Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[scouseclaret]

I can empathise with that. There are no guarantees Erasmus. But there aren't any guarantees if we stay in the EU. What about public services in Greece. Italian banks are about to go tits up, and will require baling out. Their economies in recession as is Germanys. France acts as though it's about to have another revolution, although the press aren't allowed to give it a lot of coverage incase it lends credence to the Brexit vote.
I've said in other threads on The EU, economies rise and fall like the tides. Trying to stop it is pretending you are King Canute. But the best way to survive a recession is to do what is necessary to protect what you have. That can't be done inside a one shoe fits all, economic structure like the Euro. Countries within the EU are too diverse, economically and culturally, and arent free to do what is required to protect themselves, they'll be stuck at the whim of Brussels, which means Germany and France will do what's best for them and hang the rest.
Freedom also means we are free of the ECJ, they shouldn't have any right to tell us how to run our country or justice system, as if we are some 3rd world backwoods country that needs taking in hand.
Freedom means having the power to elect our parliament, to set the laws that we want this country run by. We don't have a say in Brussels, we are a small fish in a large pond, and people we've never heard of, or voted for dictate to us on what's best for us, as if we didn't know. The truth of that is the number of laws that we have to adhere to that we voted against in the European parliament but lost. Even when we win they just return to it at a later date and keep voting on it until they get there way.
Most of tonight's posts have been on the economy, but there are far bigger reasons to leave the EU than just economic ones.

Unlike the remainers on here I'm not going to promise you it will be all milk and honey, because it won't. But it will be a hell of a lot better than the doom ridden crap they spout. Life goes in cycles and whatever happens we will get to a point where the dust has settled and we find not a lot has changed and was all that fuss worth it. It just takes time, faith and hard work.

I agree with much of what you say about the state of European economies, though it’s possibly a little exaggerated, and I certainly agree with your comments on the Euro. But we’re not in the Euro - we exercised our sovereign right not to adopt the single currency, a right that the Brexit campaign says doesn’t exist. We can also use this status to avoid contributing to any bailout (if it is in our interests to do so) as we did with Greece in 2011.

As regards parliament and the ECJ, were not a small fish in a big pond. We are,in fact, one of the three or four biggest fish, and we have a very big say in what goes on. Out of the thousands of laws passed by the EU since 1999, the UK has refused to endorse only around 2% of them.

Can you give me single example of anything that negatively impacts on your life that has been passed by the EU without the support of the UK government?

[martin_p]

That is not evidence that brexit will not be positive. Banks transfer assets abroad then repatriate it constantly. How many businesses have moved into Europe while we've been in the EU?

Volkswagen have announced they'll no longer build their new van in Germany, transferring production to Poland. Is that project fear starting to happen?

Your examples may prove to be short term. Do you know for a fact they won't? I can't prove it either way. Nor can you.

"Foreign investment in UK at record level

The UK remains a top destination for foreign investment, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), with investment increasing by 12.6% in 2018"

I could claim that fact to be evidence of a post referendum boom. But it may be nothing of the sort. It may be short term and time could prove me wrong.

Your "evidence" of Brexit being negative is like somebody claiming a hot spring day is evidence of climate change. It's not its just the weather.

So you don’t think the triggering of ‘no deal Brexit plans’ has anything to do with Brexit. Ok.

[martin_p]

no, you are actually giving me credit for someone else's words, there. i didn't say that at all.

Sorry yes, my mistake.

[RingoMcCartney]

Hasn’t the difference already been explained to you?

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

If it helps you - my comments are EVIDENCE yours are OPINION.

So let's have a look at your "EVIDENCE" or are you worried it'll just turn out to be an opinion based on conjecture.

You provided the definitions. Surely you understood them!?

[RingoMcCartney]

So you don’t think the triggering of ‘no deal Brexit plans’ has anything to do with Brexit. Ok.

You've no evidence.

Just weather.

[martin_p]

You've no evidence.

Just weather.

You’re in denial, it’s what happens when a belief starts to crumble. Companies said they would have to move operations abroad if the uncertainty over Brexit continued. It was labelled Project Fear by the Brexit evangelists. Those self same companies are now doing exactly what they said they’d do. Brexit evangelists claim that the thing they’d said they’d do if Brexit wasn’t sorted can’t have anything to do with Brexit. Fair play to you, your belief system must be strong!

[RingoMcCartney]

What specifically do you want evidence of? I’m still waiting for your definition of negative! Tick tock!!

I'd specifically like some of this much vaunted "evidence" of yours.

Make sure it's not other people's on opinions based on assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions and forecasts.

And try not to fall Martys attempt to say events that happen constantly, are "evidence", or things that may prove to have been short term.

TICK TOCK

[RingoMcCartney]

You’re in denial, it’s what happens when a belief starts to crumble. Companies said they would have to move operations abroad if the uncertainty over Brexit continued. It was labelled Project Fear by the Brexit evangelists. Those self same companies are now doing exactly what they said they’d do. Brexit evangelists claim that the thing they’d said they’d do if Brexit wasn’t sorted can’t have anything to do with Brexit. Fair play to you, your belief system must be strong!

See my previous answer........

[Colburn_Claret]

I agree with much of what you say about the state of European economies, though it’s possibly a little exaggerated, and I certainly agree with your comments on the Euro. But we’re not in the Euro - we exercised our sovereign right not to adopt the single currency, a right that the Brexit campaign says doesn’t exist. We can also use this status to avoid contributing to any bailout (if it is in our interests to do so) as we did with Greece in 2011.

As regards parliament and the ECJ, were not a small fish in a big pond. We are,in fact, one of the three or four biggest fish, and we have a very big say in what goes on. Out of the thousands of laws passed by the EU since 1999, the UK has refused to endorse only around 2% of them.

Can you give me single example of anything that negatively impacts on your life that has been passed by the EU without the support of the UK government?

You are talking about where we are today, or were 2 years ago. It's a lot further along the road to a federal state than when we joined the EC. In fact the federal state wasn't even on the horizon when we voted to join the EC. Yet here we are anyway and if we don't leave now we will get dragged further and further into it.
The remainers would have you believe that that couldn't happen, yet look at the history of the EU. Holland voted against the Lisbon treaty, so they made them vote again and won. Ireland voted against it, so they voted again and won. We voted leave and now they are attempting to overturn that as well. They don't do taking no, they are fanatics, and they will keep pursuing their federal goal with or without our consent.
As for what negatively impacts on me. Anything that we voted against, but ultimately had imposed on us is a negative. That isn't the way democracy is supposed to work. We aren't allowed an opinion, if we disagree we're painted as agitators and bad Europeans. Why would anyone want to belong to a club that acts like that.
What about the negative impact they've had on the Greeks how can anyone pretend that the EU is blameless for the situation that Greece ended up in. They give them enough freedom to hang themselves then rein them in and put them under the yoke. It was all part of the plan.

[Greenmile]

you sad sack of sh1. millions of people died in the wars [you know, the wars that germany started] i'm disgusted that morons like you forget the massive debt of gratitude this country and europe owe to those who died. no wonder the EU want to forget about the wars many of them lost and are full of shame. what did you ever do for your country? you must have done something worthwhile if you can stand by your comments trying to put me down about it. yes? no? just more nonsense from remain gobsh1tes.

But what did you, yourself, do during the war? World War 1 or World War 2 - either will do.

This is the third time I’ve asked - you seem to be avoiding the question.

