Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:36 am

This is what JRM said today. It seems clear that he feels Parliament will avoid no deal at any cost, hence he has to vote for this deal. I see his point. Only they know the likelyhood of a new Tory leader and a better deal with a long extension. If they feel that can't happen, then it has to be her deal.

"The question people like me will eventually have to answer is can we get to no deal. If we can get to no-deal instead, then that is a better option. It means that we will have left and we will have restored the nation's independence.

"But I'm concerned the Prime Minister, in spite of her previous commitments, is determined to stop no-deal. A long extension is essentially not leaving. If we could get to no-deal, that would be the best option."

As Nick asked him how he will vote, he responded: "No deal is better than a bad deal, but a a bad deal is better than remaining in the European Union.

"That is the hierarchy of deals.

"The tactic seems to be to threaten people on either side. So saying to people like me if you don't vote for my bad deal, you'll never leave. And to people who are Remainers, if you don't vote for my bad deal, we'll leave without any deal."

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:37 am

AndyClaret wrote:It won't go through without the DUP, there aren't enough votes otherwise.

And JRM knows this, hence his language.
Basically he's said if the DUP vote for it then he'll support it (and then try to claim that his position has been consistent throughout)
But if the DUP don't support it, he knows it can't get through, so he'll vote against it and then claim his position has been consistent throughout.
Most people can process this, and as Lancaster says, this is exactly what will happen.
Basically it now comes down to what price the DUP place on a supporting May's deal and how much she's prepared to pay. It's been a grubby arrangement between the two parties from the outset, and just about to get a whole lot worse.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:40 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Exactly Martin. Exactly.

Its what the political commentators are saying as well.

I got that quote that Ringo is very keen on highlighting from one who then says that JRM is going to change his vote.

But lets concentrate on what is important here

The meaning of the word "evidence".......no, that was last weeks hobby horse, this week its "Lancaster claret is a liar"

I'm supremely not bothered by that, but would expect a lot of Brexiteers to be very bothered by JRM stance. But for some daft reason, Ringo is ignoring that and concentrating on calling me a liar.

Its laughable really.

Given what Hammond said yesterday it looks like there'll only be another vote if May has the numbers to win anyway. That could only happen if the DUP and a significant number of the ERG decided to vote for the deal. If there is another vote it's pretty much a given that the DUP and therefore JRM will be voting 'yes'.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:42 am

This is what JRM said today. It seems clear that he feels Parliament will avoid no deal at any cost, hence he has to vote for this deal. I see his point. Only they know the likelyhood of a new Tory leader and a better deal with a long extension. If they feel that can't happen, then it has to be her deal.

"The question people like me will eventually have to answer is can we get to no deal. If we can get to no-deal instead, then that is a better option. It means that we will have left and we will have restored the nation's independence.

"But I'm concerned the Prime Minister, in spite of her previous commitments, is determined to stop no-deal. A long extension is essentially not leaving. If we could get to no-deal, that would be the best option."

As Nick asked him how he will vote, he responded: "No deal is better than a bad deal, but a a bad deal is better than remaining in the European Union.

"That is the hierarchy of deals.

"The tactic seems to be to threaten people on either side. So saying to people like me if you don't vote for my bad deal, you'll never leave. And to people who are Remainers, if you don't vote for my bad deal, we'll leave without any deal."

Its actually a pretty fair summing up. Both Brexiteers and remainers fear the worst, so will vote for the compromise. Some on both sides will still resist and never vote for it, but the compromise is the only way out of this that has a chance of healing the divisions in the country.

Apologies Andyclaret as well, Nil has stolen my reply pretty much so I'l just agree with him rather than posting a new one!

And I think we all agree that the political tactics that have been used are appalling, but its hard to see how else anything would get through.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:44 am

Its like explaining thermodynamics to a spoon.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:44 am

nil_desperandum wrote:And JRM knows this, hence his language.
Basically he's said if the DUP vote for it then he'll support it (and then try to claim that his position has been consistent throughout)
But if the DUP don't support it, he knows it can't get through, so he'll vote against it and then claim his position has been consistent throughout.
Most people can process this, and as Lancaster says, this is exactly what will happen.
Basically it now comes down to what price the DUP place on a supporting May's deal and how much she's prepared to pay. It's been a grubby arrangement between the two parties from the outset, and just about to get a whole lot worse.

Both are true, he's dealing with the reality of a remainer majority in parliament.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:47 am

Both are true, he's dealing with the reality of a remainer majority in parliament.

And the reality of a remainer/Brexit split in the country as well Andy.

He's discovered reality, a bit late, but at least he's found it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:57 am

RingoMcCartney wrote: 2 You said "he says it's actually Brexit"

He said , ""The deal is a very bad deal. It neither delivers on the referendum result nor the Conservative party manifesto"

JRM: Mrs May's deal, however bad it is, means that we are legally outside the European Union.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:07 am

The irony of people who have never accepted the Referendum result talking about ' reality '

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:10 am

martin_p wrote:JRM: Mrs May's deal, however bad it is, means that we are legally outside the European Union.

He confirms that's the case when he said-

"We are at a point whereby, if we don't legally leave the European Union, im afraid will never be allowed to get to this point again. The establishment will make sure it's puts it full weight behind preventing the country to get to this stage ever again"

But he also said something on the lines that politically we would still be under the auspices of Brussels and anybody saying "The deal is a very bad deal. It neither delivers on the referendum result nor the Conservative party manifesto" can hardly be seen as somebody who really does thinks it's "actually brexit can he.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:11 am

Eh?

You really don't come out well in these things random. The reality hasn't changed since 2016. We had to find a way out of the EU that satisfied as many people as possible. Thats the reality. Why do you think I back this deal? Reality.

Anyway, taking into account the DUP and JRM votes swinging, according to the Times there are still a rump of about 30 who won't vote for it.

That includes (hilariously!) David Davis, who voted against the 1st time, for the 2nd time and might well vote against again! You couldn't make this stuff up.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:16 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:He confirms that's the case when he said-

"We are at a point whereby, if we don't legally leave the European Union, im afraid will never be allowed to get to this point again. The establishment will make sure it's puts it full weight behind preventing the country to get to this stage ever again"

But he also said something on the lines that politically we would still be under the auspices of Brussels and anybody saying "The deal is a very bad deal. It neither delivers on the referendum result nor the Conservative party manifesto" can hardly be seen as somebody who really does thinks it's "actually brexit can he.

In what way is legally leaving the EU not delivering on a referendum which only asked whether we wanted to remain in, or leave the EU?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:23 am

martin_p wrote:In what way is legally leaving the EU not delivering on a referendum which only asked whether we wanted to remain in, or leave the EU?

And it's only if you believe the 'backstop is an EU trap' line that it doesn't deliver on the Tory manifesto either.

The real irony here is that the suspicion and distrust of the EU that drove politicians such as JRM and the ERG to push for Brexit in the first place may be the very thing that stops it happening!

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:25 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Eh?

You really don't come out well in these things random. The reality hasn't changed since 2016. We had to find a way out of the EU that satisfied as many people as possible. Thats the reality. Why do you think I back this deal? Reality.

Anyway, taking into account the DUP and JRM votes swinging, according to the Times there are still a rump of about 30 who won't vote for it.

That includes (hilariously!) David Davis, who voted against the 1st time, for the 2nd time and might well vote against again! You couldn't make this stuff up.

That will be about trying to get May out before the real trade discussions start. That's the price of voting for a **** deal.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:26 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:He confirms that's the case when he said-

"We are at a point whereby, if we don't legally leave the European Union, im afraid will never be allowed to get to this point again. The establishment will make sure it's puts it full weight behind preventing the country to get to this stage ever again"

But he also said something on the lines that politically we would still be under the auspices of Brussels and anybody saying "The deal is a very bad deal. It neither delivers on the referendum result nor the Conservative party manifesto" can hardly be seen as somebody who really does thinks it's "actually brexit can he.

JRM: "No deal is better than a bad deal, but a a bad deal [the WA] is better than remaining in the European Union.

The bad deal in this context was the WA. It's pretty clear he knows it is not remaining in the EU or his sentence would make no sense.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:27 am

martin_p wrote:In what way is legally leaving the EU not delivering on a referendum which only asked whether we wanted to remain in, or leave the EU?

The claim , by Lancaster Claret, that Mogg said he was going to vote for Mays deal and he said it was actually Brexit was a bare faced lie.

Mogg is being pragmatic and knows that , in his words voting for this deal could pave the way for a true brexit , is something I may have to do. But it is in no way shape or form him seeing Mays deal as "actually Brexit" nor was it him saying he would actually vote for it. He could well do. But when someone says , "I honestly have not decided whether I'll vote for the deal or not, at this stage"
That is no them saying as Lancaster claret claimed, they will.

I've neither the time nor inclination to do a 5 page semantics special as to whether Mays deal is BRINO I've a living to be making. Only to say any deal that is voted down by record numbers can't be a good deal.

Lancaster Claret lied and he's been busted.

Toodle pip.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:29 am

Hammond was refusing to rule out paying the DUP more money to vote for the WA. Democracy in action.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:32 am

martin_p wrote:In what way is legally leaving the EU not delivering on a referendum which only asked whether we wanted to remain in, or leave the EU?

If we don't control our own money, borders, trade deals and laws when this ends then it is not the Brexit I believe most people voted for. The EU, Cabinet, Civil Service and most worryingly 400 remainer MPs from 420 leave voting constituencies have seen to that.

I never expected to be easy especially the trade deal but can't accept the behaviour of those MPs that have called for a second referendum with a rigged qeustion.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:32 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:The claim , by Lancaster Claret, that Mogg said he was going to vote for Mays deal and he said it was actually Brexit was a bare faced lie.

Mogg is being pragmatic and knows that , in his words voting for this deal could pave the way for a true brexit , is something I may have to do. But it is in no way shape or form him seeing Mays deal as "actually Brexit" nor was it him saying he would actually vote for it. He could well do. But when someone says , "I honestly have not decided whether I'll vote for the deal or not, at this stage"
That is no them saying as Lancaster claret claimed, they will.

I've neither the time nor inclination to do a 5 page semantics special as to whether Mays deal is BRINO I've a living to be making. Only to say any deal that is voted down by record numbers can't be a good deal.

Lancaster Claret lied and he's been busted.

Toodle pip.

You’ve proved over the years that logic isn’t your strong point Wrongo. If you lay out a hierarchy but then accept the first thing in that hierarchy isn’t likely to be possible then the second thing becomes the preference. These people are professional politicians, surely you can’t be naive enough not to understand that you have to read between the lines to understand what they mean?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:33 am

I've been busted by a bloke who doesn't know what "evidence" means and argued for 67 pages that he did.

I'm 100% sure I'll cope!

Now back to the adult discussion.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:35 am

summitclaret wrote:If we don't control our own money, borders, trade deals and laws when this ends then it is not the Brexit I believe most people voted for. The EU, Cabinet, Civil Service and most worryingly 400 remainer MPs from 420 leave voting constituencies have seen to that.

I never expected to be easy especially the trade deal but can't accept the behaviour of those MPs that have called for a second referendum with a rigged qeustion.

But again, unless you buy the ‘backtrap’ line which of those things does the May deal not deliver?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:37 am

Some much more detailed argument on the what the backstop actually means in practice going on today on the twittersphere.

I can see why the Brexiteers hate it, but can't see any alternative to the current situation.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:47 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Whose triumphant? Not me, I'm depressed about how badly its gone and just how many people think its all the fault of something other than actual Brexit itself.

Only a complete nutter would be proud of how we've messed up the last two years.

Kinda shows the level of interest that you've taken in this to come out with that. All the remainers fault.

But okay, whatever floats your boat.

You keep slipping in replies to my posts on you, that conveniently dont mention me.
Is it because your argument is so weak that you dont want me to come back on them again.

Brexit negotiations have been messed up , we all agree on that. To blame Brexit is just rubbish.
MPs couldn't agree on the issue. It divided the Parties, not just the House. Which is why it was decided to give the decision to the people. The Tories put it in their manifesto but it was agreed by all.
Once the Public voted Leave the decision was made and should have been pursued with all haste and strengths available.

Instead we had a PM who didn't want to Leave, but claimed she would deliver, bending over backwards to try and appease MPs who lost the vote, and the EU. Those remainer MPs have done nothing to try and get the best deal possible for the country. Instead they have tried to undermine the Peoples vote by doing everything in their power to derail it, in the hope that they can get a second referendum. This only served to bolster the EU side of negotiations in giving us nothing, in the hope that the worse the deal is, the more likely those remain MPs would get their way. The fact that you would blame Leavers for the last 2 years is no surprise. As in everything else you are blind.
TM has stated 32 times in various interviews that NO Deal is better than a bad one. The offer is a bad one, and even remainers vote against it. It should never have been put to the House anyway. They washed their hands of the decision when they gave the People the final decision. They have no right to undermine the People. Negotiations could only have been carried out honestly and fairly, IF they were conducted by MPs who actually fought for Brexit.
This all boils down to democracy. I want to get out of the EU because it is undemocratic. The Remainers are well suited with Brussels, because they have no interest in democracy either.
If there is anyone on this board who cant see the truth of that then you are either blind, dumb or stupid.

That isn't to say your arguments for remaining aren't genuine, but you arguments for where the fault lies is a load of ********.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:49 am

68 pages this one could be.

I'll cope

You might want to think about how you are going to cope with a Brexit that isn't what you envisaged though!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:52 am

Two explanations for your stance on this

- you are not bright enough to work out what JRM meant (not a good look for you and one I refuse to believe because you clearly are bright enough)

- you don't want to accept the reality of what this means (what I think this is all about) and are attacking to avoid facing it

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:54 am

ou keep slipping in replies to my posts on you, that conveniently dont mention me.
Is it because your argument is so weak that you dont want me to come back on them again.

Brexit negotiations have been messed up , we all agree on that. To blame Brexit is just rubbish.
MPs couldn't agree on the issue. It divided the Parties, not just the House. Which is why it was decided to give the decision to the people. The Tories put it in their manifesto but it was agreed by all.
Once the Public voted Leave the decision was made and should have been pursued with all haste and strengths available.

Instead we had a PM who didn't want to Leave, but claimed she would deliver, bending over backwards to try and appease MPs who lost the vote, and the EU. Those remainer MPs have done nothing to try and get the best deal possible for the country. Instead they have tried to undermine the Peoples vote by doing everything in their power to derail it, in the hope that they can get a second referendum. This only served to bolster the EU side of negotiations in giving us nothing, in the hope that the worse the deal is, the more likely those remain MPs would get their way. The fact that you would blame Leavers for the last 2 years is no surprise. As in everything else you are blind.
TM has stated 32 times in various interviews that NO Deal is better than a bad one. The offer is a bad one, and even remainers vote against it. It should never have been put to the House anyway. They washed their hands of the decision when they gave the People the final decision. They have no right to undermine the People. Negotiations could only have been carried out honestly and fairly, IF they were conducted by MPs who actually fought for Brexit.
This all boils down to democracy. I want to get out of the EU because it is undemocratic. The Remainers are well suited with Brussels, because they have no interest in democracy either.
If there is anyone on this board who cant see the truth of that then you are either blind, dumb or stupid.

That isn't to say your arguments for remaining aren't genuine, but you arguments for where the fault lies is a load of ********.

First, pretty sure you will see them but I'll quote from now on if that helps

But it isn't going to change my answer is it?

You deny political and economic reality. You always have. You always will.

There wasn't a strong EU is great vibe in 2016. There is now. Because we realise the alternative is people like you, and the politicians understand that, and are desperately trying to find something that counts as a compromise, or this stuff will just get worse.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:57 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Two explanations for your stance on this

- you are not bright enough to work out what JRM meant (not a good look for you and one I refuse to believe because you clearly are bright enough)

- you don't want to accept the reality of what this means (what I think this is all about) and are attacking to avoid facing it

Or the third explanation:

- he’s on the tinnies again.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:58 am

Unlike him though, I don't get personal as I avoid going down that route, despite having plenty of cause to do it.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:00 pm

If May's withdrawal agreement passes then the elephant is still in the room.

What happens at the NI/ROI border after two years of successful trade negotiations?

There will be a new EU/UK customs land border and checks on goods will still have to be made. Technology might help reduce these checks to a minimum but will not eliminate them entirely.

Kicking the can down the road does work but the can 'can only be picked up and binned' when the people of Ireland vote to live in a united country.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:52 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:You keep slipping in replies to my posts on you, that conveniently dont mention me.
Is it because your argument is so weak that you dont want me to come back on them again.

Brexit negotiations have been messed up , we all agree on that. To blame Brexit is just rubbish.
MPs couldn't agree on the issue. It divided the Parties, not just the House. Which is why it was decided to give the decision to the people. The Tories put it in their manifesto but it was agreed by all.
Once the Public voted Leave the decision was made and should have been pursued with all haste and strengths available.

Instead we had a PM who didn't want to Leave, but claimed she would deliver, bending over backwards to try and appease MPs who lost the vote, and the EU. Those remainer MPs have done nothing to try and get the best deal possible for the country. Instead they have tried to undermine the Peoples vote by doing everything in their power to derail it, in the hope that they can get a second referendum. This only served to bolster the EU side of negotiations in giving us nothing, in the hope that the worse the deal is, the more likely those remain MPs would get their way. The fact that you would blame Leavers for the last 2 years is no surprise. As in everything else you are blind.
TM has stated 32 times in various interviews that NO Deal is better than a bad one. The offer is a bad one, and even remainers vote against it. It should never have been put to the House anyway. They washed their hands of the decision when they gave the People the final decision. They have no right to undermine the People. Negotiations could only have been carried out honestly and fairly, IF they were conducted by MPs who actually fought for Brexit.
This all boils down to democracy. I want to get out of the EU because it is undemocratic. The Remainers are well suited with Brussels, because they have no interest in democracy either.
If there is anyone on this board who cant see the truth of that then you are either blind, dumb or stupid.

That isn't to say your arguments for remaining aren't genuine, but you arguments for where the fault lies is a load of ********.

This post is a classic of the Brexit genre, full of half truths (and less than half truths) and claims that don't even come close to representing reality.

a) 'MPs couldn't agree on the issue' - not true, as hsitory has shown (and Brexiteers constantly complain about) there is a large cross party majority for staying in the EU. The decision by Cameron to offer a referndum was based on i) he split in the Tory party (although again, Leavers were in the minority) that has plagued them for decades and ii) the fear that the rise of UKIP would cost the Tories a significant number of votes.

b) 'a PM........bending over backwards to appease MPs who lost the vote, and the EU'. Nope, it was the PM trying the appease the ERG that caused her to define a set of red lines that were undeliverable

c) Remainer MPs have done everything in their power to derail it (a good deal). I've yet to see any examples of this.

d) The EU is undemocratic. No, it really isn't.

e) 'Negotiations could only have been carried out fairly is they were conducted by MPs who actually fought for Brexit'. You seem to be forgetting that every MInister for Brexit fought for Brexit.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:56 pm

At least the Remainers have got over their fear of uncertainty being bad for business. They're very much in favour of uncertainty, now.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:58 pm

I still don't get why the Brexiters are opposed to this deal. Out of the customs union, out of the single market, out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ, no more freedom of movement - it's about as hard a Brexit as it can be. The only sticking point is the backstop - but given that the ERG apparently have some magical technology to prevent border checks up their sleeve that won't be an issue, will it? Of course, it could be that they are lying about that in which case who knows what else they might be lying about?

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:00 pm

martin_p wrote:This post is a classic of the Brexit genre, full of half truths (and less than half truths) and claims that don't even come close to representing reality.

a) 'MPs couldn't agree on the issue' - not true, as hsitory has shown (and Brexiteers constantly complain about) there is a large cross party majority for staying in the EU. The decision by Cameron to offer a referndum was based on i) he split in the Tory party (although again, Leavers were in the minority) that has plagued them for decades and ii) the fear that the rise of UKIP would cost the Tories a significant number of votes.

b) 'a PM........bending over backwards to appease MPs who lost the vote, and the EU'. Nope, it was the PM trying the appease the ERG that caused her to define a set of red lines that were undeliverable

c) Remainer MPs have done everything in their power to derail it (a good deal). I've yet to see any examples of this.

d) The EU is undemocratic. No, it really isn't.

e) 'Negotiations could only have been carried out fairly is they were conducted by MPs who actually fought for Brexit'. You seem to be forgetting that every MInister for Brexit fought for Brexit.

