Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
powerstroke said:
PRTVR said:
Anybody see Verhofstadt on Andrew Marr on Sunday,
The clip is 12 minutes long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ykmkv
Interestingly at the end he indicated that if there was no deal, he thought that there would possibly be a change of government in the UK and a reversal of Brexit.
Maybe that's the direction the EU is heading, a bad deal in the hope of a reversal.
What a snide snake Verhostadt is, what nasty people the EU are !!!The clip is 12 minutes long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ykmkv
Interestingly at the end he indicated that if there was no deal, he thought that there would possibly be a change of government in the UK and a reversal of Brexit.
Maybe that's the direction the EU is heading, a bad deal in the hope of a reversal.
European partners My arse,
We should wake up and smell the coffee and realise it's a War ,
Appeasement once again has proven to be the wrong angle
they don't want there empire to fall which is understandable
we need a strong leader we need Mogg !!!
We need to leave first THEN attempt a deal anything else allows them the upper hand we have had enough jaw jaw ...
Are you seriously disputing that the EU wishes us harm?
empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
powerstroke said:
Dr Jekyll said:
powerstroke said:
PRTVR said:
Anybody see Verhofstadt on Andrew Marr on Sunday,
The clip is 12 minutes long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ykmkv
Interestingly at the end he indicated that if there was no deal, he thought that there would possibly be a change of government in the UK and a reversal of Brexit.
Maybe that's the direction the EU is heading, a bad deal in the hope of a reversal.
What a snide snake Verhostadt is, what nasty people the EU are !!!The clip is 12 minutes long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ykmkv
Interestingly at the end he indicated that if there was no deal, he thought that there would possibly be a change of government in the UK and a reversal of Brexit.
Maybe that's the direction the EU is heading, a bad deal in the hope of a reversal.
European partners My arse,
We should wake up and smell the coffee and realise it's a War ,
Appeasement once again has proven to be the wrong angle
they don't want there empire to fall which is understandable
we need a strong leader we need Mogg !!!
We need to leave first THEN attempt a deal anything else allows them the upper hand we have had enough jaw jaw ...
Are you seriously disputing that the EU wishes us harm?
empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
powerstroke said:
No you are correct they do wish us harm !! and anyone one else that endangers there nasty
empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
It's not about harm.empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
They are a members club. If you don't want to be a member you don't enjoy the benefits members do.
Also, I bet some countries see the UK leaving as an opportunity for themselves. I'm sure if France were leaving and not us we would be looking to exploit the situation.
PurpleMoonlight said:
powerstroke said:
No you are correct they do wish us harm !! and anyone one else that endangers there nasty
empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
It's not about harm.empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
They are a members club. If you don't want to be a member you don't enjoy the benefits members do.
Also, I bet some countries see the UK leaving as an opportunity for themselves. I'm sure if France were leaving and not us we would be looking to exploit the situation.
PurpleMoonlight said:
powerstroke said:
No you are correct they do wish us harm !! and anyone one else that endangers there nasty
empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
It's not about harm.empire will see the Iron fist , Europe will be a better place if we can put the EU back in its box !!
They are a members club. If you don't want to be a member you don't enjoy the benefits members do.
Also, I bet some countries see the UK leaving as an opportunity for themselves. I'm sure if France were leaving and not us we would be looking to exploit the situation.
In the Verhofstadt interview, Marr asked him about the UK Govt position on EU citizens coming to the UK during the transition period not having the right to become UK citizens.
His response made me smile as he effectively said that this was unacceptable as why should trade in goods and services continue unchanged whilst the people were "disadvantaged"
I dearly wanted Marr to respond with ...."So (what you're saying) Mr Verhofstadt, is not being able to leave the EU and move to the UK is a disadvantage?"
His response made me smile as he effectively said that this was unacceptable as why should trade in goods and services continue unchanged whilst the people were "disadvantaged"
I dearly wanted Marr to respond with ...."So (what you're saying) Mr Verhofstadt, is not being able to leave the EU and move to the UK is a disadvantage?"
Camoradi said:
In the Verhofstadt interview, Marr asked him about the UK Govt position on EU citizens coming to the UK during the transition period not having the right to become UK citizens.
His response made me smile as he effectively said that this was unacceptable as why should trade in goods and services continue unchanged whilst the people were "disadvantaged"
I dearly wanted Marr to respond with ...."So (what you're saying) Mr Verhofstadt, is not being able to leave the EU and move to the UK is a disadvantage?"
It works the other way round too but the UK Government are happy to disadvantage UK citizens.His response made me smile as he effectively said that this was unacceptable as why should trade in goods and services continue unchanged whilst the people were "disadvantaged"
I dearly wanted Marr to respond with ...."So (what you're saying) Mr Verhofstadt, is not being able to leave the EU and move to the UK is a disadvantage?"
Gloria Slap said:
PRTVR said:
Anybody see Verhofstadt on Andrew Marr on Sunday,
The clip is 12 minutes long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ykmkv
Interestingly at the end he indicated that if there was no deal, he thought that there would possibly be a change of government in the UK and a reversal of Brexit.
Maybe that's the direction the EU is heading, a bad deal in the hope of a reversal.
I think that is a distinct possibility. The clip is 12 minutes long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ykmkv
Interestingly at the end he indicated that if there was no deal, he thought that there would possibly be a change of government in the UK and a reversal of Brexit.
Maybe that's the direction the EU is heading, a bad deal in the hope of a reversal.
Whether the deal is bad or not for this reason is another matter - the deal will be what it is anyway. It will be the best the brexiteers can do by definition.
The trigger could be the HoP rejecting May/Davis deal - with brexiteers sacked on mass. New Govt, massive power struggles. Hopefully won't mean Corbyn.
Edited by Gloria Slap on Monday 19th February 07:48
b2hbm said:
....
But if they did vote it down then yes, I think we would have Corbyn in #10, maybe in coalition with the SNP. Now that is something to look forward to.
I don't see that happening at all. The win at that point will still be in extricating us from the EU. So sidling up to the SNP is something I don't see happening. If the SNP don't pull their socks up and start governing Scotland effectively, all I can see is their vote share diminishing.But if they did vote it down then yes, I think we would have Corbyn in #10, maybe in coalition with the SNP. Now that is something to look forward to.
It'll be interesting to see what does happen, but I don't see parliament voting it down. There will be plenty who vote against it come what may - Soubry wouldn't surprise me in the least for example. But I think it will go through regardless of how bad it might look on the face of it - where is the detail on the assumptions underpinning the worst case forecasts?
The battleground electorally will then move on to making the best of whatever position we find ourselves in. That'll be Labour's prime time to strike - expectations are likely to be muted and they'll have vast arsenals of things to blame for nonsense policies. If the Tories don't get their act together (and that is looking unlikely at present), the best approach by Corbyn would simply be to highlight how disorganised they have been in the last 5yrs.
Verhofstadt is a cretin. Same mould as Juncker. Tusk isn't far off either. My sincere hope is that they keep on being wheeled out in the next 6mths. The more the better. Every time people like him open their mouths, it makes me realise how right we are to be leaving their club. They have no grasp of reality whatsoever. It's all about the political project and nothing else matters. The people in the member states, and what they want, do not matter to them one bit. They are the reason we are leaving, and they will never, ever see it.
Murph7355 said:
Other stuff plus....
It'll be interesting to see what does happen, but I don't see parliament voting it down. There will be plenty who vote against it come what may - Soubry wouldn't surprise me in the least for example. But I think it will go through regardless of how bad it might look on the face of it - where is the detail on the assumptions underpinning the worst case forecasts?
I'd agree, the Corbyn in #10 comment was a bit tongue in cheek. The only thing he'd have is if the government attempt to leave in name only, keeping full alignment, no external deals, annual payments, FoM, etc. and I think at that point he'd come out strongly with "the will of the people" and swear to take us out properly.It'll be interesting to see what does happen, but I don't see parliament voting it down. There will be plenty who vote against it come what may - Soubry wouldn't surprise me in the least for example. But I think it will go through regardless of how bad it might look on the face of it - where is the detail on the assumptions underpinning the worst case forecasts?
The more I think of it the less sure I am on exactly what Parliament will be voting on in March 2019. Some things are clear; specified amounts for ongoing projects that we'd signed up for, a term limited transition deal and costs/subscriptions associated with that and possibly even some form of scheme for pension payments. Anything that involves the government paying cash out I'm sure will need Parliamentary approval before we go ahead so that's ok.
But after that I'm not sure. Given how the EU mess about, can we really expect a trade deal which includes services to be ready in just over 12 months time ? Parliament could vote on asking for an extension to A50, but the transition has already agreed an A50 extension in all but name.
It wouldn't surprise me the EU have no intention of sorting out a deal before 2019 but intend to use the transition period to negotiate and in that instance Parliament only gets to vote on a trade deal after we've left. So any vote is a non-event, a "take this or take nothing" vote.
b2hbm said:
I'd agree, the Corbyn in #10 comment was a bit tongue in cheek. The only thing he'd have is if the government attempt to leave in name only, keeping full alignment, no external deals, annual payments, FoM, etc. and I think at that point he'd come out strongly with "the will of the people" and swear to take us out properly.
The more I think of it the less sure I am on exactly what Parliament will be voting on in March 2019. Some things are clear; specified amounts for ongoing projects that we'd signed up for, a term limited transition deal and costs/subscriptions associated with that and possibly even some form of scheme for pension payments. Anything that involves the government paying cash out I'm sure will need Parliamentary approval before we go ahead so that's ok.
But after that I'm not sure. Given how the EU mess about, can we really expect a trade deal which includes services to be ready in just over 12 months time ? Parliament could vote on asking for an extension to A50, but the transition has already agreed an A50 extension in all but name.
It wouldn't surprise me the EU have no intention of sorting out a deal before 2019 but intend to use the transition period to negotiate and in that instance Parliament only gets to vote on a trade deal after we've left. So any vote is a non-event, a "take this or take nothing" vote.
Parliament will be voting on the withdrawal agreement. This will include the people/monetary provisions, the terms of the transition and the broadest outline of the intended future trade agreement. Nobody is expecting a trade agreement to be ready for March 2019.The more I think of it the less sure I am on exactly what Parliament will be voting on in March 2019. Some things are clear; specified amounts for ongoing projects that we'd signed up for, a term limited transition deal and costs/subscriptions associated with that and possibly even some form of scheme for pension payments. Anything that involves the government paying cash out I'm sure will need Parliamentary approval before we go ahead so that's ok.
But after that I'm not sure. Given how the EU mess about, can we really expect a trade deal which includes services to be ready in just over 12 months time ? Parliament could vote on asking for an extension to A50, but the transition has already agreed an A50 extension in all but name.
It wouldn't surprise me the EU have no intention of sorting out a deal before 2019 but intend to use the transition period to negotiate and in that instance Parliament only gets to vote on a trade deal after we've left. So any vote is a non-event, a "take this or take nothing" vote.
The nitty gritty of the trade agreement will be thrashed out during the transition, and will then need to be agreed by the UK and the EU member states.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Camoradi said:
In the Verhofstadt interview, Marr asked him about the UK Govt position on EU citizens coming to the UK during the transition period not having the right to become UK citizens.
His response made me smile as he effectively said that this was unacceptable as why should trade in goods and services continue unchanged whilst the people were "disadvantaged"
I dearly wanted Marr to respond with ...."So (what you're saying) Mr Verhofstadt, is not being able to leave the EU and move to the UK is a disadvantage?"
It works the other way round too but the UK Government are happy to disadvantage UK citizens.His response made me smile as he effectively said that this was unacceptable as why should trade in goods and services continue unchanged whilst the people were "disadvantaged"
I dearly wanted Marr to respond with ...."So (what you're saying) Mr Verhofstadt, is not being able to leave the EU and move to the UK is a disadvantage?"
Dr Jekyll said:
How? How could the UK govt prevent it’s citizens travelling to the EU even if it wanted to?
The line will go something like "by withdrawing from and arrangement that gives automatic rights to live and work in the EU". However Logically this only materially impacts those with little/nothing to offer the host state. So I struggle to see the issue both ways.
I can see why it appeals to people like Verhofstadt though.
Murph7355 said:
The line will go something like "by withdrawing from and arrangement that gives automatic rights to live and work in the EU".
However Logically this only materially impacts those with little/nothing to offer the host state. So I struggle to see the issue both ways.
I can see why it appeals to people like Verhofstadt though.
YepHowever Logically this only materially impacts those with little/nothing to offer the host state. So I struggle to see the issue both ways.
I can see why it appeals to people like Verhofstadt though.
If Spain for example is happy for British pensioners to keep retiring there due to the money they bring then it will continue. If they aren't happy then it will stop. The decision will rest with them, as it should.
Murph7355 said:
The line will go something like "by withdrawing from and arrangement that gives automatic rights to live and work in the EU".
However Logically this only materially impacts those with little/nothing to offer the host state. So I struggle to see the issue both ways.
I can see why it appeals to people like Verhofstadt though.
Guess they might want the brightest and the best huh.However Logically this only materially impacts those with little/nothing to offer the host state. So I struggle to see the issue both ways.
I can see why it appeals to people like Verhofstadt though.
I hope there are enough to go around.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Guess they might want the brightest and the best huh.
I hope there are enough to go around.
There aren't. Which is why countries need plenty to offer to that demographic.I hope there are enough to go around.
The UK has typically done pretty well on that front, despite the weather.
The need to fill in a form does not prevent or even deter unduly people moving to a country. That it does is an unnecessary false construct built up by the EU.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff