The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mairead McGuiness the Vice President of the EU said last night if we agree a referendum is required, they would extend article 50.
That would be the only circumstances in which they would wish to do so. She mentioned letting the rest of the EU vote and postponing the UK's vote for the EU parliament until after any potential second referendum.
I suppose a similar arrangement would need to be made with budgets.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain."
Therein lies the problem. A binary question in response to a complex, multifaceted issue.
I assume when you voted leave you didn't want UK counter-terrorism agencies to lose access to SIS2 (real time data sharing across the EU) etc.
Or financial services losing passporting rights into the EU etc etc.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mairead McGuiness the Vice President of the EU said last night if we agree a referendum is required, they would extend article 50.
That would be the only circumstances in which they would wish to do so. She mentioned letting the rest of the EU vote and postponing the UK's vote for the EU parliament until after any potential second referendum.
I suppose a similar arrangement would need to be made with budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland is one member state of the remaining EU27. All of whom have an executive veto they can exercise should they wish.
Which is one of the main problems with the EU decision making process. Trying to accommodate 28 (plus Efta) countries' needs.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mairead McGuiness the Vice President of the EU said last night if we agree a referendum is required, they would extend article 50.
That would be the only circumstances in which they would wish to do so. She mentioned letting the rest of the EU vote and postponing the UK's vote for the EU parliament until after any potential second referendum.
I suppose a similar arrangement would need to be made with budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland is one member state of the remaining EU27. All of whom have an executive veto they can exercise should they wish.
Which is one of the main problems with the EU decision making process. Trying to accommodate 28 (plus Efta) countries' needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland is one but as the vice president of the EU, i take her word on it.
She's not going to say we would extend it if there was a referendum if she thought there was a decent chance of that being vetoed.
comment by 1 Father - 1 Love - 2 Reds (U13312)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Raptorā” (U1071)
posted 35 minutes ago
The day this country wakes up and sacks off both parties the better.
Rant over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rant on, I couldn’t agree more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So who you going to replace them with? Most simplistic thing ever to say let`s get rid of the main parties. Bit like saying yes or no to Brexit, sounds simple, but is extremely complex to get an actual solution.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain."
Therein lies the problem. A binary question in response to a complex, multifaceted issue.
I assume when you voted leave you didn't want UK counter-terrorism agencies to lose access to SIS2 (real time data sharing across the EU) etc.
Or financial services losing passporting rights into the EU etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issues you mentioned can be agreed outside of being a member.
That is why the EU offered us a Canada+++ deal in March last year.
But May and others don;t want us to leave the EU. That's why they created this deal just to frustrate the whole process.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 13 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny you say that actually:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
To be fair to the this is about the only thing he's said that I agreed with. The vote always should have been 2/3rds majority with a narrow remain win showing that we needed to try and reform the EU from within.
The Tories are coming out in droves this morning in the media to say, the last thing we want is a Corbyn Government. Scaremongering on a gigantic scale. A leopard never changes their spots. This has never been about us, and the country, but always all about the Tories hanging on to power at all costs.
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 minute ago
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not nonsense, more information that wasn't available 2 years ago has now come to light. We had no idea it would be this difficult two years ago and what leaving would actually entail.
Add in 16/17 year olds (who are more likely to be remain) would now be legally allowed to vote and some of the old timers (who were more likely to vote leave) have passed on, then it's reasonable to suggest the political landscape is a lot different to what it was two years ago.
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 2 minutes ago
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A second referendum would be more damaging that the worst case "no deal"! Brexit scenario.
Also, the UK would lose it's moral standing as a beacon of democracy in the world as well.
But the Remainers don't care. All they want is the reversal of the referendum result no matter the damage it does to the country.
something something angry.
something something useless politicians.
something something CAPITAL LETTERS
something something we're all doomed
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 minute ago
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not nonsense, more information that wasn't available 2 years ago has now come to light. We had no idea it would be this difficult two years ago and what leaving would actually entail.
Add in 16/17 year olds (who are more likely to be remain) would now be legally allowed to vote and some of the old timers (who were more likely to vote leave) have passed on, then it's reasonable to suggest the political landscape is a lot different to what it was two years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government deliberately made it difficult just so they can frustrate the whole process.
If we had a Brexiteer in charge, we would be trading with the EU on a Canada style free trade deal that would be beneficial to both parties.
I am wholly opposed to a second referendum, would be completely undemocratic. All the Blairites want that, but they don`t represent me one iota.
Need to sort it out whatever it takes.
There are only two plausible outcomes now.
No Deal or Referendum.
The EU want a peoples vote why would they make concessions, they want to leave the scary no deal on the table and the referendum as the only viable alternative.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain."
Therein lies the problem. A binary question in response to a complex, multifaceted issue.
I assume when you voted leave you didn't want UK counter-terrorism agencies to lose access to SIS2 (real time data sharing across the EU) etc.
Or financial services losing passporting rights into the EU etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issues you mentioned can be agreed outside of being a member.
That is why the EU offered us a Canada+++ deal in March last year.
But May and others don;t want us to leave the EU. That's why they created this deal just to frustrate the whole process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at TM's record as home secretary her views are far removed from typical EU values.
In regard to Ceta+++ this was originally proposed by David Davies. He never actually clarified what the “+++” referred to. But alluded to tariff free deal for services. Oblivious to the fact that tariffs are not linked to services but goods and commodities. Just one of many blunders he made as he's pretty much illiterate in regard to trade policy.
But I agree the EU did say the UK could have as close or distant relationship with the EU as we wanted. Unfortunately there has never been, an agreed consensus of what Westminster wants.
You cannot have complete regulatory autonomy and at the same time benefit from frictionless trade. You can be completely sovereign but in doing so places trade barriers between you and trading partners.
Regulatory liberalisation and trade harmonisation are the building blocks of any economic partnership agreement/free trade relationship.
The UK chose to end FoM. FoM applies to goods, services, and capital as well as labour.
Brexit was sold to the public on the basis the UK could maintain existing trade benefits but at the same time end FoM of labour.
Ie Complete fantasy.
Bet the Person who is really P!ssed off is the bloke who devised “ Deal or No Deal “ if he’d had Patented that phrase he’d be rolling in it
It's depressing that “no deal” is still being mooted. (copied from another thread).
For the avoidance of any doubt a no deal scenario is not something any functioning/competent government would consider.
Most leavers recognise this but the disaster capitalists (ERG and co) continually misrepresent what WTO terms actually mean.
The government's own sectoral impact assessments (which concur with every single proficient public and private analysis) is evidence enough:
There are no WTO protocols for data sharing, aviation, policing, counter terrorism, security, atomic energy etc etc.
"48.A complete ‘no deal’ outcome would be deeply damaging for the UK. It would bring UK-EU cooperationon matters vital to the national interest, such as counter-terrorism, police, justice and security matters, nuclear safeguards, data exchange and aviation, to a sudden halt. It would place the status of UK nationals in the EU, and EU nationals in the UK, in jeopardy, and would necessarily lead to the imposition of controls at the Irish land border.
49.The wider economic impact of an abrupt departure from the EU single market and customs union, and the adoption of WTO conditions for trade, would be felt across a range of sectors, including financial services, the agri-food sector, and aviation. It would have a particularly disruptive impact on cross-border supply chains. The short-term impact on trade in goods would also be grave: the UK’s ports would be overwhelmed by the requirement for customs and other checks. There is simply not enough time to provide the necessary capacity, IT systems, human resource and expertise to deal with such an outcome."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/46/4602.htm
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's depressing that “no deal” is still being mooted. (copied from another thread).
For the avoidance of any doubt a no deal scenario is not something any functioning/competent government would consider.
Most leavers recognise this but the disaster capitalists (ERG and co) continually misrepresent what WTO terms actually mean.
The government's own sectoral impact assessments (which concur with every single proficient public and private analysis) is evidence enough:
There are no WTO protocols for data sharing, aviation, policing, counter terrorism, security, atomic energy etc etc.
"48.A complete ‘no deal’ outcome would be deeply damaging for the UK. It would bring UK-EU cooperationon matters vital to the national interest, such as counter-terrorism, police, justice and security matters, nuclear safeguards, data exchange and aviation, to a sudden halt. It would place the status of UK nationals in the EU, and EU nationals in the UK, in jeopardy, and would necessarily lead to the imposition of controls at the Irish land border.
49.The wider economic impact of an abrupt departure from the EU single market and customs union, and the adoption of WTO conditions for trade, would be felt across a range of sectors, including financial services, the agri-food sector, and aviation. It would have a particularly disruptive impact on cross-border supply chains. The short-term impact on trade in goods would also be grave: the UK’s ports would be overwhelmed by the requirement for customs and other checks. There is simply not enough time to provide the necessary capacity, IT systems, human resource and expertise to deal with such an outcome."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/46/4602.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if the EU are planning to make an example of us in order to discourage others from leaving? Should we capitulate and wave the white flag?
No Deal is undesirable but if we are not going to get a good deal that work for both parties, then we have no choice but to leave without a deal.
The govt had 2 years after submission of Article 50 to plan for our leaving. If they did not do that, then the voters would make their feelings known at the next election.
But Leave we must.
Mancini.
The UK and the EU have both published hundreds of papers, preparedness notices, objectives etc throughout the Brexit process.
Whilst the EU have repeatedly told the UK the integrity (four freedoms) of the TEU are indivisible and non-negotiable, this has never been understood by the UKG. Chequers for example sought FoM for goods only.
For reference:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-exiting-the-european-union
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations_en
As I mentioned previously no deal would be a complete and utter disaster for the UK. Read the preparedness notices if you are in any doubt.
Thankfully there is not a majority for one in the HoCs. And even if TM somehow gets her deal through, it does not represent anything like what many Leave voters wanted.
TM is also now in a much weaker position insofar as negotiating potential concessions. In that the EU know any concessions made she’s currently around 230 votes short of getting a withdrawal agreement passed.
And *any* withdrawal agreement will have to include a backstop which the attorney general affirmed to parliament before Xmas.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Why do people keep saying that a no deal would be a disaster for the UK?
Many businesses that I know of have already planned for no deal.
Can you give me a specific example of the disaster you are thinking about in the case of a no deal?
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Why do people keep saying that a no deal would be a disaster for the UK?
Many businesses that I know of have already planned for no deal.
Can you give me a specific example of the disaster you are thinking about in the case of a no deal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start?
How can logistics for example restructure their JiT operating models which they have used for decades in only three months? How long do you think it would take to build warehouses, expand ports, infrastructure etc?
The Port of Dover handles up to 10,000 vehicles each day but the FTA (freight transport association) stated only 1k export permits will be available. Do the maths. A sizeable chunk of UK exports will not be permitted to cross the channel.
https://fta.co.uk/compliance-and-advice?motid=1496
In the UKG’s own no deal preparedness notices advise businesses that they may have to move operations outside of the UK to maintain market access. Many have already. The UKG is actually recommending UK businesses their ‘best bet’ is to relocate outside of the UK in the event of a failure to agree withdrawal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal
Who do you believe. Every recognised impact study, or hedge funders, investment bankers etc who back the likes of the ERG who are exploiting Brexit for their own financial interests?
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Why do people keep saying that a no deal would be a disaster for the UK?
Many businesses that I know of have already planned for no deal.
Can you give me a specific example of the disaster you are thinking about in the case of a no deal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start?
How can logistics for example restructure their JiT operating models which they have used for decades in only three months? How long do you think it would take to build warehouses, expand ports, infrastructure etc?
The Port of Dover handles up to 10,000 vehicles each day but the FTA (freight transport association) stated only 1k export permits will be available. Do the maths. A sizeable chunk of UK exports will not be permitted to cross the channel.
https://fta.co.uk/compliance-and-advice?motid=1496
In the UKG’s own no deal preparedness notices advise businesses that they may have to move operations outside of the UK to maintain market access. Many have already. The UKG is actually recommending UK businesses their ‘best bet’ is to relocate outside of the UK in the event of a failure to agree withdrawal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal
Who do you believe. Every recognised impact study, or hedge funders, investment bankers etc who back the likes of the ERG who are exploiting Brexit for their own financial interests?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WWSPD , no doubt someone will jump on your factual post screaming “ Project Fear , Project Fear “ . There’s none so blind as those that won’t see .
Sign in if you want to comment
Away from football for a bit, let`s talk
Page 3 of 4
posted on 16/1/19
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
posted on 16/1/19
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
posted on 16/1/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mairead McGuiness the Vice President of the EU said last night if we agree a referendum is required, they would extend article 50.
That would be the only circumstances in which they would wish to do so. She mentioned letting the rest of the EU vote and postponing the UK's vote for the EU parliament until after any potential second referendum.
I suppose a similar arrangement would need to be made with budgets.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain."
Therein lies the problem. A binary question in response to a complex, multifaceted issue.
I assume when you voted leave you didn't want UK counter-terrorism agencies to lose access to SIS2 (real time data sharing across the EU) etc.
Or financial services losing passporting rights into the EU etc etc.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mairead McGuiness the Vice President of the EU said last night if we agree a referendum is required, they would extend article 50.
That would be the only circumstances in which they would wish to do so. She mentioned letting the rest of the EU vote and postponing the UK's vote for the EU parliament until after any potential second referendum.
I suppose a similar arrangement would need to be made with budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland is one member state of the remaining EU27. All of whom have an executive veto they can exercise should they wish.
Which is one of the main problems with the EU decision making process. Trying to accommodate 28 (plus Efta) countries' needs.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
HB Fash
I’d mentioned on another thread an extension of the a50 notice would have to be agreed by all of the remaining EU27 member states.
*If* The EU27 all agree to an extension of the a50 notice it may not be as simple as some have suggested. I guess much would depend on political goodwill.
The UK would probably be required to participate in all of the EU institutions and agencies during this time, and contribute to the multiannual financial framework.
The problem here is that MFF policies are set out for a minimum period of 5yrs, with the budget covering 7yrs.
The UK could be asked to fulfil the full MFF period even if we left in say 2022. I imagine this wouldn’t go down too well with Brexit supporting MPs. ie another chunky "divorce bill"
https://www.europeanmovement.ie/all-eu-need-to-know-the-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mairead McGuiness the Vice President of the EU said last night if we agree a referendum is required, they would extend article 50.
That would be the only circumstances in which they would wish to do so. She mentioned letting the rest of the EU vote and postponing the UK's vote for the EU parliament until after any potential second referendum.
I suppose a similar arrangement would need to be made with budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland is one member state of the remaining EU27. All of whom have an executive veto they can exercise should they wish.
Which is one of the main problems with the EU decision making process. Trying to accommodate 28 (plus Efta) countries' needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland is one but as the vice president of the EU, i take her word on it.
She's not going to say we would extend it if there was a referendum if she thought there was a decent chance of that being vetoed.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by 1 Father - 1 Love - 2 Reds (U13312)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Raptorā” (U1071)
posted 35 minutes ago
The day this country wakes up and sacks off both parties the better.
Rant over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rant on, I couldn’t agree more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So who you going to replace them with? Most simplistic thing ever to say let`s get rid of the main parties. Bit like saying yes or no to Brexit, sounds simple, but is extremely complex to get an actual solution.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain."
Therein lies the problem. A binary question in response to a complex, multifaceted issue.
I assume when you voted leave you didn't want UK counter-terrorism agencies to lose access to SIS2 (real time data sharing across the EU) etc.
Or financial services losing passporting rights into the EU etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issues you mentioned can be agreed outside of being a member.
That is why the EU offered us a Canada+++ deal in March last year.
But May and others don;t want us to leave the EU. That's why they created this deal just to frustrate the whole process.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 13 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny you say that actually:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
To be fair to the this is about the only thing he's said that I agreed with. The vote always should have been 2/3rds majority with a narrow remain win showing that we needed to try and reform the EU from within.
posted on 16/1/19
The Tories are coming out in droves this morning in the media to say, the last thing we want is a Corbyn Government. Scaremongering on a gigantic scale. A leopard never changes their spots. This has never been about us, and the country, but always all about the Tories hanging on to power at all costs.
posted on 16/1/19
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
posted on 16/1/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 minute ago
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not nonsense, more information that wasn't available 2 years ago has now come to light. We had no idea it would be this difficult two years ago and what leaving would actually entail.
Add in 16/17 year olds (who are more likely to be remain) would now be legally allowed to vote and some of the old timers (who were more likely to vote leave) have passed on, then it's reasonable to suggest the political landscape is a lot different to what it was two years ago.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 2 minutes ago
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A second referendum would be more damaging that the worst case "no deal"! Brexit scenario.
Also, the UK would lose it's moral standing as a beacon of democracy in the world as well.
But the Remainers don't care. All they want is the reversal of the referendum result no matter the damage it does to the country.
posted on 16/1/19
something something angry.
something something useless politicians.
something something CAPITAL LETTERS
something something we're all doomed
posted on 16/1/19
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 minute ago
There SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be a 2nd referendum.
If we don't abide by the first why should we abide by the 2nd - Oh lets' have a 3rd and a 4th etc etc.
Hey we didn't like last Sunday's result v Man U so lets just replay the game, and keep eplaying until we get the result we want.
THAT is what the remainers want. It's a NONSENSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not nonsense, more information that wasn't available 2 years ago has now come to light. We had no idea it would be this difficult two years ago and what leaving would actually entail.
Add in 16/17 year olds (who are more likely to be remain) would now be legally allowed to vote and some of the old timers (who were more likely to vote leave) have passed on, then it's reasonable to suggest the political landscape is a lot different to what it was two years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government deliberately made it difficult just so they can frustrate the whole process.
If we had a Brexiteer in charge, we would be trading with the EU on a Canada style free trade deal that would be beneficial to both parties.
posted on 16/1/19
I am wholly opposed to a second referendum, would be completely undemocratic. All the Blairites want that, but they don`t represent me one iota.
Need to sort it out whatever it takes.
posted on 16/1/19
There are only two plausible outcomes now.
No Deal or Referendum.
The EU want a peoples vote why would they make concessions, they want to leave the scary no deal on the table and the referendum as the only viable alternative.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain.
Leave won. So until that decision is implemented, all talks about a second referendum should not even be considered.
Question: What happens if Remain won by a margin of 52% to 48% in a second referendum?
The EU is a failing economic model and the earlier we get out, the better. Most of the Euro zone economies and not doing great. Yet, we have to cut our Police force just so we can pay £10bn net every year to belong to this body which is now morphing into a superstate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The referendum asked the people a simple question: Leave or Remain."
Therein lies the problem. A binary question in response to a complex, multifaceted issue.
I assume when you voted leave you didn't want UK counter-terrorism agencies to lose access to SIS2 (real time data sharing across the EU) etc.
Or financial services losing passporting rights into the EU etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issues you mentioned can be agreed outside of being a member.
That is why the EU offered us a Canada+++ deal in March last year.
But May and others don;t want us to leave the EU. That's why they created this deal just to frustrate the whole process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at TM's record as home secretary her views are far removed from typical EU values.
In regard to Ceta+++ this was originally proposed by David Davies. He never actually clarified what the “+++” referred to. But alluded to tariff free deal for services. Oblivious to the fact that tariffs are not linked to services but goods and commodities. Just one of many blunders he made as he's pretty much illiterate in regard to trade policy.
But I agree the EU did say the UK could have as close or distant relationship with the EU as we wanted. Unfortunately there has never been, an agreed consensus of what Westminster wants.
You cannot have complete regulatory autonomy and at the same time benefit from frictionless trade. You can be completely sovereign but in doing so places trade barriers between you and trading partners.
Regulatory liberalisation and trade harmonisation are the building blocks of any economic partnership agreement/free trade relationship.
The UK chose to end FoM. FoM applies to goods, services, and capital as well as labour.
Brexit was sold to the public on the basis the UK could maintain existing trade benefits but at the same time end FoM of labour.
Ie Complete fantasy.
posted on 16/1/19
Bet the Person who is really P!ssed off is the bloke who devised “ Deal or No Deal “ if he’d had Patented that phrase he’d be rolling in it
posted on 16/1/19
It's depressing that “no deal” is still being mooted. (copied from another thread).
For the avoidance of any doubt a no deal scenario is not something any functioning/competent government would consider.
Most leavers recognise this but the disaster capitalists (ERG and co) continually misrepresent what WTO terms actually mean.
The government's own sectoral impact assessments (which concur with every single proficient public and private analysis) is evidence enough:
There are no WTO protocols for data sharing, aviation, policing, counter terrorism, security, atomic energy etc etc.
"48.A complete ‘no deal’ outcome would be deeply damaging for the UK. It would bring UK-EU cooperationon matters vital to the national interest, such as counter-terrorism, police, justice and security matters, nuclear safeguards, data exchange and aviation, to a sudden halt. It would place the status of UK nationals in the EU, and EU nationals in the UK, in jeopardy, and would necessarily lead to the imposition of controls at the Irish land border.
49.The wider economic impact of an abrupt departure from the EU single market and customs union, and the adoption of WTO conditions for trade, would be felt across a range of sectors, including financial services, the agri-food sector, and aviation. It would have a particularly disruptive impact on cross-border supply chains. The short-term impact on trade in goods would also be grave: the UK’s ports would be overwhelmed by the requirement for customs and other checks. There is simply not enough time to provide the necessary capacity, IT systems, human resource and expertise to deal with such an outcome."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/46/4602.htm
posted on 16/1/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's depressing that “no deal” is still being mooted. (copied from another thread).
For the avoidance of any doubt a no deal scenario is not something any functioning/competent government would consider.
Most leavers recognise this but the disaster capitalists (ERG and co) continually misrepresent what WTO terms actually mean.
The government's own sectoral impact assessments (which concur with every single proficient public and private analysis) is evidence enough:
There are no WTO protocols for data sharing, aviation, policing, counter terrorism, security, atomic energy etc etc.
"48.A complete ‘no deal’ outcome would be deeply damaging for the UK. It would bring UK-EU cooperationon matters vital to the national interest, such as counter-terrorism, police, justice and security matters, nuclear safeguards, data exchange and aviation, to a sudden halt. It would place the status of UK nationals in the EU, and EU nationals in the UK, in jeopardy, and would necessarily lead to the imposition of controls at the Irish land border.
49.The wider economic impact of an abrupt departure from the EU single market and customs union, and the adoption of WTO conditions for trade, would be felt across a range of sectors, including financial services, the agri-food sector, and aviation. It would have a particularly disruptive impact on cross-border supply chains. The short-term impact on trade in goods would also be grave: the UK’s ports would be overwhelmed by the requirement for customs and other checks. There is simply not enough time to provide the necessary capacity, IT systems, human resource and expertise to deal with such an outcome."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/46/4602.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if the EU are planning to make an example of us in order to discourage others from leaving? Should we capitulate and wave the white flag?
No Deal is undesirable but if we are not going to get a good deal that work for both parties, then we have no choice but to leave without a deal.
The govt had 2 years after submission of Article 50 to plan for our leaving. If they did not do that, then the voters would make their feelings known at the next election.
But Leave we must.
posted on 16/1/19
Mancini.
The UK and the EU have both published hundreds of papers, preparedness notices, objectives etc throughout the Brexit process.
Whilst the EU have repeatedly told the UK the integrity (four freedoms) of the TEU are indivisible and non-negotiable, this has never been understood by the UKG. Chequers for example sought FoM for goods only.
For reference:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-exiting-the-european-union
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations_en
As I mentioned previously no deal would be a complete and utter disaster for the UK. Read the preparedness notices if you are in any doubt.
Thankfully there is not a majority for one in the HoCs. And even if TM somehow gets her deal through, it does not represent anything like what many Leave voters wanted.
TM is also now in a much weaker position insofar as negotiating potential concessions. In that the EU know any concessions made she’s currently around 230 votes short of getting a withdrawal agreement passed.
And *any* withdrawal agreement will have to include a backstop which the attorney general affirmed to parliament before Xmas.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Why do people keep saying that a no deal would be a disaster for the UK?
Many businesses that I know of have already planned for no deal.
Can you give me a specific example of the disaster you are thinking about in the case of a no deal?
posted on 16/1/19
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Why do people keep saying that a no deal would be a disaster for the UK?
Many businesses that I know of have already planned for no deal.
Can you give me a specific example of the disaster you are thinking about in the case of a no deal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start?
How can logistics for example restructure their JiT operating models which they have used for decades in only three months? How long do you think it would take to build warehouses, expand ports, infrastructure etc?
The Port of Dover handles up to 10,000 vehicles each day but the FTA (freight transport association) stated only 1k export permits will be available. Do the maths. A sizeable chunk of UK exports will not be permitted to cross the channel.
https://fta.co.uk/compliance-and-advice?motid=1496
In the UKG’s own no deal preparedness notices advise businesses that they may have to move operations outside of the UK to maintain market access. Many have already. The UKG is actually recommending UK businesses their ‘best bet’ is to relocate outside of the UK in the event of a failure to agree withdrawal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal
Who do you believe. Every recognised impact study, or hedge funders, investment bankers etc who back the likes of the ERG who are exploiting Brexit for their own financial interests?
posted on 16/1/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Why do people keep saying that a no deal would be a disaster for the UK?
Many businesses that I know of have already planned for no deal.
Can you give me a specific example of the disaster you are thinking about in the case of a no deal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start?
How can logistics for example restructure their JiT operating models which they have used for decades in only three months? How long do you think it would take to build warehouses, expand ports, infrastructure etc?
The Port of Dover handles up to 10,000 vehicles each day but the FTA (freight transport association) stated only 1k export permits will be available. Do the maths. A sizeable chunk of UK exports will not be permitted to cross the channel.
https://fta.co.uk/compliance-and-advice?motid=1496
In the UKG’s own no deal preparedness notices advise businesses that they may have to move operations outside of the UK to maintain market access. Many have already. The UKG is actually recommending UK businesses their ‘best bet’ is to relocate outside of the UK in the event of a failure to agree withdrawal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal
Who do you believe. Every recognised impact study, or hedge funders, investment bankers etc who back the likes of the ERG who are exploiting Brexit for their own financial interests?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WWSPD , no doubt someone will jump on your factual post screaming “ Project Fear , Project Fear “ . There’s none so blind as those that won’t see .
Page 3 of 4