Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Enzokk wrote: »

You seem to be prescribing to the Dominic Raab school of thought here, that if they hold fast until the end the EU will bed and give them what they want.

As for what we want, if there is a time limit to the backstop then it is not a backstop but an arrangement that will only last until that time. What happens if Gove becomes PM and he has no time for the GFA and by just waiting out the time limit it would mean that the GFA falls apart? Do you want to take that risk?

No, I'm just trying to game play out the process. This is clearly, well IMO, that the plan from the UK is, to try to get the EU to bend at the end.

It is much more powerful to have a passed vote on the table than merely the suggestion that it may pass if X.Y or Z is obtained. IMO, it would have moved the situation on.

Would the EU give in? Well that is the question I am asking. I, personally, do not see any benefit in doing so but then I have been of the opinion that hard brexit is the ultimate destination since the vote and this is all just delaying that. It horrible, and certainly something Ireland never wanted, but it is the reality that we are facing into a very different situation than many of us how grown up with.

When I hear Theresa May going on about how the MPs in the HoC must come together now to vote for her deal, surely she should have discarded with the one party show that Brexit so far has been in the UK and made this policy a cross party effort. That way she could have shared the blame if it went wrong instead of owning it all.

Also, Norway also voted around 52-48 not to join the EU and we know what deal they have, that should have indicated what type of deal they should have been aiming for instead of the fantasy they have been pursuing.

Arlene on Bloomberg TV at 11:45

https://www.bloomberg.com/live/europe

EdgeCase wrote: »

In the Farrage interview:

Could they at least bring a panelist on who's an expert in European treaty law and also an economist with a strong background in trade policy?

Seems reasonable to bring fact checking into all of those discussions.

I doubt Farage would agree to an interview where facts are allowed take a starring role.

He will be let put the blame everywhere but himself.

The Swine and Murrison amendments will both be rejected by the EU as they limit the backstop. The Murrison amendment states that the backstop would cease in Decemeber 2021. The backstop would not even be enacted till December 2022. So they want to stop it a year before it starts

Expect it to pass so

GM228 wrote: »

Hum, I though the EU insisted their wouldn't be.

Well if we think that leaving without a deal is the worst outcome and there is a chance that offering May new wording to the deal will help they should try it. As the tweet says,

"German Foreign Minister Maas says if May's Brexit deal is rejected by parliament today there could be new talks with the EU!"

That is no guarantee there would be new talks. If the result will be the same what use would the talks be? Is there a different deal that the EU could have offered, if there is why was it not offered to get it through?

So many questions, we will just have to see what the vote holds tonight and what the response to the result will be.

Tell me how wrote: »

Would be better if there was footage or audio of sad Minister actually saying there would be further negotiations.

I'll wait to see this confirmed.

Seems to be a misleading Tweet and headline from Reuters:-

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-maas/germany-says-eu-ready-to-talk-if-uk-rejects-brexit-deal-idUKKCN1P9132

Germany says EU ready to talk if UK rejects Brexit deal

STRASBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union could hold new talks with Britain if parliament in London rejects the Brexit agreement on Tuesday, Germany’s foreign minister said, but he ruled out significant changes to the treaty.

Speaking to reporters at the European Parliament, Heiko Maas said: “The agreement stands, as it is. I doubt very much that the agreement can be fundamentally reopened. If there were a better solution, it would already have been put forward.”

Contradictory.

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Arlene on Bloomberg TV at 11:45

https://www.bloomberg.com/live/europe

Was she hiding behind the "bollocks to Brexit" bus?

Enzokk wrote: »

"German Foreign Minister Maas says if May's Brexit deal is rejected by parliament today there could be new talks with the EU!"

I would have thought Deal or No Deal there WILL be further talks with the EU. Not necessarily about changing the WA though.

Here's a little quiz to see how knowledgeable we all are on Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/15/quiz-how-well-have-you-been-following-brexit?CMP=twt_gu

robinph wrote: »

Further talks would consist of...

May: We had a vote and would like a different deal.
EU: That's interesting but no. Now go away and try again.

Yeah the headline was a flat out lie by Reuters. Pity as I held them in high regard.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

- We have all the upsides of future trade deals with bigger faster growing countries.


On th EU side: ROI will suffer, France, Spain, Belgium and NL will suffer.

Yeah. It's a real shame the RoI, France, Spain, Belgium & NL have to work together, with nothing to offer those bigger faster growing countries in future trade deals, other than access to a single market of 500.000.000 people ... :rolleyes:

Hurrache wrote: »

Same as myself. I fell down in a couple of the photograph questions, I hope I'm never asked to pick a criminal from a police line up. I knew who did/said it, couldn't pick then out if standing in front of me.

Ditto. 11/15, fell down on all but one of the facial recognition tests! The price one pays for not having a TV, I suppose. Mind you, I probably recognise more of those British characters than their French counterparts, who have more influence on my daily life. But as I can't vote for them either, it probably doesn't matter either way. Looking forward to casting my EU vote in May, though! :cool: