Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[User62651]

Er...The Commons voted overwhelmingly for No Deal when they triggered Article 50 seventeen months ago....Article 50 states that we leave in 2 years with or WITHOUT an agreement.

Now pay attention it is not rocket science...

Mrs May came back with a “deal” which Parliament rightfully rejected on no less than THREE occasions, leaving No Deal as the default option BY LAW.

Poor old Big Brain Remain MPs... Seems they didn’t know what they were voting for when they voted to trigger Article 50. That’s irony for you.😂😂😂

So The Commons voted for No Deal? Course they did. That's why there's been 2 extensions to Art 50 and endless debate and multiple votes on solutions to get away from No Deal over the past year. Only MPs looking for No Deal are some of the ERG nutbars like dim fatty Francois, they are not numerous fortunately.

 

[Fade and Die]

Twaddle!

Voting to invoke A50 did/does not mean voting for No Deal...simply accepting that that could result!

And you've even got that wrong too!


Btw. There's no need to convince me about No Deal! I believe that's going to be the result - and is likely, given all that's happened since the referendum, that it's the best/only way to proceed - though almost certainly not the best result for UK!

Is the default position of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 been changed then?

 

[Foxholer]

Is the default position of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 been changed then?

Please explain what you mean by 'default position'. I think I know what you mean but I don't believe there's any reference to 'default position' in that Act!
I don't want misinterpret your statement though.

 

[IanM]

Quick note to Sky News: If you have an impartial focus group on a programme, best check that the "randoms" are not "known activists!"

 

[Hobbit]

As I understand it the EU's preferred solution was trade control down the Irish Sea - not on the EU/NI border. The backstop only came along as the UK did not want trade control done that way - UK wanted it on the EU/NI border and came up with the backstop to enable the EU to accept the UK preference.

Ah, so you started mid point by NOT mentioning what the EU originally wanted, i.e. a border down the Irish Sea. Isn't that gilding the Lilly or being a little circumspect? Does that not mean that May's team came up with a better option for the UK, even though it is still obviously unpalatable to the HoC? Good on the HoC for saying no to that.

To be honest, I totally support the dropping of the backstop for two reasons. 1) it does surrender sovereignty of NI to Brussels, and 2) I do not trust Brussels one bit in agreeing a solution to the NI border post-Leave with a backstop in place. I feel that the EU have been disingenuous in the negotiations. It was only a gut feel until I saw the Beeb documentary team behind the scenes with Guy Verhofstadt's team over a lengthy period of time.

I'm disappointed you, once again, are so obviously taking the EU side in this. If we are to leave I'd expect you'd want the best deal possible for the UK, and that includes being fair and equitable. I'd suggest that in your wording of who wanted the backstop and why colours the argument a little in favour of the EU.

 

[Fade and Die]

So The Commons voted for No Deal? Course they did. That's why there's been 2 extensions to Art 50 and endless debate and multiple votes on solutions to get away from No Deal over the past year. Only MPs looking for No Deal are some of the ERG nutbars like dim fatty Francois, they are not numerous fortunately.

But the only deal on offer was rejected by parliament 3 times. What do you think we should do then?

Let’s be honest...a “deal” was a manufactured construct to obfuscate and procrastinate the whole process of actually leaving.

In fact the only deal mentioned during the Referendum campaign was a Trade Deal. And we’re more likely to get that sooner if we leave without Barnier’s ‘Agreement’.

 

[Hobbit]

That 'remainer' somehow got a leave deal agreed - one that that Remainer probably realised was the only deal possible given the red lines she had laid down and felt she had to stick to given internal UK political pressure on her and er party. I cannot see a Leaver NOT setting down the same red Lines so cannot see why things would have been much, if any, different. The EU will negotiate around the framework agreement, The withdrawal agreement only covers EU/NI border control; citizens rights; and the payment.

"The Withdrawal Agreement only covers EU/NI border control, citizen's rights and the Payment."

You need to read the Withdrawal Agreement. It covers everything including the UK's ability to set competitive pricing...

I genuinely find it very difficult to believe you do not know what the WA covers. You quoted GATT24 Art. 10 chapter and verse yet you are either clueless on the WA or are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[drdel]

It seems to me the 'Leave' advocates have: IMO, a simplistic understanding of the EU process and its long standing track record and tactics of negotiating with member states. Article 50 specifically states that 'mutual' agreement is the overall aim. The EU has always stonewalled any members' request for change for the obvious fear that contagion would spread among members for any apparent concession (Greece, Italy, Poland) internationally Canada, Switzerland etc.

The resulting WDA so-called was only ever a proposition. Although the word 'agreement' was i the title it was only ever an offer to be presented to the UK Parliament by the 'team' for ratification. The UK Parliament rejected it as unacceptable but the EU failed to respond to the need for change so as a result the 'mutuality' of A50 went by the board.

The endless stream of 'talking heads' in the media coined the term 'no deal'; it was a media invention. Obviously, there was always a possibility that the 2 year period would end before the parties had tied things down. as there is with any negotiation. This is especially true with a management by proxi which is the Brussels structure. No deal is a simple notional construct that has to exist because it is a negotiation. Now 'no deal' has acquired an artificial persona yet it is a intrinsic component in the concept and process of leaving the EU. It is consequence that could not have been included in any referendum because the EU rules were clear in A50 on how the process would be followed, once a member has decided to leave.

IMO MP's (including the publicity seeking Bercow) are simply playing lawyer style games to the detriment of proper debate.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Ah, so you started mid point by NOT mentioning what the EU originally wanted, i.e. a border down the Irish Sea. Isn't that gilding the Lilly or being a little circumspect? Does that not mean that May's team came up with a better option for the UK, even though it is still obviously unpalatable to the HoC? Good on the HoC for saying no to that.

To be honest, I totally support the dropping of the backstop for two reasons. 1) it does surrender sovereignty of NI to Brussels, and 2) I do not trust Brussels one bit in agreeing a solution to the NI border post-Leave with a backstop in place. I feel that the EU have been disingenuous in the negotiations. It was only a gut feel until I saw the Beeb documentary team behind the scenes with Guy Verhofstadt's team over a lengthy period of time.

I'm disappointed you, once again, are so obviously taking the EU side in this. If we are to leave I'd expect you'd want the best deal possible for the UK, and that includes being fair and equitable. I'd suggest that in your wording of who wanted the backstop and why colours the argument a little in favour of the EU.

I want the best for the UK - I think leaving the EU will be bad - and without a deal it will be awful, and will store up all sorts of issues for our children and the country. The best deal for the UK is the one that we currently have.

But I am not fooled by the disingenuous spin and deceptions Johnson is plying us with - he actually can't be bothered negotiating a deal - he just wants out with No Deal. And that is where we are heading - even although in a most recent Survation poll only 19% chose that option as their most favoured outcome. But - we are told - that is the will of the people.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

"The Withdrawal Agreement only covers EU/NI border control, citizen's rights and the Payment."

You need to read the Withdrawal Agreement. It covers everything including the UK's ability to set competitive pricing...

I genuinely find it very difficult to believe you do not know what the WA covers. You quoted GATT24 Art. 10 chapter and verse yet you are either clueless on the WA or are being deliberately obtuse.

Sorry - you are right - I meant the 3 priorities for the EU

Are there any priorities? Priorities for Commission are safeguarding citizens’ rights, reaching a financial settlement, and resolving border issues. The EU has stipulated that sufficient progress must be made on these matters before there can be any discussion of the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU.

from Section 4.3 of HoC Briefing Paper Brexit: How does the Article 50 process work?

file:///C:/Users/A150759/Downloads/CBP-7551.pdf

 

[SocketRocket]

So The Commons voted for No Deal? Course they did. That's why there's been 2 extensions to Art 50 and endless debate and multiple votes on solutions to get away from No Deal over the past year. Only MPs looking for No Deal are some of the ERG nutbars like dim fatty Francois, they are not numerous fortunately.

A tag that could be leveled at Blackford but I guess that would be crass due to him not being a Tory.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It seems to me the 'Leave' advocates have: IMO, a simplistic understanding of the EU process and its long standing track record and tactics of negotiating with member states. Article 50 specifically states that 'mutual' agreement is the overall aim. The EU has always stonewalled any members' request for change for the obvious fear that contagion would spread among members for any apparent concession (Greece, Italy, Poland) internationally Canada, Switzerland etc.

The resulting WDA so-called was only ever a proposition. Although the word 'agreement' was i the title it was only ever an offer to be presented to the UK Parliament by the 'team' for ratification. The UK Parliament rejected it as unacceptable but the EU failed to respond to the need for change so as a result the 'mutuality' of A50 went by the board.

The endless stream of 'talking heads' in the media coined the term 'no deal'; it was a media invention. Obviously, there was always a possibility that the 2 year period would end before the parties had tied things down. as there is with any negotiation. This is especially true with a management by proxi which is the Brussels structure. No deal is a simple notional construct that has to exist because it is a negotiation. Now 'no deal' has acquired an artificial persona yet it is a intrinsic component in the concept and process of leaving the EU. It is consequence that could not have been included in any referendum because the EU rules were clear in A50 on how the process would be followed, once a member has decided to leave.

IMO MP's (including the publicity seeking Bercow) are simply playing lawyer style games to the detriment of proper debate.

maybe so - but I believe that using it as an outcome may have been invented by Nigel Farage after the referendum - though of course he denies that.

“Norway chooses its own deal. We will choose our own deal.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1127522686509301760

https://www.thejournal.ie/nigel-farage-no-deal-bbc-fact-check-4632847-May2019/

 

[SocketRocket]

Sorry - you are right - I meant the 3 priorities for the EU

Are there any priorities? Priorities for Commission are safeguarding citizens’ rights, reaching a financial settlement, and resolving border issues. The EU has stipulated that sufficient progress must be made on these matters before there can be any discussion of the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU.

from Section 4.3 of HoC Briefing Paper Brexit: How does the Article 50 process work?

file:///C:/Users/A150759/Downloads/CBP-7551.pdf

Their intrangency on those three priorities were a deliberate ploy to hold up trade talks and stiffle a chance of reaching a suitable agreement for the UK. This was done to push a stinker of a WA along with their main objective of keeping the UK in the EU.

 

[Hobbit]

I want the best for the UK - I think leaving the EU will be bad - and without a deal it will be awful, and will store up all sorts of issues for our children and the country. The best deal for the UK is the one that we currently have.

But I am not fooled by the disingenuous spin and deceptions Johnson is plying us with - he actually can't be bothered negotiating a deal - he just wants out with No Deal. And that is where we are heading - even although in a most recent Survation poll only 19% chose that option as their most favoured outcome. But - we are told - that is the will of the people.

I nearly hit "like" but feel your second para is too full of assumptions. Do I trust Boris? No but I don't know if he's being deceptive. Do I think he wants No Deal? Is he really that daft that he'd throw away a potential deal for No Deal? Not even he is that stupid. As for your "will of the people" bit, you're taking that phrase out of context. The "will of the people" was Leave, not No Deal.

Is it spin or deceptions from you or are you just a little paranoid in seeing monsters under the bed?

 

[Taz]

Love this quote re Clarke and Harmon

'That's odd. We've had Remoaners spending the last 3 years telling us that old people have stolen their future. Oh I geddit now, they only like old people that agree with them'

 

[SocketRocket]

Love this quote re Clarke and Harmon

'That's odd. We've had Remoaners spending the last 3 years telling us that old people have stolen their future. Oh I geddit now, they only like old people that agree with them'

Ken Clarke needs removing from the Tory Whip along with any others who would vote to bring down their own government. It's their choice.

 

[clubchamp98]

Ken Clarke needs removing from the Tory Whip along with any others who would vote to bring down their own government. It's their choice.

What amuses me is.
The Labour Party expelled Alister Campbell recently for voting Lib Dem.
But could be asking all its MPs to vote for Ken Clarke?????really.
Can’t see Corbyn letting that go.

 

[Taz]

I wonder if the old Corbyn - a proud socialist,democrat & Brexiteer - would ever have imagined that he would one day collaborate with political enemies in an effort to be installed as head of an unelected gov't whose purpose was to block a democratic vote taking us out of the EU.

 

[Taz]

Quote

I used to respect Ken Clarke. But his statement that, “The present crisis is as bad as it was in 1931 or even 1940” is deranged nonsense.
In 1940 we faced the most ruthless fascist army and murder machine in history. Today, we are unsettled over how to leave a trading bloc

 

[Taz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1162500721360678912