How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)
Discussion
StevieBee said:
Roboraver said:
SpeckledJim said:
That's not new information though. Almost nobody has changed their mind, and of the tiny number who have, essentially as many have gone one way as the other.
So if your so sure that almost nobody has changed their mind then why are leavers so against a confirmation vote ?More. Fool. Them.
Whilst I agree there were certainly people who didn't vote because they thought the result was a sure thing, I'd also suggest that those people fell on both sides of the argument. There were plenty of leavers who thought there was no chance of a win. More fool them, too.
LDN said:
SpeckledJim said:
LDN said:
SpeckledJim said:
That's not new information though. Almost nobody has changed their mind, and of the tiny number who have, essentially as many have gone one way as the other.
This is just utter guesswork. How could you possibly know any of the above? The polls are wrong, as we know, but there's no reason to think they're anything other than quite consistently wrong.
Ghibli said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The Remain campaign are in government and handling the negotiations....
Are you under the impression that there is someone else who could have got what the people apparently voted for.If so, who and what would they have got from the EU.
As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
Roboraver said:
SpeckledJim said:
That's not new information though. Almost nobody has changed their mind, and of the tiny number who have, essentially as many have gone one way as the other.
So if your so sure that almost nobody has changed their mind then why are leavers so against a confirmation vote ?RalphyM said:
I agree with the first statement. However, to agree an extension the following would have to happen:
1. Primary legislation would need to be introduced to amend the current Withdrawal act date.
2. The Government would have to request an extension to the process. I would imagine that this could be subject to legal action. ie Parliament would have to agree to give the Government the power to do this. Like the Notice of Withdrawal Act.
3. There would have to be unanimous agreement from the EU to accept the extension. The treaty is quite clear. It is 2 years from notification. There are no qualifications to this in the treaty itself.
The ECJ hasn't yet ruled on whether it can be revoked completely. If they do follow the Advocate General's opinion and rule that the UK can unilaterally revoke it. Then all it would take would be an new bill handing power to revoke the notification. It took 3 months to get the original notification Act through so timing would be tricky.
I am not saying I have the answer but these are how the mechanics of the situations could play out.
1. Not necessarily it would be odd to have UK legislation saying the UK had left the EU when it had not but it only really matters if the act put in breach of EU treaties. As I have said above the Withdrawal act likely gives the government powers to amend the date without consulting parliament.1. Primary legislation would need to be introduced to amend the current Withdrawal act date.
2. The Government would have to request an extension to the process. I would imagine that this could be subject to legal action. ie Parliament would have to agree to give the Government the power to do this. Like the Notice of Withdrawal Act.
3. There would have to be unanimous agreement from the EU to accept the extension. The treaty is quite clear. It is 2 years from notification. There are no qualifications to this in the treaty itself.
The ECJ hasn't yet ruled on whether it can be revoked completely. If they do follow the Advocate General's opinion and rule that the UK can unilaterally revoke it. Then all it would take would be an new bill handing power to revoke the notification. It took 3 months to get the original notification Act through so timing would be tricky.
I am not saying I have the answer but these are how the mechanics of the situations could play out.
2. The Government would have to request an extension and that could be challenged in the courts. However, the basis of the Miller case only applies on EU exit not on remaining in the EU so difficult to know what grounds would be used. Obviously the amusing point is if the ECJ follows the Advocate General the Miller judgement was flawed.
3. That’s correct but the EU countries know a “no deal” brexit would hurt them as well so I expect it would be granted.
As to a decision to withdraw the Art 50 notice the same response to 2 above.
Roboraver said:
So if your so sure that almost nobody has changed their mind then why are leavers so against a confirmation vote ?
Two reasons: 1. Their belief that they would win a 2nd Referendum is just bravado and bluster - they are afraid of one, they correctly realise that it is a 50/50 at best and they could lose so they come up with stupid excuses, like "not Democratic". Pathetic, just accept not wanting one because it is a risk.
2. As is apparent on here - and I suspect in the mainstream - Leaver's are stubbornly clinging to straws and praying that March 29 leads to a Leave with no deal. Despite all the manoeuvring that has taken place these last 2 years that has defeated their Leaders, despite the EU demonstrating a Will to allow Article 50 to be extended, despite the impending Ruling that would allow the UK to withdraw Article 50, despite the majority of Parliament being Pro-Remain, they dogmatically have Faith in something as ridiculous as "no time, innit, to extend or revoke Article 50 and deal with UK Legislation". b
ks! 
Of course Parliament has time if it has the inclination! 
TM's Deal or a shot for Gold in a 2nd Referendum. That's the best Leavers can hope for now. Norway is a terrible idea, may as well Remain but it could happen - certainly more so than the now only theoretical 'No Deal' option. So if TM's Deal is indeed rejected, a 2nd Referendum is most likely what will happen unless Parliament can find it within themselves to do the right thing for their country, abandon Brexit for the folly it is.
TEKNOPUG said:
Roboraver said:
SpeckledJim said:
That's not new information though. Almost nobody has changed their mind, and of the tiny number who have, essentially as many have gone one way as the other.
So if your so sure that almost nobody has changed their mind then why are leavers so against a confirmation vote ?The referendum would now be... ‘we never actually intended on leaving. Sorry about that. A “no deal” is out of the question. And so it’s, May’s deal or remain’.
It’s an entirely different question to that of the first referendum. Because now we know that an actual - full on leave - is out of the question; or so they say. And so it’s Mays deal, which is a deal that reflects her / her gangs competency, or remain.
That’s enteiely different to what was posed two years ago.
TEKNOPUG said:
What issue does a second vote resolve?
Remoaners hope they win the vote that's all..then it will be the 'right' answer..then we can enjoy the fruits of the booming Eu economy and the stability the countries within have at the moment whilst the South Of England sinks under uncontrolled immigration..oh yeah lets have the Euro too and a single fiscal policy..that makes a lot more sense(says Juncker)TEKNOPUG said:
The people voted to leave the SM, the CU, the ECJ and FOM. It was all laid out in the £9m Government leaflet exactly what "Leave" meant. Therefore the default position should have been to leave with "no (trade) deal" and then anything negotiated would be a bonus.
As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
As I thought. You can't think of one person who can achieve the Brexit that you voted for.As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
I guess you can't really complain about the people who are negotiating if you don't have a better option. The one thing that gets totally missed is that the Goverment doesn't control the EU or any other countries.
Liam Fox appears to be backing Mays deal and he is the one in charge of our new free trade agreements (which people voted for). I'm guessing he hasn't lined up these deals in time for our exit.
olimain said:
I love this "if you're so sure let's prove it" and "what are you scared of" rhetoric with regard to a 2nd ref - reminds me of being back at school.
Even if we did have a referendum - what do we put on the ballot paper?There must be at least 15 different versions of Brexit being bandied about by various politicians at the moment - do we stick all 15 of them in, plus option 16 - to remain? Its a crazy situation we find ourselves in....
Leave won the referendum. This is a fact.
The tories won the GE. The said they would deliver the referendum result. This is what TM is doing.
TM has presented the exit plan.
It is time the Leave campaign accepted the PMs offer. It is Yes or No. No if's or but's. YES or NO.
If Leave don't like TM's deal then we need a People's Vote.
The tories won the GE. The said they would deliver the referendum result. This is what TM is doing.
TM has presented the exit plan.
It is time the Leave campaign accepted the PMs offer. It is Yes or No. No if's or but's. YES or NO.
If Leave don't like TM's deal then we need a People's Vote.
Mrr T said:
1. Not necessarily it would be odd to have UK legislation saying the UK had left the EU when it had not but it only really matters if the act put in breach of EU treaties. As I have said above the Withdrawal act likely gives the government powers to amend the date without consulting parliament.
2. The Government would have to request an extension and that could be challenged in the courts. However, the basis of the Miller case only applies on EU exit not on remaining in the EU so difficult to know what grounds would be used. Obviously the amusing point is if the ECJ follows the Advocate General the Miller judgement was flawed.
3. That’s correct but the EU countries know a “no deal” brexit would hurt them as well so I expect it would be granted.
As to a decision to withdraw the Art 50 notice the same response to 2 above.
Agree with most of this, except the Withdrawal Act does not give powers to amend. Henry VIII powers allow amendments to secondary legislation and statuatory instruments to be made by the executive without referal to Parliament but they cannot be used to amend the Primary legislation that granted them. If you think about it, this is quite logical otherwise the Exec could grant themselves unlimited powers!2. The Government would have to request an extension and that could be challenged in the courts. However, the basis of the Miller case only applies on EU exit not on remaining in the EU so difficult to know what grounds would be used. Obviously the amusing point is if the ECJ follows the Advocate General the Miller judgement was flawed.
3. That’s correct but the EU countries know a “no deal” brexit would hurt them as well so I expect it would be granted.
As to a decision to withdraw the Art 50 notice the same response to 2 above.
My point on 1 though is that you can't do 2 without 1. Otherwise you have two contradictory pieces of legislation which would not get through. "Odd" isn't a phrase that should be used when dealing with legislation. I can see lawyers getting very rich while various challenges to it. Meanwhile, time marches inexoriably on.
TEKNOPUG said:
The people voted to leave the SM, the CU, the ECJ and FOM. It was all laid out in the £9m Government leaflet exactly what "Leave" meant. Therefore the default position should have been to leave with "no (trade) deal" and then anything negotiated would be a bonus.
As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
I am confused by this. At the time the pamphlet was sent leavers all said it was rubbish and all part of project fear. Now leavers say it forms the basis of the decision to leave the SM and CU. Not sure you fully understand hypocrisy.As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
Mrr T said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The people voted to leave the SM, the CU, the ECJ and FOM. It was all laid out in the £9m Government leaflet exactly what "Leave" meant. Therefore the default position should have been to leave with "no (trade) deal" and then anything negotiated would be a bonus.
As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
I am confused by this. At the time the pamphlet was sent leavers all said it was rubbish and all part of project fear. Now leavers say it forms the basis of the decision to leave the SM and CU. Not sure you fully understand hypocrisy.As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
We weren't supposed to say "Well, they sound ok, let's do it".
The architects of the whole problem were the over-confident foccacia and rocket remain campaign who simply didn't see this coming.
SpeckledJim said:
The awkward thing is that the leaflet was Remain's threat to leavers. "If you vote leave, these are all the terrible things that'll happen."
We weren't supposed to say "Well, they sound ok, let's do it".
The architects of the whole problem were the over-confident foccacia and rocket remain campaign who simply didn't see this coming.
How can the leaflet be a threat to leavers if it was what they voted for?We weren't supposed to say "Well, they sound ok, let's do it".
The architects of the whole problem were the over-confident foccacia and rocket remain campaign who simply didn't see this coming.
Mrr T said:
1. Not necessarily it would be odd to have UK legislation saying the UK had left the EU when it had not but it only really matters if the act put in breach of EU treaties. As I have said above the Withdrawal act likely gives the government powers to amend the date without consulting parliament.
This is completely wrong. EU Law only has any effect in the UK by virtue of the 1972 Act, this is the essence of EU membership from a legal perspective and it is the essence of your remoaner argument that we were always Sovereign because we can repeal the 1972 Act.We have repealed the 1972 Act, anything other than repealing the repeal via Primary legislation would not affect our leaving the EU. It's entirely possible for the UK to create subsequent legislation via the Withdrawal Act that is contradictory, but it would be defective because it cannot over-ride the existing legislation that takes us out of the EU by repealing the 1972 Act.
To put it in terms you're more likely to understand, UK Legislation does not 'say' we have left the EU, it takes us out of the EU.
Ghibli said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The people voted to leave the SM, the CU, the ECJ and FOM. It was all laid out in the £9m Government leaflet exactly what "Leave" meant. Therefore the default position should have been to leave with "no (trade) deal" and then anything negotiated would be a bonus.
As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
As I thought. You can't think of one person who can achieve the Brexit that you voted for.As for "someone else", I'd suggest starting with someone who actually respected the outcome of the vote and attempted to carry out the will of the people from day 1 would be a good idea. Someone who says "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".......unless of course if they are a liar and have done everything in their power to subvert the result of the referendum - which seems even more perverse given that they voted in parliament FIVE times to hold a referendum ....
I guess you can't really complain about the people who are negotiating if you don't have a better option. The one thing that gets totally missed is that the Goverment doesn't control the EU or any other countries.
Liam Fox appears to be backing Mays deal and he is the one in charge of our new free trade agreements (which people voted for). I'm guessing he hasn't lined up these deals in time for our exit.
king comment. What possible relevance is there to whether I know the complete skillset of every MP and Civil Servant in the country? Why is it my responsibilty to annoint the Lord of Brexit? Have I now become the Supreme Ruler of the UK? In which case I nominate myself to achieve the Brexit that I think people voted for..... presumably you'll be responsible for enacting my succession? Be sure to let me know when you've done it.And as for the ascertion that I can't complain about our political leaders.......the electorate really should know their place shouldn't they and let their betters get on with things unhindered by scrutiny.....
I can see why you are not a fan of democracy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff