MPs voting against it, when the sh!t hits the fan Corbyn will end up with at least part of the blame having done absolutely nothing regarding Brexit.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But if they ignore it , we are still back to the remaining two choices which is No deal or Cancel. Cancel looks extremely unlikely so in effect the majority of MPs being Remain are in effect voting for No Deal.

Ironically if the deal gets voted down tomorrow by a lower number than the number of Labour MPs voting against it, when the sh!t hits the fan Corbyn will end up with at least part of the blame having done absolutely nothing regarding Brexit.
Click to expand...

Exactly! But isn't this where we came in?
Since the EU made it plain from the off until the UK (either with a deal or with no deal) left the EU, then no future trade talks/discussions, let alone deals, could be done.

Makes you wonder what Mrs May was thinking off even turning up for so called talks?

So we either leave on the 29th March or we remain... seems like groundhog day to me
 
Maticmaker said:
Exactly! But isn't this where we came in?
Since the EU made it plain from the off until the UK (either with a deal or with no deal) left the EU, then no future trade talks/discussions, let alone deals, could be done.

Makes you wonder what Mrs May was thinking off even turning up for so called talks?

So we either leave on the 29th March or we remain... seems like groundhog day to me
Click to expand...

The difference is if they accept the withdrawal agreement then the future deal gets sorted out over the next few years without the Uk falling off a cliff which is what's in May's mind. The first two years of talks were only about leaving but politicians have misled each other and the public into thinking that some fantastic trade deal would be ready at the moment the Uk left the EU. That was never going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.