How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[loafer123]

Am I the only one who is surprised by toppstuff and mx5nut advocating May’s Deal as being a good Brexit.

Have their operating terms been updated by text?

[johnxjsc1985]

From May's position if she has 100 MP's vote against her how does she think she can get this deal through what is her game she cannot be so bloody minded to think people will eventually get behind her if she just keeps on spouting the same message we need a new message

[wst]

pistonheads2018 said:

It we can't leave without EU approval then it's not Brexit. Surely even you must see that? I thought you were meant to be a lawyer?

1.


2.


The problem is that you are not understanding (or worse - ignoring) what the question was asking, and how that relates to reality.

We could leave the EU and join the Schengen area - that would fulfil the answer "Leave the European Union" 100% to the letter.

And it'd probably cheese a lot of Brexiteers off.

And it'd be hilarious. And be one improvement.

[saaby93]

johnxjsc1985 said:

From May's position if she has 100 MP's vote against her how does she think she can get this deal through what is her game she cannot be so bloody minded to think people will eventually get behind her if she just keeps on spouting the same message we need a new message

Sometime a lot of people might have to face up to it could be the only message
Despite all the whining, no-ones yet come up with credible alternative

[mx5nut]

loafer123 said:

Am I the only one who is surprised by toppstuff and mx5nut advocating May’s Deal as being a good Brexit.

There is no good Brexit, just lesser degrees of damaging.

[pistonheads2018]

wst said:

The problem is that you are not understanding (or worse - ignoring) what the question was asking, and how that relates to reality.

We could leave the EU and join the Schengen area - that would fulfil the answer "Leave the European Union" 100% to the letter.

And it'd probably cheese a lot of Brexiteers off.

And it'd be hilarious. And be one improvement.

I can only assume you aren't aware of the debate pre-referendum as to what Brexit would mean and the promises that were made as part of the Tory manifesto.

Can you truly say that if the referendum result had been for remain and then May set up a deal whereby we'd be out of the CU, out of the SM, impose tariffs but still be 'in the EU', then you'd accept that as a fair implementation of the vote?

[toppstuff]

pistonheads2018 said:

toppstuff said:

pistonheads2018 said:

toppstuff said:

It’s Brexit. We Leave the SM and the ECJ. End FOM. It’s what people wanted. Given the vote was binary, frankly anyone surprised we are in this position hasn’t thought about this enough. This situation was inevitable.

Except that's not what the deal provides, as has been explained already.

It is brexit. You just don’t like the conditions subsequent. That’s tough. It’s still Brexit.

It we can't leave without EU approval then it's not Brexit. Surely even you must see that? I thought you were meant to be a lawyer?

To use a legal phrase, You’re talking bks regarding a possible condition subsequent. It doesn’t alter the material effective outcome. We won’t be in the SM or have FOM albeit with a caveat that protects Ireland. Frankly, that’s tough titties. Which is also a legal phrase.

[Tuna]

wst said:

The problem is that you are not understanding (or worse - ignoring) what the question was asking, and how that relates to reality.

We could leave the EU and join the Schengen area - that would fulfil the answer "Leave the European Union" 100% to the letter.
.

Let's not do this again. If you want to play word games, knock yourself out.

If you think 17.4 million people are just going to go "Oh you're so clever, you got us there!", you should be standing against May.

[pistonheads2018]

toppstuff said:

To use a legal phrase, You’re talking bks regarding a possible condition subsequent. It doesn’t alter the material effective outcome. We won’t be in the SM or have FOM albeit with a caveat that protects Ireland. Frankly, that’s tough titties. Which is also a legal phrase.

If we aren't free to arrange our own deals then we haven't left.

[don'tbesilly]

bhstewie said:

don'tbesilly said:

Can you explain why you think Mogg/Johnson should get behind the PM when the likes of Grieve and Fallon who condemned May's plan on Monday in the HoC won't, and based on what both said on Monday in the HoC won't vote her deal through when the vote gets to the HoC?

As I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, Grieve and Fallon don't support the deal but do claim to support Teresa May and haven't publicly called for her to be ousted.

It isn't isn't very consistent but I don't believe their positions are even close to those of Mogg and Johnson who will look like a pair of massive hypocrites if they carry on trying to oust a leader who's just survived a democratic vote of confidence.

There are things I agree with Boris on and things I agree with Mogg on, few people come out of it looking good, for me it's about who looks the least bad.

If May comes through tonight her deal still has to go through the HoC.

May ducked out of the vote on Tuesday because many including Fallon/Grieve/Mogg/Johnson wouldn't have supported the deal.

With allegedly no further concessions from the EU forthcoming on the WA the deal will be no different when it does come to the House, and the same people would and should vote the deal down based on their previous stance.

So I don't really see much difference, at some point Grieve and Fallon won't be supporting the PM

[toppstuff]

wst said:

pistonheads2018 said:

It we can't leave without EU approval then it's not Brexit. Surely even you must see that? I thought you were meant to be a lawyer?

1.


2.


The problem is that you are not understanding (or worse - ignoring) what the question was asking, and how that relates to reality.

We could leave the EU and join the Schengen area - that would fulfil the answer "Leave the European Union" 100% to the letter.

And it'd probably cheese a lot of Brexiteers off.

And it'd be hilarious. And be one improvement.

Love the pictures. Prove the point well. The vote was nonsense.

[Tuna]

toppstuff said:

To use a legal phrase, You’re talking bks regarding a possible condition subsequent. It doesn’t alter the material effective outcome. We won’t be in the SM or have FOM albeit with a caveat that protects Ireland. Frankly, that’s tough titties. Which is also a legal phrase.

But we will be subject to the rules and regulations of the CU (without veto), unable to form our own trade deals, subject to rulings by the ECJ and still on the hook for access fees that are estimated to be around the same amount as the current membership fees. Oh and we pay $40bn up front for the privilege.

Do you genuinely think that's going to be good for the economy?

Why bother asking, you've been presented this information enough times already, and make a big deal of ignoring it.

[mx5nut]

Tuna said:

If you think 17.4 million people are just going to go "Oh you're so clever, you got us there!", you should be standing against May.

17.4 million people are going to be angry either way as they all had different reasons for voting and expected different outcomes.

[saaby93]

don'tbesilly said:

With allegedly no further concessions from the EU forthcoming on the WA the deal will be no different when it does come to the House,

No - it does shift the ground- it's a test of how many MPs support May without having put the WA vote to the test
It shows how many might fall in line behind the PM push come to shove
The electorate is getting fed up with dithering MPs

[Tuna]

mx5nut said:

Tuna said:

If you think 17.4 million people are just going to go "Oh you're so clever, you got us there!", you should be standing against May.

17.4 million people are going to be angry either way as they all had different reasons for voting and expected different outcomes.

It's funny that they all seemed quite happy by the definition of Brexit at Lancaster House. Doesn't fit with your narrative though, does it?

[toppstuff]

Tuna said:

But we will be subject to the rules and regulations of the CU (without veto), unable to form our own trade deals, subject to rulings by the ECJ and still on the hook for access fees that are estimated to be around the same amount as the current membership fees. Oh and we pay $40bn up front for the privilege.

Do you genuinely think that's going to be good for the economy?

Why bother asking, you've been presented this information enough times already, and make a big deal of ignoring it.

All of which was entirely predictable. Which is why I voted remain. Penny dropped yet?

And don’t forget there is an insufficient parliamentary majority to allow us to default to no deal.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Looks like she will get 2/3 of the vote and survive the contest, she can't be challenged for a year.

Her deal will get voted down.

She won't accept a no deal brexit.

What then?

[pistonheads2018]

toppstuff said:

Tuna said:

But we will be subject to the rules and regulations of the CU (without veto), unable to form our own trade deals, subject to rulings by the ECJ and still on the hook for access fees that are estimated to be around the same amount as the current membership fees. Oh and we pay $40bn up front for the privilege.

Do you genuinely think that's going to be good for the economy?

Why bother asking, you've been presented this information enough times already, and make a big deal of ignoring it.

All of which was entirely predictable. Which is why I voted remain. Penny dropped yet?

And don’t forget there is an insufficient parliamentary majority to allow us to default to no deal.

You ignore all of the points that explain why your claims about this deal being a true 'Brexit' are false.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Looks like she will get 2/3 of the vote and survive the contest, she can't be challenged for a year.

Her deal will get voted down.

She won't accept a no deal brexit.

What then?

Remainer/Eu plan B

[toppstuff]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Looks like she will get 2/3 of the vote and survive the contest, she can't be challenged for a year.

Her deal will get voted down.

She won't accept a no deal brexit.

What then?

Defer art 50.

Another referendum.

That’s my guess.