[Greenmile]

You are talking about where we are today, or were 2 years ago. It's a lot further along the road to a federal state than when we joined the EC. In fact the federal state wasn't even on the horizon when we voted to join the EC. Yet here we are anyway and if we don't leave now we will get dragged further and further into it.
The remainers would have you believe that that couldn't happen, yet look at the history of the EU. Holland voted against the Lisbon treaty, so they made them vote again and won. Ireland voted against it, so they voted again and won. We voted leave and now they are attempting to overturn that as well. They don't do taking no, they are fanatics, and they will keep pursuing their federal goal with or without our consent.
As for what negatively impacts on me. Anything that we voted against, but ultimately had imposed on us is a negative. That isn't the way democracy is supposed to work. We aren't allowed an opinion, if we disagree we're painted as agitators and bad Europeans. Why would anyone want to belong to a club that acts like that.
What about the negative impact they've had on the Greeks how can anyone pretend that the EU is blameless for the situation that Greece ended up in. They give them enough freedom to hang themselves then rein them in and put them under the yoke. It was all part of the plan.

Perhaps you can provide some actual examples. I’m sure there are loads given you’re happy to gamble your kids’ future prosperity on getting out of this oh so oppressive system where we have no say in anything (apart from our votes and our veto).

As an aside “something I voted against, but is being imposed on me anyway” sounds awfully familiar to me at the moment for some reason. Perhaps you need Ringo to point out that democracy (which the EU certainly is) means not always getting your own way.

Anyway, tangible concrete examples of what the nasty EU has imposed on us please.

[Jakubclaret]

Plus your belief that ‘they fought in the trenches’ in WWII.

Troops in the ardennes did, trenches makeshift foxholes
Some British did fight in the battle of the bulge.

.

The Battle of the Bulge: Britain's Untold Story https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0750918691/ ... wCbCZSMQWV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Burnley Ace]

I'd specifically like some of this much vaunted "evidence"

TICK TOCK

Given your inability to contextualise negative apropos leaving the EU I will try to generalise-
1. Less free trade with the EU
2. Reduction in investment from EU businesses
3. No free movement of Labour
4. Fall in the value of the £
5. Rise in cost-push inflation
6. Still needing, if wanting to trade with EU, their standards without any input into what they are
7. No access to Social Cohesion Fund
8. No access to Erasmus
9. No access to EAW
10. No access to Galileo
11. No access to EU scientific research grants
12. No access to EU arts funding

Perhaps you can give evidence of 10 reasons why leaving the EU will have a positive (constructive or beneficial to the economy) effect on life in the U.K.?

[martin_p]

See my previous answer........

And see my previous reply.

It’s like being told you’ll get wet if you jump in a swimming pool, then when you do jump in the swimming pool claiming there are all sorts of reasons people get wet, like it raining or being in the shower and so no one can prove you’re wet because you’ve jumped in a swimming pool. People would quite rightly think you were in denial about being in a swimming pool.

[martin_p]

Given your inability to contextualise negative apropos leaving the EU I will try to generalise-
1. Less free trade with the EU
2. Reduction in investment from EU businesses
3. No free movement of Labour
4. Fall in the value of the £
5. Rise in cost-push inflation
6. Still needing, if wanting to trade with EU, their standards without any input into what they are
7. No access to Social Cohesion Fund
8. No access to Erasmus
9. No access to EAW
10. No access to Galileo
11. No access to EU scientific research grants
12. No access to EU arts funding

Perhaps you can give evidence of 10 reasons why leaving the EU will have a positive (constructive or beneficial to the economy) effect on life in the U.K.?

Well that’s hugely disappointing (point 8), Erasmus is a decent poster!

[Tall Paul]

As for what negatively impacts on me. Anything that we voted against, but ultimately had imposed on us is a negative. That isn't the way democracy is supposed to work.

That's exactly how democracy works. If the majority votes for something it's "imposed" on everyone, including those that voted against it.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

That's exactly how democracy works. If the majority votes for something it's "imposed" on everyone, including those that voted against it.

No, that's majoritarianism. Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Ideally, if I recall correctly, most theorists would stipulate that it also requires the judiciary to be independent from the executive, for offices to be available to all regardless of background, and for there to be free and independent institutions such as academia, the press etc. which can keep check of power.

The crucial difference, theoretically, is that a democracy protects the rights of the whole population, including the minority (or minorities).

A refendum isn't undemocratic, but nor is it the essence of democracy: it is a 'blunt instrument'. I think it is likely that most parliamentary parties triggered article 50 not so much because they wanted to reflect the will of the people, but because they were worried about the consequences of ignoring it. Off the top of my head, igorning the referendum result would: set a potentially dangerous constitutional precedent, may alienate the electorate, and may foster the kind of discontent in other democratic institutions which, in the very worst case scenario, could see the entire edifice collapse. A second referendum is not undemocratic either, but the reason many Remain MPs are worried about backing it are the same reasons they would worry about ignoring the result of the first.

[martin_p]

No, that's majoritarianism. Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Ideally, if I recall correctly, most theorists would stipulate that it also requires the judiciary to be independent from the executive, for offices to be available to all regardless of background, and for there to be free and independent institutions such as academia, the press etc. which can keep check of power.

The crucial difference, theoretically, is that a democracy protects the rights of the whole population, including the minority (or minorities).

A refendum isn't undemocratic, but nor is it the essence of democracy: it is a 'blunt instrument'. I think it is likely that most parliamentary parties triggered article 50 not so much because they wanted to reflect the will of the people, but because they were worried about the consequences of ignoring it. Off the top of my head, igorning the referendum result would: set a potentially dangerous constitutional precedent, may alienate the electorate, and may foster the kind of discontent in other democratic institutions which, in the very worst case scenario, could see the entire edifice collapse. A second referendum is not undemocratic either, but the reason many Remain MPs are worried about backing it are the same reasons they would worry about ignoring the result of the first.

Majority rule is an essentiual part of democracy and often used synonymously. So while you're technically correct the point made by Tall Paul stands.

[Lancasterclaret]

Good post HBH

But it has to be majority rule, which is why the majority of the remainers on here accepted the result and waited for the deal.

The problem is that the promised deal is unobtainable, and no one appears willing to admit that so we count down to "No Deal".

Ringo et al will tell you that is what they voted for, but the majority of the country didn't, and that is why we are were we are.

We need principled and exceptional politicians to sort this out, and we've got absolute morons who couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery.

Compared to that, the constitutional implications should not be as important as the welfare and the economy of the country

[scouseclaret]

You are talking about where we are today, or were 2 years ago. It's a lot further along the road to a federal state than when we joined the EC. In fact the federal state wasn't even on the horizon when we voted to join the EC. Yet here we are anyway and if we don't leave now we will get dragged further and further into it.
The remainers would have you believe that that couldn't happen, yet look at the history of the EU. Holland voted against the Lisbon treaty, so they made them vote again and won. Ireland voted against it, so they voted again and won. We voted leave and now they are attempting to overturn that as well. They don't do taking no, they are fanatics, and they will keep pursuing their federal goal with or without our consent.
As for what negatively impacts on me. Anything that we voted against, but ultimately had imposed on us is a negative. That isn't the way democracy is supposed to work. We aren't allowed an opinion, if we disagree we're painted as agitators and bad Europeans. Why would anyone want to belong to a club that acts like that.
What about the negative impact they've had on the Greeks how can anyone pretend that the EU is blameless for the situation that Greece ended up in. They give them enough freedom to hang themselves then rein them in and put them under the yoke. It was all part of the plan.

To take the last point first, the mess that Greece got into was a direct and entirely predictable consequence of the Euro, but to suggest that was the plan is stretching the point somewhat. In fact, it is the lack of effective political and fiscal integration that Is the Euro’s fundamental weakness. You might argue that the EU will inevitably address this, I would say they haven’t in the 20 years of the currency’s existence, even post the crisis, and if they did, it need not involve us, as we are not part of it.

As for the 50-odd EU laws that we’ve voted against, I’ve no more idea than you what they were, which maybe suggests they weren’t particularly important. Where there are major points of principle, there are many examples of where the UK has made a stand or negotiated an opt out (the Euro, Shengen) even when I wished we were bound by EU consensus (Iraq invasion). The idea that we “aren’t allowed an opinion” is just plain wrong. Whatever makes you think that the 2nd/3rd biggest economy in the block doesn’t have a say?

Whether the “federalist dream” is real or imagined (and I think it is mainly the latter) we have plenty enough sovereignty not to be part of it, without surrendering the obvious advantages of being part of the biggest free trade block in the world.

[nil_desperandum]

At no point did I mention WW1 please quote me if I have, I was posting regarding WW2, I think you’ve been getting mixed up.
I know my history & dates thank you.

Ok.. I gave you benefit of the doubt.
Here's the quote:

Our fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers fought in the trenches to simply stop hitler & the third reich taking over,

Anyway, let's move on. The events of 1914 - 18 or 1933 - 45 have absolutely no relevance to our current situation.

[Jakubclaret]

Ok.. I gave you benefit of the doubt.
Here's the quote:


Anyway, let's move on. The events of 1914 - 18 or 1933 - 45 have absolutely no relevance to our current situation.

Unfortunately not everybody sees it your way & mistrust still exists, my reasons for voting out had nothing to do with the 2 WWs but it's perfectly understandable well to me it is to understand if people did. 2500 as a estimate lost there lives in the ardennes trenches/foxholes.

https://www.historynet.com/british-and- ... -the-bulge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

Given your inability to contextualise negative apropos leaving the EU I will try to generalise-
1. Less free trade with the EU
2. Reduction in investment from EU businesses
3. No free movement of Labour
4. Fall in the value of the £
5. Rise in cost-push inflation
6. Still needing, if wanting to trade with EU, their standards without any input into what they are
7. No access to Social Cohesion Fund
8. No access to Erasmus
9. No access to EAW
10. No access to Galileo
11. No access to EU scientific research grants
12. No access to EU arts funding

Perhaps you can give evidence of 10 reasons why leaving the EU will have a positive (constructive or beneficial to the economy) effect on life in the U.K.?

I did say evidence not based on opinions, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts.

1 Less free trade with the EU - assumption, prediction
2. Reduction in investment from EU businesses - assumption, prediction
3. No free movement of Labour - opinion that it's negative. My opinion it's positive.
4. Fall in the value of the £ - prediction, assumption. Could be positive
5. Rise in cost-push inflation prediction assumption
6. Still needing, if wanting to trade with EU, their standards without any input into what they are - only your opinion it's negative. We trade with other countries and meet their standards
7. No access to Social Cohesion Fund - our money coming back
8. No access to Erasmus - opinion that's negative. Alternatives won't be available?
9. No access to EAW - assumption that security will no longer work together. Ridiculous.
10. No access to Galileo - opinion that's negative
11. No access to EU scientific research grants - our money coming back
12. No access to EU arts funding - our money coming back

So no evidence what's so ever. Just your opinion based on assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts.

Epic fail!

And finally

For about the fifth time. I HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

JUST AN OPINION. JUST LIKE YOU.

[Lancasterclaret]

Piece of **** to deny reality isn't it Ringo?

[martin_p]

Unfortunately not everybody sees it your way & mistrust still exists, my reasons for voting out had nothing to do with the 2 WWs but it's perfectly understandable well to me it is to understand if people did. 2500 as a estimate lost there lives in the ardennes trenches/foxholes.

https://www.historynet.com/british-and- ... -the-bulge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'd have to be well over 80 years old to remember a time when Germany posed any sort of threat, and for people who are then I can sort of understand it. If you're under 80 there's absolutely no excuse or reason for mistrusting the Germans, they haven't said boo to a goose in nearly 75 years!

[RingoMcCartney]

And see my previous reply.

It’s like being told you’ll get wet if you jump in a swimming pool, then when you do jump in the swimming pool claiming there are all sorts of reasons people get wet, like it raining or being in the shower and so no one can prove you’re wet because you’ve jumped in a swimming pool. People would quite rightly think you were in denial about being in a swimming pool.

You only have an opinion is based on assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts.

You point to short term , perhaps temporary, events and claim them to be "evidence" that brexit is going to be bad.

Your just a weather girl claiming to be a climatologist.

[martin_p]

You only have an opinion is based on assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts.

You point to short term , perhaps temporary, events and claim them to be "evidence" that brexit is going to be bad.

Your just a weather girl claiming to be a climatologist.

Nope Wrongo, bad Brexit things are happening now! It's already raining you fool!

[Lancasterclaret]

Its amazing just how many experts you are prepared to ignore because of your extensive knowledge of this whole process.

Said it before on this thread, but I post after reading a **** load of stuff about this, both pro and against. There is no way that any of you on here have even attempted to read anything that might contradict your strongly held views sadly.

Colburn is repeating stuff that is blatantly false, as is Jakub. Ringo is just denying everything that could be negative, including stuff that has actually happens.

You do realise that it makes you look silly and devalues your opinions on this massively?

Its not your fault though, Brexiteer MPs are on the tv and radio every night essentially doing the same thing with minimal contradiction.

[nil_desperandum]

Troops in the ardennes did, trenches makeshift foxholes
Some British did fight in the battle of the bulge.

.

The Battle of the Bulge: Britain's Untold Story https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0750918691/ ... wCbCZSMQWV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a) That isn't trench warfare. They didn't dig in and then march over the top to be slaughtered
b) The troops involved in this battle were 95% American Units not British / Canadian. I don't think that the area in which the army operated, the northern flank, would have had the foxholes that the young Americans took shelter in when taken by surprise. But in any case this wasn't trench warfare in the sense that it is widely accepted. Besides most of the British involvement in this unnecessary battle was actually from the sky.
(There's a very fine museum all about this at Bastogne. I recommend a visit to everyone).

[Lancasterclaret]

Are you a descendent of General Montgomery Jakub?

He tried to massively overstate British contribution to the Battle of the Bulge as well, to the fury of his American colleagues.

[Mala591]

THE SOLUTION TO THE BACKSTOP:

This is the THIRD time I have proposed this idea:

The EU must be INFORMED that they have two choices:

Re-open the Withdrawal Agreement and make the following amendment:

1. If, after TWO YEARS of being in the backstop, there is still no successful UK/EU free trade deal agreed and ratified then we will leave the backstop unilaterally and then operate a WTO trade policy.

If the EU refuse to do this then:

2. We leave the EU with no deal on 29th March.

[martin_p]

THE SOLUTION TO THE BACKSTOP:

This is the THIRD time I have proposed this idea:

The EU must be INFORMED that they have two choices:

Re-open the Withdrawal Agreement and make the following amendment:

1. If, after TWO YEARS of being in the backstop, there is still no successful UK/EU free trade deal agreed and ratified then we will leave the backstop unilaterally and then operate a WTO trade policy.

If the EU refuse to do this then:

2. We leave the EU with no deal on 29th March.

For the third time, how does that avoid a hard border in Ireland?

[Lancasterclaret]

But that is essentially a time limited backstop which is not acceptable to the EU?

Look, the backstop is not about fish (thanks Doc Foster!) or trade. We need to understand why the backstop is required by the Irish and the EU. I see precious little interest in what the Irish and the EU want in any Brexiteer plan, which is why none of them will work, which then begs the question why are the Brexiteers pushing deals that make a "No Deal" more likely?

Because that is what they want all along.

[nil_desperandum]

Unfortunately not everybody sees it your way & mistrust still exists, my reasons for voting out had nothing to do with the 2 WWs but it's perfectly understandable well to me it is to understand if people did. 2500 as a estimate lost there lives in the ardennes trenches/foxholes.

https://www.historynet.com/british-and- ... -the-bulge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your own link directly contradicts what you have written. Don't know where the 2,500 figure comes from, but in the article you link it states that there were 1,400 British / Canadian casualties. That included killed and missing, but the vast proportion wounded.
Without checking I think that there were about 400 British / Canadian who lost their lives, 50% of them from the RAF, (so clearly not in foxholes).
I hasten to add it was 400 too many.

[martin_p]

Nope Wrongo, bad Brexit things are happening now! It's already raining you fool!

And has Gregg Clarke has confirmed exports to the far east will be affected in just two weeks time if we don't have a deal by then. Confident we'll have a deal Wrongo?

[Mala591]

For the third time, how does that avoid a hard border in Ireland?

The first option gives 21 months plus 2 years for a political/technical solution to a hard border to be developed.

The second option gives 7 weeks for a political/technical solution to be developed.

[Lancasterclaret]

So we remain in a CU/SM then while this is carried out?

[Mala591]

So we remain in a CU/SM then while this is carried out?

Yes

[Guich]

Perhaps you can provide some actual examples. I’m sure there are loads given you’re happy to gamble your kids’ future prosperity on getting out of this oh so oppressive system where we have no say in anything (apart from our votes and our veto).

Anyway, tangible concrete examples of what the nasty EU has imposed on us please.

I have some very good Greek friends. Can they contribute?

[Lancasterclaret]

100% sure that is not acceptable to the ERG.

And sadly, as Theresa May is concerned about Tory Party unity first and foremost, then its a non-starter.

[tiger76]

THE SOLUTION TO THE BACKSTOP:

This is the THIRD time I have proposed this idea:

The EU must be INFORMED that they have two choices:

Re-open the Withdrawal Agreement and make the following amendment:

1. If, after TWO YEARS of being in the backstop, there is still no successful UK/EU free trade deal agreed and ratified then we will leave the backstop unilaterally and then operate a WTO trade policy.

If the EU refuse to do this then:

2. We leave the EU with no deal on 29th March.

How do you know this hasn't been proposed to the EU already.

And how do you justify breaking an international treaty.

The simplest solution would be to remain in the Customs Union,as Liam Fox can count on one hand the number of trade deals he's brokered in over 2 years.

If trade deals can't be agreed what is the point of leaving existing arrangements.

Whatever occurs in the coming weeks i'll predict the UK won't leave the EU without a deal,if that requires extending A 50 so be it.

It's not just our trade with the EU that'll be affected in the event of No-deal,just ask the CBI.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47130189

[martin_p]

The first option gives 21 months plus 2 years for a political/technical solution to a hard border to be developed.

The second option gives 7 weeks for a political/technical solution to be developed.

A technical solution is more than two years away according to all IT experts (and they always under estimate anyway), plus we've had 24 months already to come yp with something and haven't managed it, why would the EU trust that it would happen in the next 21 months.

Also, if you are confident a solution can be reached in the next 21 months then what's wrong with the current backstop?

[Lancasterclaret]

How dare you ignore the FTA he signed with the Faroe Islands last week!

[Mala591]

I am confident that attaching an expiry date to the backstop will be approved by parliament. We can then ratify the WA and move forward - much to the relief of UK business who can then start to implement their investment plans.

[Lord Beamish]

How dare you ignore the FTA he signed with the Faroe Islands last week!

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with one step.

[tiger76]

How dare you ignore the FTA he signed with the Faroe Islands last week!

I'm sure that'll please Argentina no end

[Lancasterclaret]

Today the Faroes, tomorrow Nambia, next week the whole world!

[martin_p]

I am confident that attaching an expiry date to the backstop will be approved by parliament. We can then ratify the WA and move forward - much to the relief of UK business who can then start to implement their investment plans.

Parliament can approve it all they want (although indications are that the ERG wouldn't like it), the EU won't buy it.

[Mala591]

Parliament can approve it all they want (although indications are that the ERG wouldn't like it), the EU won't buy it.

The EU have only TWO choices. Backstop expiry date or No deal.

This is the end game and economics will out trump politics.

We all know they will have to back down and accept the expiry date option.

[martin_p]

The EU have only TWO choices. Backstop expiry date or No deal.

This is the end game and economics will out trump politics.

We all know they will have to back down and accept the expiry date option.

It's just two weeks before Brexit starts affecting UK exports, we'll be hurting before they are. Brexiteers have been convincing themselves the EU are going to blink for the last two years, it isn't going to happen.