Also worth mentioning that the ERG were conspicuously absent when the chance to lead the party, and therefore, the negotiations was there.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:00 pm

martin_p wrote:... claims that don't even come close to representing reality.

a) 'MPs couldn't agree on the issue' - not true, as hsitory has shown (and Brexiteers constantly complain about) there is a large cross party majority for staying in the EU.

History has shown that MPs voted 498 to 114 in favour of leaving the EU. The Act that was voted for still stands.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:04 pm

Bacchus wrote:I still don't get why the Brexiters are opposed to this deal. Out of the customs union, out of the single market, out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ, no more freedom of movement - it's about as hard a Brexit as it can be. The only sticking point is the backstop - but given that the ERG apparently have some magical technology to prevent border checks up their sleeve that won't be an issue, will it? Of course, it could be that they are lying about that in which case who knows what else they might be lying about?

When a man offers you a written contract and he offers his word, then I suggest you accept the written contract.

If the EU is so adamant that there is no problem with the UK withdrawing, then why not put the notice period into the agreement? "Clause umpty-four: Either party may terminate this agreement a 6 months' notice." There, not hard, is it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:05 pm

dsr wrote:History has shown that MPs voted 498 to 114 in favour of leaving the EU. The Act that was voted for still stands.

So a vote after the referendum influenced Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum? Ok, a novel approach to history. This of course is another classic Brexiteer trick, taking things entirely out of context.

Or are you using this to disprove the claim that remain MPs have sought to stop Brexit?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:07 pm

dsr wrote:When a man offers you a written contract and he offers his word, then I suggest you accept the written contract.

If the EU is so adamant that there is no problem with the UK withdrawing, then why not put the notice period into the agreement? "Clause umpty-four: Either party may terminate this agreement a 6 months' notice." There, not hard, is it.

Because they are committed to no hard border in Ireland. Putting in any end date creates that possibility. It’s not hard to grasp why a defined end to the backstop made the backstop entirely meaningless.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:21 pm

Interesting chat on the radio with that MP who thinks the Marshall Plan only benefited Germany, him and his association are worried about Brexit not happening at all as "circumstances have changed".

"Circumstances have changed" is that people are seeing through it, and he's now backing Mays Deal or they know Brexit isn't happening.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:27 pm

History has shown that MPs voted 498 to 114 in favour of leaving the EU. The Act that was voted for still stands.

Clearly shows that MP's also didn't know what they were voting for, mostly because the people voted for it and they did not want to stop the action that the people demanded regardless of the small majority. Plus of course there were wonderful statements such as, this will be the easiest deal in the world and many others.

As time has passed and numerous statement get made, more and more have changed there mind and now we have many little covens that are demanding there piece of flesh and the opportunity to be in the limelight for a few seconds with there amendment bills. And so it has come to pass that the vast majority of MP's now voted to remove leave with no deal of the table, about the only bargaining chip the UK held.

I do agree totally that the whole thing has been handled shockingly bad and numerous people in place trying to negotiate a deal that have never had experience of negotiating any deal beyond trying to get the price of there next car down. People who believed EU would say yes you can have what you want are simply incompetent and should not be allowed anywhere near a negotiation table, and that includes May. However JC and his merry band of "let us do it, we will get a good deal from the EU" are equally incompetent.

I still think there is a chance of a GE being called if she does not get her next deal through and that will put the cat amongst the pigeons royally, basically would be like another referendum in many ways, would be a bold move from the Tories, but alas I fear they are running to scared to make it happen.

Funny old world and am sure these events will be taught in Uni's/Colleges for a long time, it's sad when we have to teach through the failures of so many who are culpable in getting us to this point, and for my part it's every single MP but some who deserve more credit than others for the abject failure that has unfolded before our eyes.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:29 pm

Mala591 wrote:If May's withdrawal agreement passes then the elephant is still in the room.

What happens at the NI/ROI border after two years of successful trade negotiations?

There will be a new EU/UK customs land border and checks on goods will still have to be made. Technology might help reduce these checks to a minimum but will not eliminate them entirely.

Kicking the can down the road does work but the can 'can only be picked up and binned' when the people of Ireland vote to live in a united country.

Well the catholics outnumber the protestants on every level of the educational system, the voters who will ensure there's a united Ireland have already been born, it's just a question of when.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:10 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Interesting chat on the radio with that MP who thinks the Marshall Plan only benefited Germany, him and his association are worried about Brexit not happening at all as "circumstances have changed".

"Circumstances have changed" is that people are seeing through it, and he's now backing Mays Deal or they know Brexit isn't happening.

His constituency was 50/50, his association/members want a deal, Nick Boles association want No Deal, that's why he has resigned from his local association, there are many nuanced positions.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:26 pm

KateR wrote:History has shown that MPs voted 498 to 114 in favour of leaving the EU. The Act that was voted for still stands.

Clearly shows that MP's also didn't know what they were voting for, mostly because the people voted for it and they did not want to stop the action that the people demanded regardless of the small majority. Plus of course there were wonderful statements such as, this will be the easiest deal in the world and many others.

As time has passed and numerous statement get made, more and more have changed there mind and now we have many little covens that are demanding there piece of flesh and the opportunity to be in the limelight for a few seconds with there amendment bills. And so it has come to pass that the vast majority of MP's now voted to remove leave with no deal of the table, about the only bargaining chip the UK held.

I do agree totally that the whole thing has been handled shockingly bad and numerous people in place trying to negotiate a deal that have never had experience of negotiating any deal beyond trying to get the price of there next car down. People who believed EU would say yes you can have what you want are simply incompetent and should not be allowed anywhere near a negotiation table, and that includes May. However JC and his merry band of "let us do it, we will get a good deal from the EU" are equally incompetent.

I still think there is a chance of a GE being called if she does not get her next deal through and that will put the cat amongst the pigeons royally, basically would be like another referendum in many ways, would be a bold move from the Tories, but alas I fear they are running to scared to make it happen.

Funny old world and am sure these events will be taught in Uni's/Colleges for a long time, it's sad when we have to teach through the failures of so many who are culpable in getting us to this point, and for my part it's every single MP but some who deserve more credit than others for the abject failure that has unfolded before our eyes.

For God's sake...THEIR!

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:43 pm

Patience is a virtue of life, the remaniac camp are urging the ERG & the MPs who oppose the deal to just back it regardless, the myth being that we won’t be able to negotiate any further, it’s worthwhile remembering that a no deal is still the legal default position if the impasse cannot be solved, people in the know are & have been aware of this for months & a ever growing feeling is emerging that that could be the best option the longer this continues, despite voting against leaving with no deal.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:45 pm

Bercow has just stopped the Government from bringing back meaningful vote 3 unless there are substantial changes to it.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:51 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Bercow has just stopped the Government from bringing back meaningful vote 3 unless there are substantial changes to it.

Just won’t be on the 29th if the EU27 agree to the extension, remains a grey area.

https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/cl ... l-default/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:59 pm

His constituency was 50/50, his association/members want a deal, Nick Boles association want No Deal, that's why he has resigned from his local association, there are many nuanced positions.

Oh definitely, no arguments with that at all, but a lot of the Conservative members associations want the hardest Brexit possible. I tend to think that in Mr Kazwyniski constituency, that the NFU members in particular have had a chat with him to help understand "reality". Boles is slightly different, as he's consistently voted for the PMs deal, but the members are against any deal. He's quite right to ignore them in favour of reality as well.

The Bercow thing sounds catastrophic, but the govt will just tweak a couple of things to make sure he's ok with it. Be all sorted by tonight.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:04 pm

Bit O/T but Andrew Neil is tweeting in favour of a Mueller style enquiry into all this.

Six months after completely being against that and calling it all a hoax.

I'm guessing he's seen some fresh evidence but its a massive change in tact for him.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:05 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:The Bercow thing sounds catastrophic, but the govt will just tweak a couple of things to make sure he's ok with it. Be all sorted by tonight.

Not so sure. He's used the words 'the same or substantially the same' so I'm not sure tweaking will cut it. Wrongo will be delighted that Bercow is following precedent anyway.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:07 pm

Oh, there is absolutely no doubt the speaker is bang on the money here but again, I don't think there won't be a way around this. I mean, there always is when it comes to having an unwritten constitution.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 pm

A victory for Eurosceptics, the government have to get substantial changes to bring another vote, Good question by Mark Francois, "if the government can't bring MV3 without substantial changes, then can cooper/boles/ second ref bring back the same having already been rejected" Bercow dodged it.