How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
DeepEnd said:
And brexit errs then blamed remainers for their own staggering lack of ability and judgement.
List those Leavers that had anything to do with the Mrs May/Oily Robbins "Plan" & "Deal"Don’t you see? When Hammond said “this is going to be awkward when they can’t deliver brexit’s contradictory promises” - he was right.
No you don’t. But many others do. And are tired of your blindness leading us to this mess.
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
Leins said:
the most likely outcome would be that Boris ends up selling out the DUP, and NI stays in the CU. But we're pretty much all bracing for no deal over here
Do you honestly think a Conservative PM would start the process of a united island ! ?, Nutspgh said:
Elysium said:
We should revoke article 50 and let the next general election be fought based on a proper ambition for our future outside the EU. If we end up with a leave PM they will be free to start negotiations again, but this time toward an objective that has support.
Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
I have to give you points for your continual effort to see the 2016 referendum swept under the carpet in some way. You at least realise that the broom doing the sweeping itself has to have some sort of vote wrapped around it. You're still unable to accept a democratic result you didn't like though, however, you try to dress it up.Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
Mrr T said:
AJL308 said:
We can't do that though. EU law on the matter is that, yes, it can be revoked, but it has to be a permanent and genuine revocation.
That's wrong the wording in the ECJ decision is "unequivocal and unconditional". andymadmak said:
Elysium said:
The one thing that has been completely absent through this Brexit debate is any sort of detail about the future relationship we want with the EU.
The Brexiteers are still being unrealistic - selling a version of Brexit that the EU will never agree and then blaming others for their own lack of vision. No-deal is going to cement that problem rather than fix it.
May never bothered to find out what sort of deal Parliament could approve.
Both different modes of failure.
If Brexit is a good idea, it should not be so difficult for a leader to define a vision that both parliament and the EU will agree. The EU are locked down at this point, but we need to accept that we have helped paint them into this corner.
We have spent 3 years on this already, another 6 months won’t hurt.
We should revoke article 50 and let the next general election be fought based on a proper ambition for our future outside the EU. If we end up with a leave PM they will be free to start negotiations again, but this time toward an objective that has support.
Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
Oh, OK. So you say you think a consensus can be found, but when asked to define what you think that might look like it basically boils down to cancel Brexit. The Brexiteers are still being unrealistic - selling a version of Brexit that the EU will never agree and then blaming others for their own lack of vision. No-deal is going to cement that problem rather than fix it.
May never bothered to find out what sort of deal Parliament could approve.
Both different modes of failure.
If Brexit is a good idea, it should not be so difficult for a leader to define a vision that both parliament and the EU will agree. The EU are locked down at this point, but we need to accept that we have helped paint them into this corner.
We have spent 3 years on this already, another 6 months won’t hurt.
We should revoke article 50 and let the next general election be fought based on a proper ambition for our future outside the EU. If we end up with a leave PM they will be free to start negotiations again, but this time toward an objective that has support.
Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
It’s all there in black and white and I did not suggest cancelling Brexit in any way. I proposed that we stop the clock to give a new leader the opportunity to emerge with some sort of plan.
The only vision ever presented for Brexit has turned out to be uttter b
ks. AJL308 said:
Mrr T said:
AJL308 said:
We can't do that though. EU law on the matter is that, yes, it can be revoked, but it has to be a permanent and genuine revocation.
That's wrong the wording in the ECJ decision is "unequivocal and unconditional". It would need someone to raise a legal challenge post that revocation if they thought it was not genuine.
AJL308 said:
Mrr T said:
AJL308 said:
We can't do that though. EU law on the matter is that, yes, it can be revoked, but it has to be a permanent and genuine revocation.
That's wrong the wording in the ECJ decision is "unequivocal and unconditional". Elysium said:
PositronicRay said:
pgh said:
Elysium said:
We should revoke article 50 and let the next general election be fought based on a proper ambition for our future outside the EU. If we end up with a leave PM they will be free to start negotiations again, but this time toward an objective that has support.
Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
I have to give you points for your continual effort to see the 2016 referendum swept under the carpet in some way. You at least realise that the broom doing the sweeping itself has to have some sort of vote wrapped around it. You're still unable to accept a democratic result you didn't like though, however, you try to dress it up.Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
pgh said:
Elysium said:
We should revoke article 50 and let the next general election be fought based on a proper ambition for our future outside the EU. If we end up with a leave PM they will be free to start negotiations again, but this time toward an objective that has support.
Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
I have to give you points for your continual effort to see the 2016 referendum swept under the carpet in some way. You at least realise that the broom doing the sweeping itself has to have some sort of vote wrapped around it. You're still unable to accept a democratic result you didn't like though, however, you try to dress it up.Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
DeepEnd said:
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
DeepEnd said:
And brexit errs then blamed remainers for their own staggering lack of ability and judgement.
List those Leavers that had anything to do with the Mrs May/Oily Robbins "Plan" & "Deal"Don’t you see? When Hammond said “this is going to be awkward when they can’t deliver brexit’s contradictory promises” - he was right.
No you don’t. But many others do. And are tired of your blindness leading us to this mess.
Nickgnome said:
Elysium said:
PositronicRay said:
pgh said:
Elysium said:
We should revoke article 50 and let the next general election be fought based on a proper ambition for our future outside the EU. If we end up with a leave PM they will be free to start negotiations again, but this time toward an objective that has support.
Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
I have to give you points for your continual effort to see the 2016 referendum swept under the carpet in some way. You at least realise that the broom doing the sweeping itself has to have some sort of vote wrapped around it. You're still unable to accept a democratic result you didn't like though, however, you try to dress it up.Of course that would be impossible for leavers to accept. I think mainly because they are afraid the majority have had enough of Brexit and would cancel the whole thing.
It just needs to be ‘clear’’ and ‘without conditions’.
The situation we have put ourselves in is beyond stupid. We triggered article 50 with no vision or consensus about the deal we wanted. We spent 18 months negotiating with the EU Followed by a further 9 months of whinging about the rubbish deal we agreed, blaming them for our own incompetence.
The only logical action is to hit the pause button and try to figure out what the hell we want to do.
Instead we are fixating about leaving with no deal on an artificial deadline that we seem to have forgotten is entirely in our control. There are two reasons for this:
1. Brexiteers still have no plan or vision. Leaving with no-deal allows them to act without one.
2. Leavers seem to be terrified that further democratic votes might show that the majority no longer wish to leave.
Mrr T said:
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
Leins said:
the most likely outcome would be that Boris ends up selling out the DUP, and NI stays in the CU. But we're pretty much all bracing for no deal over here
Do you honestly think a Conservative PM would start the process of a united island ! ?, NutsNot a Chance
pgh said:
Elysium said:
Except that isn’t what I suggested is it?
Course not, you'd be really cut up if a remain government was elected? 
If Brexit is so important and such a good thing for our country, why is there no vision, plan or consensus about our future outside the EU?
Elysium said:
AJL308 said:
Mrr T said:
AJL308 said:
We can't do that though. EU law on the matter is that, yes, it can be revoked, but it has to be a permanent and genuine revocation.
That's wrong the wording in the ECJ decision is "unequivocal and unconditional". https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...
andymadmak said:
NoNeed said:
banjowilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I will tell you, if you first tell me why you think voting to remain in the EEC in 1975 also qualifies as a vote to go into something, that would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone allow those being asked to vote in 1975 how much they understand about an organization (that would not even exist for another 18 years).
No you won't. Your evasiveness is as obvious as your naivety on geo politics. But I'll tell you where you're wrong anyway. We live in a representative democracy. We elect and pay for people to make decisions on our behalf. There is moreover no tradition of referendums in the UK for that very reason. You bleat on over & over again about 1972 as if it was somehow the most egregious betrayal in our long island history when as it turns out, you don't actually know how your country is governed in the first place. Including the current Prime Minister - TWICE.
AJL308 said:
The revocation of Article 50 itself must be “submitted in writing to the European Council”, and it must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. That the revocation must be unequivocal implies that the UK could not revoke to get a breathing space in order to prepare better to resend the Article 50 notification in due course.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...
How could any UK government promise that? They cannot bind future parliaments.https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...
AJL308 said:
Elysium said:
AJL308 said:
Mrr T said:
AJL308 said:
We can't do that though. EU law on the matter is that, yes, it can be revoked, but it has to be a permanent and genuine revocation.
That's wrong the wording in the ECJ decision is "unequivocal and unconditional". https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...
Garvin said:
Murph7355 said:
There is a clip somewhere IIRC of Juncker being challenged on this point where he notes nothing will be forced on them.
I think Barnier has also been quoted as noting the Irish won't be thrown under a bus on this.
In which case the backstop is a complete invention is it not?I think Barnier has also been quoted as noting the Irish won't be thrown under a bus on this.
If Barnier (/Juncker/etc) was serious about giving Ireland all the help it needs in the event of a no deal, then he has process in mind (checks away from borders, no checks at all for that particular border on the grounds of security etc. Who knows).
If he's not serious then they may well elect to throw Ireland under the bus and insist on hard borders. Politically that would be interesting... And we know they're all about das politik.
He said very early doors that checks away from the border are fine. He then noted the Irish Channel... That has issues for the UK IMO, but the principle of checks away from the border is available...the debate should be where/how/when.
s2art said:
AJL308 said:
The revocation of Article 50 itself must be “submitted in writing to the European Council”, and it must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. That the revocation must be unequivocal implies that the UK could not revoke to get a breathing space in order to prepare better to resend the Article 50 notification in due course.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...
How could any UK government promise that? They cannot bind future parliaments.https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...
If we revoke with the stated intention of triggering it again a week later, that would not be unequivocal.
If we revoke with the stated intention of ending the current process of leaving the EU, so that an election can be fought and a new govt can decide on our future with the EU, then that would be unequivocal.
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
Blame ???????? I am asking YOU to tell me WHO to blame....so: Please list those Leave Ministers who where involved in making the May/Robbins/Merkel deal
Davis, Fox etc. - DExEU came up with the “May/Robbins” deal. It was not their first choice, probably their 3/4th backup deal but having failed dismally at the others they swung it into action. The backstop came later of course which some now say is the only snag. 
Of course Davis denied having anything to do with it so he could scuttle away blame free. Why aren’t you angry at that useless turd instead? He told you this was a good idea - he duped you. Don’t make it worse by blaming someone else - that means he will have mugged you twice.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff