Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[IanM]

So, the EU memebrs DONT need to vote to have us stay in and keep paying their share of the costs? Wow... how democratic of them

I think the evidence of EVERY previous vote again the EU being ignored/overturned is sufficient evidence of what was planned for us. I dont accept its the negiotating position for two reasons... 1) who sells whom more? and 2) with Remainers running the withdrawal, what did you expect?

..but I've mentioned this outcome a few times

 

[Foxholer]

Well, the fertiliser hits the spinny thing....
Euro court rules that UK can change its mind on Brexit as long as there is a democratic process - vote in parliament, referendum or general election.

No big deal as far as I can see!

Just a 'tactic' by a group of folk who can't accept a democratic decision! Ironic that their jobs/positions really only exist because of 'democracy' in the first place!

 

[Foxholer]

So, the EU memebrs DONT need to vote to have us stay in and keep paying their share of the costs? Wow... how democratic of them

I think the evidence of EVERY previous vote again the EU being ignored/overturned is sufficient evidence of what was planned for us. I dont accept its the negiotating position for two reasons... 1) who sells whom more? and 2) with Remainers running the withdrawal, what did you expect?

..but I've mentioned this outcome a few times

Must you keep having to be told that 'overturned' 'votes against the EU (such as happened in Ireland normally involved concessions/changes to the 'agreement'!

Remainers are running the withdrawl because (most of) the Brexiters ran away from the task! I detest Gove (for more than simply Brexit) but at least he had the cajones to stand in the Leadership 'battle'! It was and is a poisoned chalice, but I'm really unhappy with the performance of UK negotiation team! I'm more inclined to favour a 'clean break' than this mish-mash!

 

[doublebogey7]

So, the EU memebrs DONT need to vote to have us stay in and keep paying their share of the costs? Wow... how democratic of them

I think the evidence of EVERY previous vote again the EU being ignored/overturned is sufficient evidence of what was planned for us. I dont accept its the negiotating position for two reasons... 1) who sells whom more? and 2) with Remainers running the withdrawal, what did you expect?

..but I've mentioned this outcome a few times

Brexiteer's have only themselves to blame as not one of them has been willing to step up to the plate.

 

[IanM]

Brexiteer's have only themselves to blame as not one of them has been willing to step up to the plate.

You are correct....they all went AWOL the day after the Referendum. Soros and co, doubled their efforts!

 

[Sweep]

Must you keep having to be told that 'overturned' 'votes against the EU (such as happened in Ireland normally involved concessions/changes to the 'agreement'!

Remainers are running the withdrawl because (most of) the Brexiters ran away from the task! I detest Gove (for more than simply Brexit) but at least he had the cajones to stand in the Leadership 'battle'! It was and is a poisoned chalice, but I'm really unhappy with the performance of UK negotiation team! I'm more inclined to favour a 'clean break' than this mish-mash!

Remainers would not be running the negotiations if the “Brexit Minister” had been allowed to handle the negotiations and not been superseded by the Europe Department in No.10.

It’s all smoke and mirrors. You have a team from the UK trying to negotiate for something they don’t want with a team from the EU pretending to negotiate something they don’t want when actually their main focus is protecting the EU project and dissuading other members from going down the same route as the UK.

 

[Hacker Khan]

OK, let's dive a bit deeper into this. As it is apparently a conspiracy and the negotiators never wanted to leave in the 1st place, what do you think would have happened if a leaver actually walked the walk and was PM and in charge of negotiating? So let's say Gove was in charge, what difference do you think he would have achieved based on what we have seen up to now, what kind of deal would he have been able to negotiate?

 

[Kellfire]

Fingers crossed the ruling is acted upon and we have another vote, armed with more knowledge, to decide if we want to leave.

 

[USER1999]

I think a part of the negotiating went out of the window with Teresa Mays red lines. There was not a lot left to negotiate after these were fixed. On either side.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

OK, let's dive a bit deeper into this. As it is apparently a conspiracy and the negotiators never wanted to leave in the 1st place, what do you think would have happened if a leaver actually walked the walk and was PM and in charge of negotiating? So let's say Gove was in charge, what difference do you think he would have achieved based on what we have seen up to now, what kind of deal would he have been able to negotiate?

We will never know the answer to that as we are too far in. There was no jepoardy in the negotiations for the EU. Imagine if Trump had been negotiating. He would have walked away on day 2 and cut them off, allowing for a no deal. He would have had the balls to see it through and the EU would have known that and have to work out if that is what they would have wanted. He would have got much more from them as that would not have been in the interests of the EU. Horrible man but in this instance I would have wanted him on our team.

 

[Sweep]

Brexiteer's have only themselves to blame as not one of them has been willing to step up to the plate.

Not true. Leadsom, Gove and Fox stood for the Tory leadership. May won mainly because the Tories wouldn’t elect a leaver and she made all the right noises about accepting and enacting the democratic choice of the electorate. As Home Secretary she was in the most senior role of any of the candidates so was better placed from the outset. The whole thing opened up for her. The PM, previously secure, went as did the Chancellor.
In any leadership bid there is always going to be political manoeuvring. When Gove stood, Boris calculated it would be better to live to fight another day. I don’t think anyone can accuse him of not wanting to lead his party or be PM.

 

[Sweep]

OK, let's dive a bit deeper into this. As it is apparently a conspiracy and the negotiators never wanted to leave in the 1st place, what do you think would have happened if a leaver actually walked the walk and was PM and in charge of negotiating? So let's say Gove was in charge, what difference do you think he would have achieved based on what we have seen up to now, what kind of deal would he have been able to negotiate?

Just go back a few thousand posts to see what we could and should have done.
Much of this has been caused by the mindset of parliament, the government, the media and the EU. They are all still debating an issue that was settled in June 2016. The debate on if we are leaving or not was decided then. They have failed to accept this point and have failed everything else thereafter as a result. Both the UK and the EU have failed to look for a good resolution to the negotiations that would actually benefit both parties because they refuse to accept the referendum result. They simply and still cannot believe it has happened.
If they had accepted the decision and when it became apparent the EU was just going to keep batting back every suggestion from the UK, we should have approached it from a business perspective. If you are faced with such a situation in business the UK side would have simply said “look, we are really keen to do a deal which benefits both parties. A good deal is only good if it suits us both. But we are clearly not getting anywhere right now. Things are too raw. Everyone is upset. So, we suggest we just leave now and let the dust settle and negotiate again later.” The UK govt would only be enacting the instructions of their electorate. The EU would have realised that it was in their interests to do a deal then and not let the UK talk to the rest of the world before signing with them.
If Mrs May had stuck to her “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” policy we, her party and the government would not be facing this mess now. But we now find ourselves agreeing to all the stuff the EU wants before we even talk about what we want in terms of trade etc. It is basic capitulation.

 

[Sweep]

The best illustration of how bad this deal is for the UK is this.
The UK is having, what 5 days of debate on the WD agreement? The PM has made how many statements to the house? It’s like Groundhog Day in there.
The EU side, all 27 countries of it, took 40 minutes to agree it.
They couldn’t snap our hands off quick enough.

 

[User62651]

Just go back a few thousand posts to see what we could and should have done.
Much of this has been caused by the mindset of parliament, the government, the media and the EU. They are all still debating an issue that was settled in June 2016. The debate on if we are leaving or not was decided then. They have failed to accept this point and have failed everything else thereafter as a result. Both the UK and the EU have failed to look for a good resolution to the negotiations that would actually benefit both parties because they refuse to accept the referendum result. They simply and still cannot believe it has happened.
If they had accepted the decision and when it became apparent the EU was just going to keep batting back every suggestion from the UK, we should have approached it from a business perspective. If you are faced with such a situation in business the UK side would have simply said “look, we are really keen to do a deal which benefits both parties. A good deal is only good if it suits us both. But we are clearly not getting anywhere right now. Things are too raw. Everyone is upset. So, we suggest we just leave now and let the dust settle and negotiate again later.” The UK govt would only be enacting the instructions of their electorate. The EU would have realised that it was in their interests to do a deal then and not let the UK talk to the rest of the world before signing with them.
If Mrs May had stuck to her “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” policy we, her party and the government would not be facing this mess now. But we now find ourselves agreeing to all the stuff the EU wants before we even talk about what we want in terms of trade etc. It is basic capitulation.

..Meantime back in reality....

 

[ColchesterFC]

1) So are you blaming the EU for the incompetence of our negotiators? The Irish situation is to keep the union together, so if we want different laws then it is upto us. Dont blame the EU for wanting to keep the ball from it. If tomorrow we want to leave the UN or WTO or NATO dont expect to keep the good bits like security while wanting to not contribute via monies or other commitments.

2) You want to leave just because you want to send a message to the govt for their mishandling... Ahh the irony. IIRC, there were a number of cases of people (including some of my friends) who voted Leave because they wanted to send a message to our politicians but at the same time they did not want to leave.. How that has backfired. So I look forward to another set of people who 'want to send a message' even though they think otherwise.. Bring the popcorn, roll on the next referendum. Cant wait to hear Dimbles say we have an undecided vote as Remain has become Leave and Leave have Remained.

1. No, I lay the blame squarely with the UK negotiators and government, which ultimately means Theresa May. The EU negotiators have done a fantastic job for the EU as they quite rightly should have done.

2. Again no. I don't want to send any message to the government but I am swayed towards voting leave, if there is a second referendum, because I feel that the government have acted in bad faith and misled the electorate during the negotiations and haven't actually believed in the process from the start. Parliament voted in favour of the referendum but a majority still refuse to accept the result. That isn't democracy. What happened to May's "No deal is better than a bad deal"? A fine soundbite but I don't think anybody believed her, least of all the EU. And so we have stumbled into a situation where the deal being presented is a polished dog turd of a deal. It may have been polished but it's still a dog turd of a deal.

All those calling for a second referendum now we know the negotiated agreement are doing so for one of two reasons. Either because they never wanted to leave in the first place and can't accept the result of the first vote. Or because the government have ballsed up the negotiations so badly that the deal on offer is garbage but is being portrayed as the best we can get, which I don't believe is true.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Remainers would not be running the negotiations if the “Brexit Minister” had been allowed to handle the negotiations and not been superseded by the Europe Department in No.10.

It’s all smoke and mirrors. You have a team from the UK trying to negotiate for something they don’t want with a team from the EU pretending to negotiate something they don’t want when actually their main focus is protecting the EU project and dissuading other members from going down the same route as the UK.

As they were quite correct to do. The EU negotiators were negotiating in the best interests of the EU. It's a shame that the UK negotiators weren't allowed to do the same for the UK.

 

[Hacker Khan]

The best illustration of how bad this deal is for the UK is this.
The UK is having, what 5 days of debate on the WD agreement? The PM has made how many statements to the house? It’s like Groundhog Day in there.
The EU side, all 27 countries of it, took 40 minutes to agree it.
They couldn’t snap our hands off quick enough.

Or alternatively the EU were all unified from day 1 in what they wanted and had one agreed vision on what they wanted to achieve, so it was an easy call to make to ratify it. Where as we had a hopelessly confused negotiating position as we have never agreed ourselves under what terms we want to leave.

 

[IanM]

Or alternatively the EU were all unified from day 1 in what they wanted and had one agreed vision on what they wanted to achieve, so it was an easy call to make to ratify it. Where as we had a hopelessly confused negotiating position as we have never agreed ourselves under what terms we want to leave.

Again correct. Their position is "there can be no democratic choice against the EU" - and that is a diect quote!

Negotiation? Easy! OK Merkel...how many Beemers do you want to sell us post Brexit? But of course May wasnt interested in that.

 

[Sweep]

If you don’t believe the ECJ ruling that the UK can unilaterally withdraw from A50 was not politically motivated, consider this. Within a couple of hours of the ruling, Paul Scully MP on Sky News said “when I see the A50 judgement this morning which makes no Brexit far more likely or as a possibility, I am all the more determined to make sure we leave and this deal is the best way to do that”.
So in other words electorate, we know what you voted for but never mind that, it’s either this or nothing.

 

[Kellfire]

If you don’t believe the ECJ ruling that the UK can unilaterally withdraw from A50 was not politically motivated, consider this. Within a couple of hours of the ruling, Paul Scully MP on Sky News said “when I see the A50 judgement this morning which makes no Brexit far more likely or as a possibility, I am all the more determined to make sure we leave and this deal is the best way to do that”.
So in other words electorate, we know what you voted for but never mind that, it’s either this or nothing.

You still don’t get how a non-legally binding referendum works!