Lancasterclaret wrote:You lot appear to be convinced that the EU is going to collapse.
Face facts lads, the UK is going to collapse before they do.
I suggest otherwise.
But we are going to have to disagree nicely I hope.
Lancasterclaret wrote:You lot appear to be convinced that the EU is going to collapse.
Face facts lads, the UK is going to collapse before they do.
martin_p wrote:It’s symptomatic of you general disregard for facts of any kind. It’s fine, I know having to engage with any of the facts on Brexit would seriously challenge your world view, I get why it’s better to ignore them.
This is where you disagree with me but with some proof to back up your claims.Lowbankclaret wrote:I suggest otherwise.
But we are going to have to disagree nicely I hope.
Well it's not anonymous, it's from the journalist Anthony Hilton. A lot of quotes are from a journalist quoting someone. So far as I'm aware they stand by it.dsr wrote:That's not a Murdoch quote - that's an anonymous quote of someone who is quoting Murdoch. A double quote. Who is quoting Murdoch, and does that person stand by it?
Let's hope everyone prospers and both Unions last for ever.Lancasterclaret wrote:This is where you disagree with me but with some proof to back up your claims.
Quick hint - Germany going into recession does not mean the break up of the EU
Quick hint No 2 - The National Front in France last month and the Lega Nord in Italy both changed their policies in regards to the EU and the EURO. They now both back them. That supports my view about the longevity of the EU.
Lancasterclaret wrote:This is where you disagree with me but with some proof to back up your claims.
Quick hint - Germany going into recession does not mean the break up of the EU
Quick hint No 2 - The National Front in France last month and the Lega Nord in Italy both changed their policies in regards to the EU and the EURO. They now both back them. That supports my view about the longevity of the EU.
Amen to that.Quickenthetempo wrote:Let's hope everyone prospers and both Unions last for ever.
If one assumes that there will be no national majority for crashing out, and that a free trade deal is desirable, BJ wouldn’t be able to simply dispense with the political declaration. The EU wouldn’t tolerate it. That’s why May’s version had us fearing being forced into a CU.Lancasterclaret wrote:But the Political Agreement is a wish list, its not enshrined in law.
There is one of the madder ERG types confident that this deal means we can still leave on a "No Deal" basis next year.
I mean, they both can't be right, can they?
That doesn't really answer the question though.CrosspoolClarets wrote:If one assumes that there will be no national majority for crashing out, and that a free trade deal is desirable, BJ wouldn’t be able to simply dispense with the political declaration. The EU wouldn’t tolerate it. That’s why May’s version had us fearing being forced into a CU.
It isn’t enshrined in law - a good thing. But it is a guide to future talks. It seems to prevent Singapore On Thames, which will be what the extreme Tories worry about. Personally, I am partially left of centre economically so that wouldn’t be my preferred approach, it is why I, as a moderate Brexiteer, would vote for it, and why I think Labour in Leave areas should snatch their hands off too.
That's what some leavers voted for and were told they could have...Lancasterclaret wrote:Gotta love Dominic Raab
Hails the deal as brilliant for Ni as it gives them frictionless access to the EU single market.
Hell, if only that was something we could have eh?
Not sure I agree with the thrust of Devil’s and your remarks on lobbying.aggi wrote:There's the famous Murdoch quote (although unsurprisingly he now denies it):
“I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union.
“‘That’s easy,’ he replied. ‘When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’
Christ there's a hundred things that fit that bill, along with countless lies about the EU in rags like the Daily Mail and breaking electoral law by overspending on the campaign. Any deal is better than no deal, but I will never change my mind that the vote in 2016 had no real democratic legitimacy. So many people are still spouting the same bullshit now, that has long since been demonstrably proved as bullshit. I find it as sad now as I did the morning I found out so many people had been hoodwinked.CombatClaret wrote:That's what some leavers voted for and were told they could have...
I don’t see how you can. In 2020 we will have negotiated several new trade deals, all to come into force on 1st Jan 2021, so forcing an extension of transition would interfere with that.Lancasterclaret wrote:That doesn't really answer the question though.
It looks to me like its still possible to crash out with a No Deal on 31/12/2021.
If that is the case, then it needs amending so that isn't possible, or I don't see how the ex-Tory MPs and Lab can back it (assuming that is the case)
You'll have to show me FTAs between major industrial countries arranged in that time scale Crosspool.CrosspoolClarets wrote:I don’t see how you can. In 2020 we will have negotiated several new trade deals, all to come into force on 1st Jan 2021, so forcing an extension of transition would interfere with that.
The EU need to have an incentive to quickly agree a FTA too. I would suggest polling and voter pressure is the way to avoid no deal, not by tying the PMs hands. I believe him if he says he doesn’t want no deal.
I hear Tuvalu are eager to sign a FTA. Although they have some conditions.Lancasterclaret wrote:You'll have to show me FTAs between major industrial countries arranged in that time scale Crosspool.
Well GPlus Europe for instance are owned by Omnicom who are on the NYSE. Same for FleishmanHillard. These aren't secrets as you try to suggest, they're multinational firms (who are also active in the UK).CrosspoolClarets wrote:Not sure I agree with the thrust of Devil’s and your remarks on lobbying.
Have you heard of Gplus europe, FleishmanHillard, FTI, Cambre or Burson-Marsteller? They are communications firms with reach, high net worth individuals and businesses will use them to lobby in Brussels. Who are they? Who funds them? What do they believe in? How do we know what is discussed? All is vague, very opaque indeed.
Whereas in the UK, whilst indeed those same firms will be hovering around, we have lobbyists like the CBI and the IFS - fairly well understood and trusted. Yes, the likes of Murdoch could have had decent access in the past, but most access comes from bodies like these, and the unions, acting on behalf of a wide group of members.
Yes another big area where I think leaving is hugely beneficial.
I think the dates are worse than that. As I remember it the transition period in May’s deal (which I don’t think has been changed) ended on 31/12/20. There is the facility for anything up to a two year extension (that Johnson has said he won’t use) but the request for an extension has to be submitted by the end of July 2020. That effectively gives us nine months to be very close to a trade deal. Add in the time inevitably lost to a likely election and it all seems very unlikely.Lancasterclaret wrote:That doesn't really answer the question though.
It looks to me like its still possible to crash out with a No Deal on 31/12/2021.
If that is the case, then it needs amending so that isn't possible, or I don't see how the ex-Tory MPs and Lab can back it (assuming that is the case)
Essentially he needs about 10 Labour MPs to vote for this deal.Lancasterclaret wrote:https://twitter.com/nicholascecil/statu ... 5013937152
There you have it Crosspool
ERG members specifically asking that its legal to crash out on a "No Deal" at the end of the transition period.
There has never been one where they start from a position of complete alignment.Lancasterclaret wrote:You'll have to show me FTAs between major industrial countries arranged in that time scale Crosspool.
But you know we won't stay at complete alignment because of the worldwide FTAs you are basing our economic recovery on.CrosspoolClarets wrote:There has never been one where they start from a position of complete alignment.
The influence Murdoch has in our politics is an affront to democracy.CrosspoolClarets wrote:Not sure I agree with the thrust of Devil’s and your remarks on lobbying.
Have you heard of Gplus europe, FleishmanHillard, FTI, Cambre or Burson-Marsteller? They are communications firms with reach, high net worth individuals and businesses will use them to lobby in Brussels. Who are they? Who funds them? What do they believe in? How do we know what is discussed? All is vague, very opaque indeed.
Whereas in the UK, whilst indeed those same firms will be hovering around, we have lobbyists like the CBI and the IFS - fairly well understood and trusted. Yes, the likes of Murdoch could have had decent access in the past, but most access comes from bodies like these, and the unions, acting on behalf of a wide group of members.
Yes another big area where I think leaving is hugely beneficial.
Genuine question.Lancasterclaret wrote:But you know we won't stay at complete alignment because of the worldwide FTAs you are basing our economic recovery on.
What is wrong with saying "Well, there are none that have been completed in that time but I'm sure with a bit of British pluck and a can do attitude, then that won't matter?"
Or are you quite keen on the idea of a No Deal next year?
RingoMcCartney wrote:Genuine question.
You're a lib dem Lancasterclaret.
Were they to form a government at the next general election they've said that, without a referendum, theyd scrap Article 50.
Do you agree with that policy?
If they win the next election Ringo, i'll french kiss you!RingoMcCartney wrote:Genuine question.
You're a lib dem Lancasterclaret.
Were they to form a government at the next general election they've said that, without a referendum, theyd scrap Article 50.
Do you agree with that policy?
He'll only accept an English kiss.Lancasterclaret wrote:If they win the next election Ringo, i'll french kiss you!
If I thought you were about to kiss me, I'd probably flee and hide in France!Lancasterclaret wrote:If they win the next election Ringo, i'll french kiss you!
This is true.Imploding Turtle wrote:If it's part of their manifesto which got them elected then clearly it's what the public has decided it wants.
There's nothing wrong with a party enacting the promises on which is got elected.
Honestly?RingoMcCartney wrote:If I thought you were about to kiss me, I'd probably flee and hide in France!
Anyway, enough of your crush!
Do you agree with the policy, however unlikely?
Lancasterclaret wrote:Honestly?
I don't know
I'm torn really, as Parliament is sovereign, so in theory with a majority they could do whatever they wanted (same applies to Tories wanting to leave with a "No Deal" for example)
But overturning a referendum probably should involve another one.
But its one of those that I'd worry more about if it was likely.
And it isn't, though I can see the Lib Dems making big gains in an election.
Of course.RingoMcCartney wrote:Some serious fence sitting there.
Let me put it this way. If, at the next general election, the libdems have in their manifesto, a pledge to tear up Article 50 , would they get your vote?
You do know other people can see that tweet?AndyClaret wrote:Macron: No further delay.
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/ ... 8937652225" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes. So we agree. If you promise something in a campaign, win based on those promises, and then after the vote you then try to enact something other than you promised everyone else gets to say "no, that's not what you campaigned on".RingoMcCartney wrote:This is true.
It's called democracy.
Again, not a definite "no"AndyClaret wrote:Varadker: Do not assume we will grant an extension.
https://twitter.com/NicolaRBartlett/sta ... 3446828035" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No.Lancasterclaret wrote:Of course.
I don't agree with everything in a manifesto btw.
Do you?
Lancasterclaret wrote:You do know other people can see that tweet?
Why claim it says something it doesn't?
Well noRingoMcCartney wrote:No.
But presumably, you dont disagree with the idea of scrapping Article 50 enough, to vote for another party?
And youd vote Libdem fully aware that should they form a government, they will enact what they pledged to do in the manifesto you voted for?
Yes?
Lancasterclaret wrote:You do know other people can see that tweet?
Why claim it says something it doesn't?