cryptocurrency wrote: » If the UK went for a hard brexit from day one it would have been seen as bullish, unfriendly, uncooperative and not good optics domestically. If TM manages to drag this out but stumbling and stuttering, have the whole EU chuckling smugly till February and an "accidental no deal" happens then she will go down as a political hero in the UK. There are too many reasons for the UK to leave the EU that are vital but are extremely unpalatable to be discussed with the snowflake masses, especially during vegan January. Global politics is a very dark art. Staying the EU makes no sense from a national security standpoint and if anyone is honest with themselves they would stop the ridiculous idea the UK can still remain. The climb down would mean the nation is dead and the support of the majority of its people gone with it. That is national suicide. An Indian/Pakistani standoff is far preferable to the utter humiliation of cowing to the EU now. The thought of remaining in the EU now after the last few years make many sick to their stomach.
EdgeCase wrote: » The problem is that they don’t listen to expert opinions that contradict dogma. She’s basically just going to get ignored, just as everyone else who has pointed these facts out ad nausium over the past couple of years. I would be very surprised if there’s a sudden shift to expert opinion being given the hearing it ought to be getting. Maybe there will be more realistic discussion but given the track record to date, I don’t hold out much hope.
cryptocurrency wrote: » Scotland had their referendum and they will have to wait a bit longer before another. It was well beaten and would still lose. Ireland can't afford the north, it would bankrupt them and most are not into it anyway. Once Europe starts to properly melt most will count their blessings the UK left. Aren't you the poster who claimed Corbyn would be PM? Never going to happen. He is a national security threat. You need to learn a few things first. Corbyn will never happen, its just silly talk. He is a useful idiot in opposition for now as he is no threat to power.
cryptocurrency wrote: » Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.
cryptocurrency wrote: » There are too many reasons for the UK to leave the EU that are vital but are extremely unpalatable to be discussed with the snowflake masses, especially during vegan January.
Hermy wrote: Never mind how unpalatable you think they might be, if you know of convincing reasons why the UK should leave the EU, for the benefit of the debate please post them!
cryptocurrency wrote: » If TM manages to drag this out but stumbling and stuttering, have the whole EU chuckling smugly till February and an "accidental no deal" happens then she will go down as a political hero in the UK.
We are told that another decisive moment looms, in the form of the forthcoming Commons vote on the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. Of course, we have been here before. We have seen many supposedly decisive moments since the 2016 referendum: triggering Article 50, passing the EU Withdrawal Act, the December meaningful vote that never was, to name but a few. Before we whip ourselves into another frenzy, perhaps it is time to take stock? I have always said that the EU would push and push until finally we reach a resolution at the eleventh hour. Recent events only reinforce my analysis. Indeed, anybody who really understands how negotiations work understands that time is our friend. We know that the EU is worried about the loss of the £39 billion “divorce” payment if there is no deal. EU Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger has said that the remaining 27 member states will face a hefty bill if the UK does not pay. We also know that the UK’s no deal preparations are well advanced. A senior civil servant, writing in The Telegraph last week, said the Government is failing to be frank about the degree of preparation. So this is the moment to be hard-nosed about these issues. The more we prepare to leave the EU without a deal, the more likely a good deal becomes. But getting there means ignoring the distractions, such as the briefings that Continuity Remain elements will seek to extend Article 50 or force a second referendum. It is not going to happen without a General Election. Instead, Tory MPs must remain committed to delivering the referendum result, as repeated in our manifesto, which pledged to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market and which said that no deal is better than a bad deal. To do otherwise would frankly throw our democracy’s credibility into chaos. And let’s be clear: the Withdrawal Agreement does not respect the referendum result. That is why the meaningful vote had to be delayed and one wonders if even the January vote will go ahead. Attempts to frighten MPs into supporting it are unlikely to work, because voting down this substandard deal will not result in no Brexit. How could it? There is no mechanism for that to happen. The UK will leave the EU on 29 March. That is nailed down in primary legislation and international treaty commitments. There is no wriggle room. Well informed colleagues also know there is an alternative. Both Donald Tusk and Michel Barnier have offered the UK a Canada+++ option. A Northern Ireland backstop is not necessary or wanted. International trade experts such as Shanker Singham advocate using tried and trusted techniques and procedures so that rules of origin and customs checks are conducted away from the Northern Ireland border, making a hard border unnecessary. The EU, however, will not commit to a free trade deal until we have left and that is fair enough. So we should press for early talks after March 29 with a generous offer based on tariff-free trade with few barriers. In the meantime, the Government is right to finally be vigorously preparing for a managed WTO Brexit, which holds far less risk than the various fear campaigns have tried to suggest.Be under no illusions. Leaving without a Withdrawal Agreement is not the same as leaving without agreements. There will be several deals in place, including membership of the Common Transit Convention and the WTO, a trade facilitation agreement, and others as set out recently by the EU. There is a shared interest in a good flow of traffic through our ports, and action is being taken to ensure trade continues sensibly. I appreciate we all want to get Brexit done to move on, but if we get it wrong, we are stuck with what is agreed and a bad deal will lead to more division and uncertainty. Therefore, it is crucial that we get it right whenever the moment of reckoning comes – be it mid-January or later. What this country needs now is direction and leadership. When the British people see there is hope and a path to a brighter future, they will urge our leaders to finish the job. We must stop being side-tracked by those who were never reconciled to Brexit, prepare for no deal in the sure knowledge it makes a good deal more likely, and seize the prize of a global future for the UK.
We voted to LEAVE and TAKE BACK CONTROL: not remain shackled to the EU. A managed No Deal ie a clean break Brexit is what we voted for and what the CON Party is duty bound to deliver.
CelticRambler wrote: » How do you reconcile the notion that the EU is "chuckling smugly" when its senior politicians have said (on and off the record) that the Brexit and the current WA is a lose-lose state of affairs? Hardly the kind of thing to chuckle over. And is there any point in using the adjective "accidental" now, when the WA is on the table waiting to be approved by the UK; and expecting it to be defeated, the EU is upactivating previously-made preparations for a no-deal Brexit?Your posts echo so many of Theresa May's speeches (including various public and parliamentary addresses as recently as December) where she talks about vague ambitions for the future. Brexit, for the Brexiteers, seems to be something of a pleasant dream, in which they imagine themselves sleepwalking naked around the village green, but from which they expect to wake up very soon, to find they're safe in their comfy bed, still in their pyjamas. Meanwhile, the EU is watching a sad old lady wandering aimlessly and undressed around the high street, telling people that she used to be a famous actress once, and wondering what to do with her ...
LuckyLloyd wrote: » David Davies with the kind of high level nonsense that will be lapped up and lauded by the Brexit base in today's Telegraph:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/02/preparing-no-deal-properly-will-get-good-brexit-democracy-demands/ Bolded emphasis is mine, and serve to highlight the most dangerous lies on offer here. What 'trade facilitation agreement' is he referencing? Oh yeah. Those temporary unilateral measures recently set out by the EU. I am left - as I so consistently find with self proclaimed 'proud Brexiteers - choosing between ignorance or grand deception as descriptors for this piece. He is lying or ignorant of the significance of the ECJ ruling on the UK's unilateral right to rescind A50. And he is lying or confused on the Canda+++ option that apparently has been "offered". As the excellent Sir Ivan Rogers speech from before Christmas noted, beware those charlatans brandishing deals with plusses as fait accomplis. This is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous nonsense - and it is only the beginning of a new round of unseemly Westminster infighting as the clock ticks down towards self inflicted economic Armageddon.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you English, because that is a particularly arrogant English view in my opinion. There are any number of scenarios that will bring about another Scottish Indy Ref and a first Border poll. The fact is for above English that we are perilously close to both. It wasn't me who claimed Corbyn would be PM (although I don't see why that couldn't happen) but it was me that said 2 years ago and since, that we are really watching a 20 year break up of the UK. History will look back and see these shennanigans as one of the symptoms of that, as was the first Scottish Ref.
Thomas_IV wrote: » I see it that way too. The UK is doomed by that Brexit folly brought onto herself by lying politicians who managed to delude 52% of the electorate. Some of them might have waken up and realised that they have been led up the garden path, but the chances to make a u-turn by getting a BrexitRef2 are melting away.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Second referendum, another election, withdrawal of Article 50...makes no difference, I think the concept of a 'UK' is in decline and will sunder, regardless. Brexit is only a symptom of the malaise affecting society of our nearest neighbour.
Tell me how wrote: » And the Brexiteers feel that the EU is on the brink of collapse. Personally, I think the EU is strong and the UK is shooting itself in the foot. It has increased the likelihood of the North of Ireland and Scotland separating from the rest of the UK due in part to the England centric focus on how they are managing leaving. However, the UK leaving the EU (irrespective of what happens to it when it is gone) is going to be damaging to the EU and I fear will increase the likelihood that others too will leave.
trellheim wrote: » That said I think there is little chance of anything but a vote on TM Deal ( and if its rejected - most likely will be then A50 extension vote and if thats voted down and it very likely will be then its no deal )
trellheim wrote: » David Davis is not wrong in many ways - he is largely correct in most of that statement. It is a mistake to dismiss DD . It should be remembered he got the EU Maastricht treaty through the Commons for John Major back in the 90s . It's also a trap to fall into to regard the UK as a somewhat 'special' child who just can't see that what they are doing is complete self-harm, as it sets up a polar opposites conversation and a screaming match where no-one is listening. ( and oh look thats exactly what is happening ). That said I think there is little chance of anything but a vote on TM Deal ( and if its rejected - most likely will be then A50 extension vote and if thats voted down and it very likely will be then its no deal )
Leroy42 wrote: » no answer to how they deal with a No deal
FrancieBrady wrote: » I fail to see what is attractive about 'leaving' after the last few years. The process alone has severely damaged the country. Any damage to Ireland or the rest of the EU is eminently repairable and recoverable. It doesn't show any signs of being the same for the UK. Brexit, if it happens is not going to cure their root issues.
"We are building a detailed understanding of how the withdrawal from the EU will affect domestic policies, to seize opportunities and ensure a smooth process of exit." - David Davis to House of Commons, 5 September 2016
"We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy. "I should mention that we are also doing that assessment in a way that will throw up whether something has an impact on the individual nations of the United Kingdom, as well as on the UK as a whole." - David Davis to House of Commons, 20 October 2016
In a sometimes gruelling appearance before the Brexit select committee Davis said there had been “no systematic impact assessment” of leaving the EU, having talked previously about such apparent studies existing “in excruciating detail”. Davis insisted he had been misunderstood, saying the only work undertaken comprised broad surveys of various parts of the economy, none of which included any forecasts of how Brexit might affect them.
Westminster cannot extend A50, they can only ask the 27 to extend it. I don't think there is time now to get all 27 to agree. If the WA is voted down, the options are No Deal or withdraw A50.
Tell me how wrote: » However, the UK leaving the EU (irrespective of what happens to it when it is gone) is going to be damaging to the EU and I fear will increase the likelihood that others too will leave.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » It's possible but I would have thought the opposite. Any government looking at a relatively robust economy and society, like the UK, splintering and self-harming as a result of Brexit, will think twice before going down the same path.
Tell me how wrote: » Yes, but in future, any country considering leaving will have the following. The UK media loudly extolling the benefits of sovereignty and trying to influence their media. Nigel Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg attending events as guest speakers either saying how well the UK is doing, or blaming the EU for not being reasonable (thus enforcing ideals as to how bad they are).
