Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

8 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Radio 5 this morning. 

Some absolute ****ing rammed from Englandshire;

"We should stick 2 fingers up t' EU

We've got rabbit's in't fields and we can dig us taters in't garden. We'd be right."

 

**** off. Just **** right off. 

Wonder how these thick *******s expect them to get on their plate? They won't be digging them and killing them. The sooner this English tory policy is overturned, the better. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[LeftBack]

22 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Radio 5 this morning. 

Some absolute ****ing rammed from Englandshire;

"We should stick 2 fingers up t' EU

We've got rabbit's in't fields and we can dig us taters in't garden. We'd be right."

 

**** off. Just **** right off. 

Heard that too... Surprised he didn't mention Vera Lynn on the wireless. Absolute tool. 

[LeftBack]

2 hours ago, Class of 75 said:

The no deal option defends democracy and respects the referendum result.  We are leaving the EU not the other way around and should dictate the terms. We should leave with our dignity intact and invite them to negotiate the best package. If they can't agree so be it we revert to WTO rules and move forward on our own terms. 

Sorry, we lost our dignity a long time ago. 

[Victorian]

The EU will quite rightly attach conditions to any extension requested.     Length of extension.    Specific reason required.    Because of the European elections issue,   if I was the EU,    I would specify only a long extension is possible.      May will not use a short extension to end before the deadline for election participation in good faith.    It would only facilitate her to carry on with the same brinkmanship strategy.     A longer extension of 12-18 months will allow time for a wholesale change of direction and hopefully leadership.

 

One other thing the EU should be making crystal clear is a complete and permanent end to further talks / meetings with May.     I would tell her not to bother coming over.    Don't even phone unless it's a formal request for an extension.      

 

They must be utterly furious with the UK and now is the time for them to make it known in practical terms.

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, if you're adopting an antagonistic negotiating position. There is so much more that can be gained by conciliatory negotiation, going on the basis of both parties saying "look, let's just sort this out so we're not both in the shit".

 

Your old-fashioned approach is akin to a wife who is divorcing her husband starting out with "I can go for full custody of the kids, chuck you out of the house, make your life a misery, *and* keep the Hearts lego bus I bought you that you're so fond of. So be good to me! Be good to me!!!" What sort of negotiation is that? It's old hat antagonistic, that what it is. It's the negotiation stance that you adopt when you're dealing with implacable enemies, or buying something in the souk from a ruthless merchant, it's not for negotiating a split from someone you've been going out with for almost half a century.

 

 

Has the EU formally declared and committed itself to there not in any circumstances being a no deal Brexit?

 

I don't know much about much but I do know about negotiations. I spent 30 years of my career negotiating. I know about the "getting past no", "getting to yes", about seeking mutual advantage and o on.

 

I never read in any book or saw in practice anything about stating that whatever happens "we must have a deal no matter what".

 

Neither has the EU it seems.

 

But some senior and influential people in the UK want the UK to do so. It eiither naivety (to be kind) or a wilful attempt to achieve Remain or as near to Remain as makes no difference.

[Cade]

People do realise that eventually we'd have to make a deal with the EU, even if we crash out in WTO rules in 16 days time?

Our economy would be in the gutter by the time we came around to making a deal and our "negotiating position" would be laughable.

 

[Jambo100]

U.K. democracy is 100%.In the so called referendum of the 100% allowed to vote 37.3 voted leave.In the general election after the referendum everyone got a vote and it was legal.The result in The commons was  35% leave the rest remain..You have to include the E U workers who can vote in a general election but not a farce of a referendum.In law the referendum was not legal that is why the courts cannot over turn it. 

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

People do realise that eventually we'd have to make a deal with the EU, even if we crash out in WTO rules in 16 days time?

Our economy would be in the gutter by the time we came around to making a deal and our "negotiating position" would be laughable.

 

"Crash out",  "in the gutter" The Remain campaign has done a great job.

 

Surely as with all (trade) negotiations they would be about seeking mutual advantage. But I am not aware of a trade negotiation where any one side has said that whatever happens it MUST have a deal.

[Victorian]

The 1979 Acme handbook of negotiating strategies only has any relevance if both parties are conducting them in good faith.     This does not apply here.     Being a dogmatic disciple of the handbook is the naive thing whilst only one side acts with honesty.

[Jambo100]

W T O does not exist.No country depends on it.Leaving the E U is like Cardiff and Swansea  joining the Welsh League.

[Francis Albert]

23 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The 1979 Acme handbook of negotiating strategies only has any relevance if both parties are conducting them in good faith.     This does not apply here.     Being a dogmatic disciple of the handbook is the naive thing whilst only one side acts with honesty.

How did a "dishonest" UK Government with its "1979 negotiating strategy" negotiate a deal with all 27 EU members?

the 650(?) MPs on the other hand ... 

 

If we are looking for dishonesty how about the repeated assertion of the myth by Irish Government and EU that the under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement the UK is committed to no border in Ireland. And UA's "holding guns to heads" analogy has some relevance on that issue too, although the guns are pointed by others and at others heads not their own.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Mikey1874]

3 hours ago, Class of 75 said:

The no deal option defends democracy and respects the referendum result.  We are leaving the EU not the other way around and should dictate the terms. We should leave with our dignity intact and invite them to negotiate the best package. If they can't agree so be it we revert to WTO rules and move forward on our own terms. 

 

2 hours ago, Costanza said:

Exactly this. It's astonishing how many on this board, let alone politicians advocate a no deal. Have they not done any research on the impact on business and jobs?

 

It's not and never was anyone's preferred option aside from people unaware of the potential impact and the free market advocates who all strangely are really rich. 

 

Which will be proven today 

 

525 to 80 or thereabouts in today's vote. 

[Cade]

For two and half years, the story has been the same.

EU: "Here are our rules, which we will never break. What do you want from a future trading relationship?"

UK: "BREXIT MEANS BREXIT FREEDOM WW2 CHURCHILL EMPIRE 2.0"

EU: "Haha no but seriously, what do you want?"

UK: "We have no clue"

EU: ffs

Edited March 13, 2019 by Cade

[Victorian]

12 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

How did a "dishonest" UK Government with its "1979 negotiating strategy" negotiate a deal with all 27 EU members?

the 650(?) MPs on the other hand ... 

 

If we are looking for dishonesty how about the repeated assertion of the myth Irish Government and EU that the under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement the UK is committed to no border in Ireland And UA's "holding guns to heads" has some relevance on that issue too, although the guns are pointed by others and at others heads not their own.

 

The EU did remarkably well to achieve an agreed deal with the UK when you consider the constraints that were imposed via May's wholly damaging imposition of unrealistic red lines.    The EU should by rights have told her to bugger off and only return with a completely blank page but it conceded that starting point early on and worked with what it had.

[I P Knightley]

12 hours ago, Cade said:

Tory mentalists proposing a new amendment which has already pre-emptively been ruled out by the EU.

 

Also talk of a THIRD meaningful vote.

 

And that ruling out No Deal tomorrow may not be binding.

 

Vote after vote on May's deal; vote after vote on no deal... Yet having a second referendum is undemocratic?

[Victorian]

We choose to leave the club.... here are our cast in stone red lines about how we're leaving....

 

(2 years + of time wasting)

 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

The reality is that the imperfect WAS the enemy of the practical.

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Vote after vote on May's deal; vote after vote on no deal... Yet having a second referendum is undemocratic?

 

Indeed.     Menacing MPs with the loss of their self interest + exploitation of parliamentary weaknesses seems to be fair game.     But an updated,  informed democratic choice is deemed as undemocratic.     More democracy = less democracy.    

[hughesie27]

The wording of the motion tonight contradicts itself. First half that we choose not to leave without a deal. 2nd half that No deal is ultimately the only option if no agreement can be made.

 

What's the point!?

[Jambo100]

Brexit the factsYour work mate comes from the E U and your company moves to Holland he can move you cannot.He had a job because he had E U passport you cannot because you are stuck in a third  country.

[Taffin]

3 hours ago, The Comedian said:

I still cannot agree that subverting the initial vote is more democratic not less. We would be even more informed after a second referendum, should we run a third? At the next election, having seen the new cabinet I think we should vote again as they'll be a disaster IMO and I've changed my mind?

 

People should just be honest in this situation. They desperately want to remain in the EU and will do anything to achieve it. 

 

As it is waking up this morning I think you'll probably get your wish in the fullness of time, without the peril of asking the people. Our parliament/civil service has never wanted to leave and has poured water on negotiations from the start. The only question is what the EU 27 will extract for an extension?

 

 

Totally agree with that as I've stated on this thread before. I'm desperately hoping for democracy to be subverted in this instance as I want to stay in the EU.

 

It's selfish of me and I won't campaign or argue for it, but it is what I want to happen.

 

People knew it would be a mess and a disaster yet voted for it anyway and their vote should be respected. Some people just want to watch the world burn and unfortunately in this instance, they were the majority.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Taffin

[Jambo100]

The good Friday was set up with U K And Ireland in the E U. No question of a border as it would never happen.

[The Comedian]

14 minutes ago, Jambo100 said:

Brexit the factsYour work mate comes from the E U and your company moves to Holland he can move you cannot.He had a job because he had E U passport you cannot because you are stuck in a third  country.

 

Hmm. I'm heading offshore in the Dutch North Sea over the March 29th Deadline. My EU passport becomes just a UK one over the trip and I'm still going.

[Victorian]

As an expediency,   May's deal is by and large something which could be accepted.     You could argue that MPs should,   in the national interest,    coldly set aside their fury at how they've been treated and be expedient.     But equally you can understand why they are determined to refuse to act as dumb rubber stamps to May's dictatorship handling of the process.     Why should MPs meekly act in the national interest when the government has not?

 

In a way,   MPs are inadvertently doing parliamentary process some good by fighting against what is dictatorship.    Unless parliamentary safeguards are introduced,    this episode has exposed just how easy it is for the corrupt to run amok.     They have to continue making it as hard as possible for her.

[Jambo100]

I am happy for a referendum that is legal and covers everyone who lives and works in the U K.For to leave the E U  you must get 40% of the total vote..The same as Scottish assembly vote 1979.A lot of voters in 2016 thought you did not need to vote and as the leave got 35% they were right. Under Tory strike rules you must get 50% plus 1 total membership. The voice of the members.Tory referendum is 35% voice of the people.

[Jambo100]

What would have happened without Gena Miller.The corrupt running the country.The ones who wanted her hung for treason.Moggs going mental over being asked about his £7.2m profit made in Ireland.

[Jambo100]

Man on LBC.He owns bars in France and employs U K workers.If no deal he must by law in France sack them or end up in jail

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Jambo100 said:

Man on LBC.He owns bars in France and employs U K workers.If no deal he must by law in France sack them or end up in jail

If so, nice place the EU isn't it?

But you can wind down the Remain propaganda now.

To all intents and purposes, you've won.

 

(PS I think the bar owner is talking through his hat ... or the bottom of a glass)

Edited March 13, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Cade]

Tories still trying to push Malthouse, which was explicitly ruled out by the EU weeks ago, in whatever new form they try to push it.

It's tragic.

[Victorian]

The so-called Tory Party free vote on tonight's motion is not a free vote.    She's whipping them on the amendments.     Her motion (replaces the motion the house approved) makes the 'prevention' of no-deal meaningless,   unless amended.      Pray to god the amendment succeeds.

 

This is a prime example of how the PM subverts the will of parliament.     A woman who specifically told parliament to instruct her regarding what it wanted.    They told her... she's trying to meddle with it... again.

 

We're in deep shit if the amendment falls.

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

Tories still trying to push Malthouse, which was explicitly ruled out by the EU weeks ago, in whatever new form they try to push it.

It's tragic.

 

It's effectively the managed no-deal.    No deal delivered by a coach and unicorns.      Even in abject failure,    an insistence of retaining absolute control over how our economy tanks.

[Francis Albert]

44 minutes ago, Jambo100 said:

The good Friday was set up with U K And Ireland in the E U. No question of a border as it would never happen.

The GFA was barely 20 years after the UK held a referendum on EU membership, something which therefore should have been fairly fresh in the minds of all who participated in the negotiation of the GFA. A strange oversight to fail to mention the border or lack of one.

In any event to say that a border would mean the UK was in breach the GFA or that the absence of a  border was a term of the GFA was, to put it simply, a lie. But the EU (and the Irish PM) in contrast to the UK are cuddly paragons of honesty.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Mikey1874]

57 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

The wording of the motion tonight contradicts itself. First half that we choose not to leave without a deal. 2nd half that No deal is ultimately the only option if no agreement can be made.

 

What's the point!?

 

There's an amendment to the motion which more clearly rules out No Deal. 

[Victorian]

This government effectively burned the GFA on day 1 of this parliament when it went into a confidence & supply arrangement with the DUP.       

[Mikey1874]

30 minutes ago, Jambo100 said:

What would have happened without Gena Miller.The corrupt running the country.The ones who wanted her hung for treason.Moggs going mental over being asked about his £7.2m profit made in Ireland.

 

The Deal would have gone ahead. Originally didn't have to be agreed by Parliament. 

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

This government effectively burned the GFA on day 1 of this parliament when it went into a confidence & supply arrangement with the DUP.       

Ah. That was a breach of another invisible term in the GFA! Useful document.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

This government effectively burned the GFA on day 1 of this parliament when it went into a confidence & supply arrangement with the DUP.       

 

100% 

 

Or it was just stupid 

 

Behind the Tories has always been a pro Unionist strand. So maybr DUP are natural allies. 

 

To hell with the rest. 

[Mikey1874]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Ah. That was another invisible term in the GFA! Useful document.

 

Yeah

 

All that invisible good will being risked. 

 

Of course you will say it's not true. 

[Victorian]

How's this for utter stupidity?

 

"If the attorney general can clarify the situation such that - especially the Northern Ireland DUP MPs are happy to vote for the withdrawal agreement - it would bring a lot of people back to support it. It's clearly better to leave with a deal than without a deal."

Vicky FordConservative MP for Chelmsford

 

Yeah but he hasn't Vicky.     What are you proposing?     That the AG provides bogus legal advice?

 

These people are mental.

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

100% 

 

Or it was just stupid 

 

Behind the Tories has always been a pro Unionist strand. So maybr DUP are natural allies. 

 

To hell with the rest. 

Behind? "Strand"? Unionism has always been a central part of the Tories creed. As indicated by the use of "Conservative and Unionist Party" in Scotland until recently. In fact it remains the official name of the Scottish Conservatives today. And indeed the official name of the UK Conservative Party is the Conservative and Unionist  Party.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Martin_T]

With a potential 'No Deal' causing massive negative impact to the economy, with job losses, supply issues with both medicine and food and being overall negative to the country at large, it's absolutely the moral thing to do, to rule it out as a possibility. This is not a corporate negotiation of a merger or similar.

 

I'm sure most fair minded individuals can grasp this.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

Corbyn asked May what her plan is

 

Said leaving with a good deal

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, Martin_T said:

With a potential 'No Deal' causing massive negative impact to the economy, with job losses, supply issues with both medicine and food and being overall negative to the country at large, it's absolutely the moral thing to do, to rule it out as a possibility. This is not a corporate negotiation of a merger or similar.

 

I'm sure most fair minded individuals can grasp this.

 

 

I still think that to  rule it out as a possibility means accepting Remain or something as close to Remain as makes little difference. I can see why most "fair minded" Remainers would grasp this. But not necessarly those who actually want to leave the EU.

[Mikey1874]

Interestingly in terms of democracy, the EU could effectively force UK to hold a general election as a condition of an extension to Article 50. 

[Victorian]

58 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Interestingly in terms of democracy, the EU could effectively force UK to hold a general election as a condition of an extension to Article 50. 

 

Doubt it.  That would be interfering in another country's internal domestic politics.    Outside the remit to set that kind of condition.   

[Victorian]

Graham Brady.

"PM must restore discipline in cabinet".    "Government can't function without collective responsibility".

 

Back on Planet Earth the opposite is true here.     Collective responsibility was what enabled May to dictate... to everyone.     Only now that the shackles are off can May's worst excesses be rolled back.       

 

More cabinet dissent = increased prospects of consensus.

 

Brady is another feckless dinosaur living in a cloud of obsolete dogma.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Victorian

[Boris]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

How did a "dishonest" UK Government with its "1979 negotiating strategy" negotiate a deal with all 27 EU members?

the 650(?) MPs on the other hand ... 

 

If we are looking for dishonesty how about the repeated assertion of the myth by Irish Government and EU that the under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement the UK is committed to no border in Ireland. And UA's "holding guns to heads" analogy has some relevance on that issue too, although the guns are pointed by others and at others heads not their own.

 

Why hasn't HMG stated this then?  Serious question.

 

I've not heard this assertion on the TV or in any newspapers, so whilst that doesn't mean what you are saying isn't true, just wondering why more hasn't been made of it?

 

Surely the DUP would say as such?

[Cade]

JAYSUS FECKING CHRIST

FA STILL BANGING ON ABOUT THE IRISH BORDER NOT BEING A MASSIVE ISSUE WHEN THE ENTIRE WORLD AGREES IT IS

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Cade

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I still think that to  rule it out as a possibility means accepting Remain or something as close to Remain as makes little difference. I can see why most "fair minded" Remainers would grasp this. But not necessarly those who actually want to leave the EU.

 

Not necessarily.    Ruling out no deal can mean a softer Brexit that still represents a meaningful political exit.

 

Once more... there were no versions of Brexit on the ballot paper.     Nobody has a right to have their own version of Brexit.     A referendum choice does not mandate an incoming government to enact a stated manifesto.     

[Victorian]

What we have now is the fruit from the seed of May's red lines.

 

Who gave May a mandate to impose the red lines?    Nobody.     She did that without any mandate.

 

Democratic integrity?

[Cade]

ERG and DUP plotting to put forward a motion blocking a 2nd referendum.

Less democracy is clearly the way forward.