Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[martin_p]

The government are trying to re-write history now, and when challenged on it in a BBC interview Raab implies it’s the BBC that’s wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

[CombatClaret]

The government are trying to re-write history now, and when challenged on it in a BBC interview Raab implies it’s the BBC that’s wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

Just a reminder from another thread

If you gather every tweet, speech, article, quote etc of now No Deal PM Boris Johnson from time he came out in favour Brexit up to the vote itself in 2016 he mentioned, articulated or made the case for No Deal precisely zero times.

[android]

Thing is Martin and Combat I can't remember any prominent members of the Remain campaign saying that if we voted to Leave then we would stay in the EU - do you have any quotes from them on that? Not many predicted a Leave win, not many predicted no deal and fewer still predicted staying in if we voted to Leave.

I don't really see the point of that Guardian article - are they / you saying that the EU is now proposing tariffs and trade barriers. What tariffs / barriers are they proposing?

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

https://twitter.com/youreperfidy/status ... 23328?s=21" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are some people still claiming that the electorate were not told that we would leave on WTO terms if no deal was agreed?

[Greenmile]

https://twitter.com/youreperfidy/status ... 23328?s=21

Are some people still claiming that the electorate were not told that we would leave on WTO terms if no deal was agreed?

I can’t believe you were stupid enough to fall for “project fear”.

[CombatClaret]

7 Person House Vote

Idea A)- "Lets Go Out For Dinner; I promise you can have Chinese, Indian, Thai, Fish & Chips whatever you like just vote to go out for dinner. (But If we don't go to any restaurant we have to throw out all the food we already own and scavenge from bins)"
Idea B) - Lets stay in and eat some of the healthy, nutritional, good value food we already have in the cupboards.

Idea A wins by a small majority 4 to 3.
Jim - I wanted Chinese
Tina - I wanted Indian
Pat - I wanted Thai
Ann - I wanted Fish and Chips
There is no clear majority for any of the promises made.

New agenda imposed on the house:
We voted to go out for dinner so we voted to throw all our healthy, nutritional, good value food out and rummage through Tesco's bins.

[Devils_Advocate]

7 Person House Vote

Idea A)- "Lets Go Out For Dinner; I promise you can have Chinese, Indian, Thai, Fish & Chips whatever you like just vote to go out for dinner. (But If we don't go to any restaurant we have to throw out all the food we already own and scavenge from bins)"
Idea B) - Lets stay in and eat some of the healthy, nutritional, good value food we already have in the cupboards.

Idea A wins by a small majority 4 to 3.
Jim - I wanted Chinese
Tina - I wanted Indian
Pat - I wanted Thai
Ann - I wanted Fish and Chips
There is no clear majority for any of the promises made.

New agenda imposed on the house:
We voted to go out for dinner so we voted to throw all our healthy, nutritional, good value food out and rummage through Tesco's bins.

Yeah but if we starve ourselves long enough the four restaurants will blink first and become a world buffet restaurant

[martin_p]

https://twitter.com/youreperfidy/status ... 23328?s=21

Are some people still claiming that the electorate were not told that we would leave on WTO terms if no deal was agreed?

Yeah but, you know that thing we were told was scaremongering and that all our guys said would never happen? Well secretly we all knew it was true and we wanted it to happen and that’s why we voted leave.

[RingoMcCartney]

Just a reminder from another thread

If you gather every tweet, speech, article, quote etc of now No Deal PM Boris Johnson from time he came out in favour Brexit up to the vote itself in 2016 he mentioned, articulated or made the case for No Deal precisely zero times.

In June 2016 the country voted to leave the EU.


In March 2017 498 out of 650 MPs voted to trigger Article 50.

That put into law the UK would leave the EU on March 29th 2019 WITH or WITHOUT a withdrawal agreement

In June 2017 there was a general election.

Every single MP that currently sits in Parliament does so knowing that this was the law.

Why are you and the others concerned about what was said prior to the referendum. What matters is that 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 after the referendum and in doing so voted to leave the EU with or without a deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

https://twitter.com/youreperfidy/status ... 23328?s=21

Are some people still claiming that the electorate were not told that we would leave on WTO terms if no deal was agreed?

When we voted in the June 2017 general election (84 % voted for parties whose manifestos pledged to respect the referendum result) . Article 50 had already been triggered in March, by 498 MPs out of 650.

Article 50 states that the UK will leave the EU on March 29th 2019 with or without a withdrawal agreement.

[AndrewJB]

In June 2016 the country voted to leave the EU.


In March 2017 498 out of 650 MPs voted to trigger Article 50.

That put into law the UK would leave the EU on March 29th 2019 WITH or WITHOUT a withdrawal agreement

In June 2017 there was a general election.

Every single MP that currently sits in Parliament does so knowing that this was the law.

Why are you and the others concerned about what was said prior to the referendum. What matters is that 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 after the referendum and in doing so voted to leave the EU with or without a deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dab your eyes, princess.

[If it be your will]

In June 2016 the country voted to leave the EU.


In March 2017 498 out of 650 MPs voted to trigger Article 50.

That put into law the UK would leave the EU on March 29th 2019 WITH or WITHOUT a withdrawal agreement

In June 2017 there was a general election.

Every single MP that currently sits in Parliament does so knowing that this was the law.

Why are you and the others concerned about what was said prior to the referendum. What matters is that 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 after the referendum and in doing so voted to leave the EU with or without a deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Relax Ringo, lad. There's really no need to bother with all this anymore - a very hard or no-deal Brexit is in the bag. Have you seen Boris's cabinet? Or that our PM has staked his reputation by promising not to even visit EU leaders to discuss Brexit unless they first back down on the backstop? Or the 1 Billion that is earmarked for no-deal preparation? Or that oddschecker are only offering 1/25 for 'no second referendum'? Or, for the ultimate confirmation, that the currency markets have finally, finally turned? This is no Boris bluff, it's definitely happening.

There's no need to argue anymore: There'll be no second referendum. We'll leave on October 31st. It'll either be no-deal or, more likely, a deal representing the hardest of Brexits.

Get some sleep, and I'll see you back here in 3 months.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I see Dominic Raab is in the news again.

Appeared to refer to Scotland as a region of England in a now deleted tweet.

Perhaps it was just badly written, a bit like when he appeared not to know how important the port of Dover was when he was Brexit Secretary.
Still, at least he’s got a degree.

[Spijed]

I see Dominic Raab is in the news again.

Appeared to refer to Scotland as a region of England in a now deleted tweet.

Perhaps it was just badly written, a bit like when he appeared not to know how important the port of Dover was when he was Brexit Secretary.
Still, at least he’s got a degree.

And some say Dominic Raab is one of the brightest political talents around.

Hmmm......

[SonofPog]

I'm no fan of his, but that tweet was fake.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Relax Ringo, lad. There's really no need to bother with all this anymore - a very hard or no-deal Brexit is in the bag. Have you seen Boris's cabinet? Or that our PM has staked his reputation by promising not to even visit EU leaders to discuss Brexit unless they first back down on the backstop? Or the 1 Billion that is earmarked for no-deal preparation? Or that oddschecker are only offering 1/25 for 'no second referendum'? Or, for the ultimate confirmation, that the currency markets have finally, finally turned? This is no Boris bluff, it's definitely happening.

There's no need to argue anymore: There'll be no second referendum. We'll leave on October 31st. It'll either be no-deal or, more likely, a deal representing the hardest of Brexits.

Get some sleep, and I'll see you back here in 3 months.

We can all rest easy

[Bordeauxclaret]

I'm no fan of his, but that tweet was fake.

Someone’s made a fake tweet about his comments on Radio 4? How strange.

Just another ill advised comment on the radio to worry about then.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eal-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; At what point should we wonder whether we're being scammed?

[dsr]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eal-brexit At what point should we wonder whether we're being scammed?

If you seriously believed that the Brexit supporters were speaking on behalf of the EU when they made those comments, then you should have known better. Even the ones quoted by the Guardian make it clear that the EU's self-interest and the mutual benefit to both sides of a free trade deal would make it easy to get. What they underestimated was by how much the political determination of the EU's leaders to be seen to 'punish' the UK would outweigh the benefits to the EU of free trade with the UK.

[AndrewJB]

If you seriously believed that the Brexit supporters were speaking on behalf of the EU when they made those comments, then you should have known better. Even the ones quoted by the Guardian make it clear that the EU's self-interest and the mutual benefit to both sides of a free trade deal would make it easy to get. What they underestimated was by how much the political determination of the EU's leaders to be seen to 'punish' the UK would outweigh the benefits to the EU of free trade with the UK.

The EU haven’t done anything. Our government has made this such a train crash. On the link you have leavers talking about remaining in the free trade area, and Johnson saying it’s unthinkable that we’d leave without a deal. They sold it all as easy to get the vote over the line, and now rather than holding their hands up and admitting they were wrong, they’re blaming the EU.

[dsr]

The EU haven’t done anything. Our government has made this such a train crash. On the link you have leavers talking about remaining in the free trade area, and Johnson saying it’s unthinkable that we’d leave without a deal. They sold it all as easy to get the vote over the line, and now rather than holding their hands up and admitting they were wrong, they’re blaming the EU.

After 2+ years negotiating there is one and only one deal available. A deal that all 27 countries in the EU support, and a deal that all 8 parties represented in the House of Commons oppose. Does that not suggest that the EU isn't negotiating a fair deal? There is a lot of wiggle room in this deal that gives plenty of room for both sides to benefit. Trade deals are supposed to be mutually beneficial, not all for one side. If this deal is so one sided that every party in the HoC opposes it, then apart from proving what a muppet Theresa May was for negotiating so badly, it also proves that the EU hasn't been negotiating in good faith for a fair deal.

[martin_p]

After 2+ years negotiating there is one and only one deal available. A deal that all 27 countries in the EU support, and a deal that all 8 parties represented in the House of Commons oppose. Does that not suggest that the EU isn't negotiating a fair deal? There is a lot of wiggle room in this deal that gives plenty of room for both sides to benefit. Trade deals are supposed to be mutually beneficial, not all for one side. If this deal is so one sided that every party in the HoC opposes it, then apart from proving what a muppet Theresa May was for negotiating so badly, it also proves that the EU hasn't been negotiating in good faith for a fair deal.

And exactly how much have we ‘wriggled’? If we were to indicate we might give way on some of our red lines maybe the EU stance would change as well. As it is we’ve put pre-conditions on negotiations restarting.

[dsr]

And exactly how much have we ‘wriggled’? If we were to indicate we might give way on some of our red lines maybe the EU stance would change as well. As it is we’ve put pre-conditions on negotiations restarting.

I don't think this should be approached from the point of view of being half-members of the EU. Whatever you might think about what was said about "no deal", you can't deny that negotiating free trade deals with the rest of the world was high on the Brexiters' promise list. If the "red lines" about the customs union and single market had not been there, then that would rule out deals with elsewhere.

As for the ECJ, of course we should be out of it. Would you accept a trade deal with the USA that says all deals, both imports and exports, are made under US law? It's a nonsense.

[CombatClaret]

After 2+ years negotiating there is one and only one deal available. A deal that all 27 countries in the EU support, and a deal that all 8 parties represented in the House of Commons oppose. Does that not suggest that the EU isn't negotiating a fair deal?

It suggests the electorate was promised many different mutually exclusive deals.

[dsr]

It suggests the electorate was promised many different mutually exclusive deals.

The lectorate was promised the best deal possible. Subsequent events have proved that "the best deal possible" is no deal - at least, as it stands. All 8 parties (plus Brexit party and UKIP) are agreed that they cannot approve of May's deal, and the EU says they won't offer any better. Unless they do offer changes, then there is no deal.

[martin_p]

I don't think this should be approached from the point of view of being half-members of the EU. Whatever you might think about what was said about "no deal", you can't deny that negotiating free trade deals with the rest of the world was high on the Brexiters' promise list. If the "red lines" about the customs union and single market had not been there, then that would rule out deals with elsewhere.

As for the ECJ, of course we should be out of it. Would you accept a trade deal with the USA that says all deals, both imports and exports, are made under US law? It's a nonsense.

So our red lines are precious but the EU should abandon theirs?

[CombatClaret]

The lectorate was promised the best deal possible. Subsequent events have proved that "the best deal possible" is no deal - at least, as it stands. All 8 parties (plus Brexit party and UKIP) are agreed that they cannot approve of May's deal, and the EU says they won't offer any better. Unless they do offer changes, then there is no deal.

No Deal is the absence of a deal.
So by definition is is not the best deal possible, because it isn't one.

So the UK electorate isn't getting what (or any of the many things) it was promised.

[Imploding Turtle]

The lectorate was promised the best deal possible. Subsequent events have proved that "the best deal possible" is no deal - at least, as it stands. All 8 parties (plus Brexit party and UKIP) are agreed that they cannot approve of May's deal, and the EU says they won't offer any better. Unless they do offer changes, then there is no deal.

Nigel Farage campaigned on there being a deal. Are you not bothered by his hypocrisy since then when he claims that Britain voted for no deal?

[dsr]

No Deal is the absence of a deal.
So by definition is is not the best deal possible, because it isn't one.

So the UK electorate isn't getting what (or any of the many things) it was promised.

OK then, there isn't a "best deal possible" because the only possible deal is worse than no deal. And the election can't be invalidated because of the actions of a third party. As I said earlier, anyone who took the statements of Brexiters about the intentions of the EU to mean that Brexiters were speaking on behalf of the EU, got it wildly wrong. Farage believed that the EU would be fair and reasonable; he was wrong.

[dsr]

So our red lines are precious but the EU should abandon theirs?

What red lines do they have to abandon? In the trade deal with Canada, for example, they haven't insisted that Canada should be in the single market or the customs union, and they haven't demanded that Canada be subject to the ECJ in all aspects of trade. What were the EU red lines?

[martin_p]

What red lines do they have to abandon? In the trade deal with Canada, for example, they haven't insisted that Canada should be in the single market or the customs union, and they haven't demanded that Canada be subject to the ECJ in all aspects of trade. What were the EU red lines?

Surely you haven’t been discussing this for the last 12-18 months without knowing?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

What red lines do they have to abandon? In the trade deal with Canada, for example, they haven't insisted that Canada should be in the single market or the customs union, and they haven't demanded that Canada be subject to the ECJ in all aspects of trade. What were the EU red lines?

https://www.france24.com/en/20190723-ce ... olas-hulot" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not everyone likes the deal with Canada.

[dsr]

Surely you haven’t been discussing this for the last 12-18 months without knowing?

Sounds like that makes two of us. What were the EU red lines? Becuase I don't see they should have any. The EU already has a protocol for dealing with independent countries.

[Tall Paul]

The Withdrawal Agreement is not a trade agreement.

[martin_p]

Sounds like that makes two of us. What were the EU red lines? Becuase I don't see they should have any. The EU already has a protocol for dealing with independent countries.

Google them!

But from memory they’re about protecting EU citizen rights in the U.K., protecting the unity of the EU, etc (as I said google them). Plus they had some pre-requisites for trade negotiations starting which effectively defined more red lines (e.g. agreeing the divorce bill, having a solution for the Irish border, etc).

[AndrewJB]

Sounds like that makes two of us. What were the EU red lines? Becuase I don't see they should have any. The EU already has a protocol for dealing with independent countries.

It's crazy that you've accused the EU of being obstructive, and you don't actually know their position.

The real problem here is the UK cabinet wasn't even united on what UK aims were, so we showed up at the negotiations divided, like taking a plastic fork to a gunfight. The EU said that when an issue seemed settled - like the money we owed - someone different from our side would show up and attempt to change it. There were only three matters to settle: Citizen rights, what we owed, and the Irish border - and because the UK tried to use all three as 'bargaining chips' nothing got sorted. The EU left it up to us what kind of future relationship we wanted, and the ERG authored red lines prevented us from moving forward on that.

[dsr]

Google them!

But from memory they’re about protecting EU citizen rights in the U.K., protecting the unity of the EU, etc (as I said google them). Plus they had some pre-requisites for trade negotiations starting which effectively defined more red lines (e.g. agreeing the divorce bill, having a solution for the Irish border, etc).

The UK red lines were points of principle about what being out of the UK really meant.

Obviously I knew that the EU demanded that the practical solutions for the Irish border should be established first before it was decided what the rules were going to be. That's not a red line, that was just a way of obstructing negotiations because it made no sense at all. No negotiator with a ha'porth of sense would have accepted it. (May didn't have that much sense.)

The unity of the EU? Obviously that's an abiding principle of the countries that remain in the EU. But to apply it to a country that is leaving, that's nonsense. As a negotiating point, it would last 5 minutes.

One of the EU red lines is that when anyone invokes Article 50, the EU has to discuss their mutual future relationship - it's in the constitution. Not that they need to work out how much to pay before they'll think about the future relationship. That was one red line that they decided not to bother with.

The UK offered reciprocal rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU at an early stage. The EU didn't agree. That's a funny way to treat a red line.

[JohnMcGreal]

It's crazy that you've accused the EU of being obstructive, and you don't actually know their position.

The real problem here is the UK cabinet wasn't even united on what UK aims were, so we showed up at the negotiations divided, like taking a plastic fork to a gunfight. The EU said that when an issue seemed settled - like the money we owed - someone different from our side would show up and attempt to change it. There were only three matters to settle: Citizen rights, what we owed, and the Irish border - and because the UK tried to use all three as 'bargaining chips' nothing got sorted. The EU left it up to us what kind of future relationship we wanted, and the ERG authored red lines prevented us from moving forward on that.

The cabinet was more than just divided, some of them didn't even understand the basics. They were downright incompetent.

David Davis thought we could sign trade deals with individual European countries, before realising that the EU negotiates as a bloc, and individual member states can't sign their own trade deals. Basic stuff.

He also thought we could negotiate the future trade arrangements before settling the divorce. The row over 'sequencing' was going to be 'the row of the summer', he said, before caving in after about 40 minutes.

Still, it's all the remainers fault, apparently.

[martin_p]

The unity of the EU? Obviously that's an abiding principle of the countries that remain in the EU. But to apply it to a country that is leaving, that's nonsense. As a negotiating point, it would last 5 minutes.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Who has tried to apply it to the U.K.? The way this red line has manifested itself in negotiations is the EU’s refusal to throw the Republic of Ireland under a bus.

[martin_p]

The UK offered reciprocal rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU at an early stage. The EU didn't agree. That's a funny way to treat a red line.

When did they not agree?

[Spijed]

The cabinet was more than just divided, some of them didn't even understand the basics. They were downright incompetent.

David Davis thought we could sign trade deals with individual European countries, before realising that the EU negotiates as a bloc, and individual member states can't sign their own trade deals. Basic stuff.

He also thought we could negotiate the future trade arrangements before settling the divorce. The row over 'sequencing' was going to be 'the row of the summer', he said, before caving in after about 40 minutes.

Still, it's all the remainers fault, apparently.

When it comes to MP's David Davis is about as think as they come. Apparently he has absolutely no idea about negotiations, so goodness knows why he was involved with them.

As I thought. He's thick as two short planks!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 03151.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

The UK red lines were points of principle about what being out of the UK really meant.

Obviously I knew that the EU demanded that the practical solutions for the Irish border should be established first before it was decided what the rules were going to be. That's not a red line, that was just a way of obstructing negotiations because it made no sense at all. No negotiator with a ha'porth of sense would have accepted it. (May didn't have that much sense.)

The unity of the EU? Obviously that's an abiding principle of the countries that remain in the EU. But to apply it to a country that is leaving, that's nonsense. As a negotiating point, it would last 5 minutes.

One of the EU red lines is that when anyone invokes Article 50, the EU has to discuss their mutual future relationship - it's in the constitution. Not that they need to work out how much to pay before they'll think about the future relationship. That was one red line that they decided not to bother with.

The UK offered reciprocal rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU at an early stage. The EU didn't agree. That's a funny way to treat a red line.

This sets out the differences between the UK's take on citizens rights, and that of the EU in the initial phase of negotiations. As you see the EU was being more generous than we were. What I find sad is that the UK could have made a decision on this, the Irish border, and what we owed before negotiations even took place. It could have been out of the way, and they might then have moved ahead on the actual free trade element of it (which will require far greater negotiation skills than the withdrawal agreement), but our government chose to be petty instead https://www.europeansources.info/record ... otiations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Headline: Boris Johnson’s new Brexit chief wants to scrap Theresa May’s commitment on workers’ rights

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... reddit.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Headline: Boris Johnson’s new Brexit chief wants to scrap Theresa May’s commitment on workers’ rights

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... reddit.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you mean the part where the EU insist the UK aligns itself with EU working regulations after we've left the EU, or we don't get any sort of trade deal?

So you're saying you'd rather our government was basically blackmailed into accepting EU regulations after we've left?
That's what is being said in your linked article.

Ok then...

[GodIsADeeJay81]

This sets out the differences between the UK's take on citizens rights, and that of the EU in the initial phase of negotiations. As you see the EU was being more generous than we were. What I find sad is that the UK could have made a decision on this, the Irish border, and what we owed before negotiations even took place. It could have been out of the way, and they might then have moved ahead on the actual free trade element of it (which will require far greater negotiation skills than the withdrawal agreement), but our government chose to be petty instead https://www.europeansources.info/record ... otiations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We could've done both at the same time, but for whatever reason the EU didn't want too...

[Imploding Turtle]

Do you mean the part where the EU insist the UK aligns itself with EU working regulations after we've left the EU, or we don't get any sort of trade deal?

So you're saying you'd rather our government was basically blackmailed into accepting EU regulations after we've left?
That's what is being said in your linked article.

Ok then...

We. *******. Warned. You.

We warned you that there is no way that the EU would allow us to leave and then give us better trading terms than other EU members get. It makes no ******* sense. It was painfully ******* obvious to Remainers, but you idiots just denied it with this fantasy that the EU couldn't live without us ans so they will undercut their entire organisation by giving a leaving member a better trade deal than their own current members enjoy.

You were always living in a fantasy land, and now you're beginning to see that we were right the whole time.

And no, it's not blackmail. It's a negotiating position.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

We. *******. Warned. You.

We warned you that there is no way that the EU would allow us to leave and then give us better trading terms than other EU members get. It makes no ******* sense. It was painfully ******* obvious to Remainers, but you idiots just denied it with this fantasy that the EU couldn't live without us ans so they will undercut their entire organisation by giving a leaving member a better trade deal than their own current members enjoy.

You were always living in a fantasy land, and now you're beginning to see that we were right the whole time.

And no, it's not blackmail. It's a negotiating position.

You're literally crying that our government won't sign up to a deal that gives away the right for our government to decide what workers rights to put into place in the future.

That's about as dickish as it can get tbh, even for you, then you state it's a negotiation tactic....yeah it's also blackmail.
Yet if we try to say it's negotiations to keep no deal on the table you and your like have a strop about it, but it's the same thing pretty much.
You can't have it all your own way sunshine.

Personally I think they should enshrine the current regulations, I've always said that and the government prior to Boris had planned to do that.

We've still got time yet though, but the article is mainly about a refusal to sign away our governments rights to implement workers rights as they see fit, not as a foreign power decides.

[keith1879]

You're literally crying that our government won't sign up to a deal that gives away the right for our government to decide what workers rights to put into place in the future.

That's about as dickish as it can get tbh, even for you, then you state it's a negotiation tactic....yeah it's also blackmail.
Yet if we try to say it's negotiations to keep no deal on the table you and your like have a strop about it, but it's the same thing pretty much.
You can't have it all your own way sunshine.

Personally I think they should enshrine the current regulations, I've always said that and the government prior to Boris had planned to do that.

We've still got time yet though, but the article is mainly about a refusal to sign away our governments rights to implement workers rights as they see fit, not as a foreign power decides.

Three years on and people still can't understand that in a negotiation both sides have aims, ambitions and may have to make concessions. We can set out red lines and that's all right ....but if the EU states what it expects in the future then they are being unreasonable. the awful thing is that our government aren't just ignorant pinheads on a forum ....they are deciding our future.

[Devils_Advocate]

ignorant pinheads on a forum ....

Nailed it

[RingoMcCartney]

Dab your eyes, princess.

No upset on my part Andrew. The upset seems to be more on the Remoaners side!

I was just pointing out that that the vast majority of MPs voted to trigger Article 50 enshrining a "No deal" brexit into law.

Brexiteer - " 2/3rds of Constituencies voted to Leave. They should do what their Constituents tell them"

Remoaner - " they aren't delegates. They are representatives who act according to what they believe is best for their Constituents, using their judgement and Intellectual superiority"

Remoaner - " There was no mention of No Deal before the referendum. Where has it come from!!!!!?"

Brexiteer " 498 out of 650 MPs used their judgement and intellectual superiority to trigger Article 50".........