Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barneir reportedly states he will not remove/change the backstop and the UK must sign the WA.

Has he not registered that Parliament rejected the WA on 3 occasions and the Speaker refused its 4th presentation.
 
So get an extension - to do what ????
have another referendum but ignore results of you don't like it.
if all else fails just cancel everything.
 
Parsaregood said:
Why is it not a good idea ? We can then sort out our own deals with countries outside the EU which at the moment we cannot do. This could lead to cheaper products for UK consumers and also open up potential new markets for UK companies. There all all sorts of other things of course like getting back control of our fishing waters, control of our laws and not having to answer to European courts. At the minute, because of the mess Theresa May left us in, a clean brexit is the only true form of brexit as the existing deal, even being amended, is just not acceptable
Click to expand...

Well we genuinely don't know how bad no deal will be, but do you think it will go better or worse than their own official analysis in Operation Yellowhamer - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ked-operation-yellowhammer-document-797qxkrcm, which was produced in August, that is clearly marked as a base scenario (not worst case), despite Gove, Cummings and Boris lies?

I'm still confused by the whole "taking back control". I'm still not sure what laws we were forced to take that adversely affect us. Of the 1000s of laws passed, I'm pretty sure there was something like 70 odd we were forced to implement and all of them are actual improvements to us such as clean beaches etc and the reason we voted against them was due to costs etc.

With regards to getting deals outside of the the EU, well again that remains to be seen, but due to economies of scale I fail to see how they will be better deals? I'd be interested to hear your theories on that. We are also going to need to deal with our closest neighbours. Do people honestly think that we will be able to get a better deal than the one we already have whilst being a member? I just don't see how that is possible.

My final point i just want to add is the WA negotiated by May simply comes down to the red lines as outlined by the UK Government. I am sure you have seen the graphic, but I'll paste it in again. By choosing to leave both the CU and the SM were government decisions. I assume to placate the hard brexiteers of the Tory party. That decision does not have a majority in Parliament or with the public.

5a394c31160000783ecf2154.jpeg
 
woody69 said:
Why do some of you think leaving on no deal is a good idea?
Click to expand...
There's are huge downside to No Deal! But it seems to be the only way to actually Leave. So, for that reason alone, I'm content to lrsvr eith 'No Deal'.

The WA that was negotiated is the classic 'Bad Deal' that May described 'No Deal' to be better than! Apologies for the lousy phrasing!

There is nothing that actually approaches a 'deal' in the WA. From memory, its ONLY purpose is to establish a border between the EU and UK. All the other areas of a 'deal' are still to be negotiated - and this will take a very long time. There'll be no hurry on the EU's part! And it's those areas that will affect the UK-EU relationship the most - Trade, Movement of people, relationships for the likes of Police, Intelligence, Industrial and Scientific research, Standards etc. Presumably, there will have been a certain amount of preliminary work done, but most will have to be done after Brexit and UK will, in many/most cases, will be treated no different to any other non-EU country, so will be 'poorer' for it. And that's without considering Trade, which will be the most visible and important area of the post-Brexit relationship.

And pretty much the same applies to deals with non-EU contries, many of which currently use UK primarily as the initial point of entry to EU.
 
Last edited:
woody69 said:
Well we genuinely don't know how bad no deal will be, but do you think it will go better or worse than their own official analysis in Operation Yellowhamer - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ked-operation-yellowhammer-document-797qxkrcm, which was produced in August, that is clearly marked as a base scenario (not worst case), despite Gove, Cummings and Boris lies?

I'm still confused by the whole "taking back control". I'm still not sure what laws we were forced to take that adversely affect us. Of the 1000s of laws passed, I'm pretty sure there was something like 70 odd we were forced to implement and all of them are actual improvements to us such as clean beaches etc and the reason we voted against them was due to costs etc.

With regards to getting deals outside of the the EU, well again that remains to be seen, but due to economies of scale I fail to see how they will be better deals? I'd be interested to hear your theories on that. We are also going to need to deal with our closest neighbours. Do people honestly think that we will be able to get a better deal than the one we already have whilst being a member? I just don't see how that is possible.

My final point i just want to add is the WA negotiated by May simply comes down to the red lines as outlined by the UK Government. I am sure you have seen the graphic, but I'll paste it in again. By choosing to leave both the CU and the SM were government decisions. I assume to placate the hard brexiteers of the Tory party. That decision does not have a majority in Parliament or with the public.

5a394c31160000783ecf2154.jpeg
Click to expand...

Some good points but you really, really, really spoilt it with your comment about the WA simply comes down to the UK’s own red lines.

First of all, go and read it. Seriously, if you want your comments to be taken seriously, go and read it.

I have, and some of it several times.

The first half of it is very fair and equitable. The rest, especially the bit around agriculture, is appalling. The short version on agri; the U.K. will not be able to set it’s own tariffs and quotas without reference to an “independent” (hahahaha) monitoring group that reports back to the EU. If the tariffs and quotas offered to a non-EU country are better than those offered to the EU, the U.K. is fined. And the final adjudicator will be the ECJ..... that doesn’t come close to a red line the U.K. has insisted on does it?
 
Hobbit said:
Some good points but you really, really, really spoilt it with your comment about the WA simply comes down to the UK’s own red lines.

First of all, go and read it. Seriously, if you want your comments to be taken seriously, go and read it.

I have, and some of it several times.

The first half of it is very fair and equitable. The rest, especially the bit around agriculture, is appalling. The short version on agri; the U.K. will not be able to set it’s own tariffs and quotas without reference to an “independent” (hahahaha) monitoring group that reports back to the EU. If the tariffs and quotas offered to a non-EU country are better than those offered to the EU, the U.K. is fined. And the final adjudicator will be the ECJ..... that doesn’t come close to a red line the U.K. has insisted on does it?
Click to expand...
The agreement relating to agriculture as part of the WA is because during the transition period the UK is bound by the obligations from all EU international agreements (as EU international agreements are part of the EU acquis). This guarantees integrity and homogeneity of the single market and the customs union and we want to leave them. Why should we expect the EU to be ok with the UK setting lower tariffs with a nation that currently has an agreement with the EU?
 
SocketRocket said:
Gordon Brown was and was never voted as prime minister. Its a silly argument though, we all know that the public doesn't vote for a prime minister so why even bother to say it.
Click to expand...

It’s sort of like the way we all know the Brexit vote wasn’t legally binding but still Brexiteers are saying it isn’t democracy if it doesn’t happen.

Ah, semantics. Sometimes they’re not your friend.
 
woody69 said:
The agreement relating to agriculture as part of the WA is because during the transition period the UK is bound by the obligations from all EU international agreements (as EU international agreements are part of the EU acquis). This guarantees integrity and homogeneity of the single market and the customs union and we want to leave them. Why should we expect the EU to be ok with the UK setting lower tariffs with a nation that currently has an agreement with the EU?
Click to expand...

But within the doc, and I've just looked, the EU continues to be the regulating authority, till Dec 2024, 4 years after transition, for any subsidies the UK decides to provide for agriculture. And that any payments paid by the UK to the EU during the implementation period then reduce, not end, on a sliding scale from 2020 to 2028, when they finally end. The UK is allowed to object to anything imposed on the UK during that period, as an equal member to the joint agreement, but why is the ECJ the arbitrator? Surely it should be an international court?

I fully appreciate the EU might not be happy with the UK setting its own pricing and tariffs but, quite frankly, since when does someone let a competitor set its pricing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
9K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top