Deal or No Deal ?

[Lt Kije]

Ahh still the same people with there heads in the sand, even with the car industry disappearing they still refuse to see

[asperity]

I just got a downvote on a post I made 6 months ago, how strange.

In other news I see Lt Kije has returned to haunt us again, hello stranger. Some coincidence eh? 🤔

[Lt Kije]

I just got a down vote for a comment i made 15 mins ago, somethings never change, it always used to be Baz that played around with them, no it was not me, to be honest I forgot you could do it, some one is playing.

 

[asperity]

I never downvote anyone so not me Lt Kije, cast your net further.

[Lt Kije]

I just gave your previous post a plus, but it was not me on the others, on a more serious not, has Obs got a twin, or has some evil Doctor been cloning, one was enough, we now have two😱😉😁

[asperity]

Do you mean "has some evil doctor been clowning"?🤣🤣

[Lt Kije]

Your assessment is more accurate😂

[Davy51]

10 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Do you have something particular in mind? The Treaty of Lisbon came into force on the 1st December 2009 and there has been no further change to the treaties since of which I am aware. There will need to be technical changes if and when we leave to adjust majority voting weights and numbers of parliamentary seats but they will probably by Council Decisions or the like which do not require treaty changes. I don't think it matters how long the delay is other than diluting the will of the public and relieving the burden of change of the EU budget contributions. They will still need to start spending less as soon as they can.

I must apologise ,it seems i have been looking at some bum information . I have since read some other articles that  remove any future problems with the treaty that have not already taken place.

[Evil Sid]

I deny any rumours of either cloning or clowning in regards to Obs (well cloning anyway).🤫🤡🧙‍♂️

[Confused52]

Bercow blocks meaningful vote three, thinking the PM will ask for an extension that is up to two years by which time Brexit will be overturned by a second referendum.

This really is the elite sticking two fingers up to the public and is said to be a constitutional crisis.

May has to ask for an extension (but she doesn't have a reason) because Parliament told her to, but she doesn't have to put the deal forwards again and if she doesn't the EU and Bercow would be responsible for a hard Brexit. I guess the EU will blink but Bercow remains a problem.

[asperity]

I'm going to have to stock up on popcorn 🤔

[Lt Kije]

3 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Bercow blocks meaningful vote three, thinking the PM will ask for an extension that is up to two years by which time Brexit will be overturned by a second referendum.

This really is the elite sticking two fingers up to the public and is said to be a constitutional crisis.

May has to ask for an extension (but she doesn't have a reason) because Parliament told her to, but she doesn't have to put the deal forwards again and if she doesn't the EU and Bercow would be responsible for a hard Brexit. I guess the EU will blink but Bercow remains a problem.

No it's not, You are aware of what the courts have said about the vote, "if the vote had been a legally binding vote, it would have had to have been put aside"

[Observer II]

Time runs out on the 29th March - then it's NO DEAL.  So if May comes up with a deal that Parliament will vote for EG. her deal minus the backstop;  and takes it to Brussels - the EU will have a choice - her deal or no deal, as the time runs out !  

[Evil Sid]

Quote

"if the vote had been a legally binding vote, it would have had to have been put aside"

And that means what in terms of plain and simple terms that even an idiot like can understand. That an issue that requires  legally binding vote cannot be voted upon or should not be voted upon. (Does that in effect means that only issues that are not legally binding can be voted upon, possibly endlessly or until the "right" decision is achieved).

10 days and counting anyhow.🤫

[Observer II]

All the PM needs to do is keep kicking that can down the road past the 29th March; then mutual self interest will spring into action to mitigate problems.  Industry is ready for no deal, it's uncertainty they don't want.

[Confused52]

19 hours ago, Lt Kije said:

No it's not, You are aware of what the courts have said about the vote, "if the vote had been a legally binding vote, it would have had to have been put aside"

I am aware of what has been said, unfortunately it said this https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/304.html which refused an appeal on the judgement that the irregularities did not mean that that the submission of Article 50 was invalid. Indeed that was always the case just looking at the EU referendum act. Furthermore referendums can never be binding because Parliament, being sovereign, can always just change its decision. The statement in the quote is plain wrong because the act does not make any such provision because of any error other than in the count itself, however many electoral offences were committed. However wrong it may be, lying in a referendum is not illegal.

So what are you denying with your "No"? It is a constitutional crisis because the speaker is meant to be non-partisan and this one isn't.... he is trying to defeat the will of the government and the ends do not justify the means.

 

[Confused52]

20 hours ago, Observer II said:

Time runs out on the 29th March - then it's NO DEAL.  So if May comes up with a deal that Parliament will vote for EG. her deal minus the backstop;  and takes it to Brussels - the EU will have a choice - her deal or no deal, as the time runs out !  

What part of the EU not being willing to change the withdrawal agreement (and that includes the backstop) did you not understand? It helps if you remember that it is 27/28 the EU's deal. People keep calling it Mrs May's in an attempt to belittle her and suggest she could just change it which is, of course, nonsense. Mrs May also MUST ask for an extension because Parliament requires it, all she can play with is the length. Your proposal is a fantasy I am afraid. I also suspect that if another member state suggested an extension May could not reject reasonably reject it, it is the EU that is in control now. The brexiteers overplayed their hand and yesterday they lost and got have some begging to do which could well not end in their favour.

[Observer II]

It's been "begging" from the beginning of this process and the pursuit of cakeism, that's got us in this mess. Should have told them the deal we want, and let them do the begging, if they want a deal. Alas all this humiliating mess has been brought about by Remain MPs trying to sabotage Brexit.  The EU have said, if there is no concrete proposals behind an extension, what is it for - more of the same ?   The only way to give 17.4 million people what they voted for is a NO DEAL clean break on the 29th; if MPs have the bottle of course.

[Confused52]

A clean break is still a terrible idea which no rational person should propose in my view. The Withdrawal agreement is at least capable of turning out less harmful and to wilfully reject is seems close to self-harm.

[Observer II]

The 29th isn't the end of the process; but it's the point at which we are free of domination by the EU; what then is supposed to happen is a two year period of settling detailed issues of trade and regulation, from which we start from a point of symmetry with the EU.

[Confused52]

3 minutes ago, Observer II said:

The 29th isn't the end of the process; but it's the point at which we are free of domination by the EU; what then is supposed to happen is a two year period of settling detailed issues of trade and regulation, from which we start from a point of symmetry with the EU.

If we leave without a deal there is no 2 year period of any kind and the EU don't have to even talk to us. The 2 years is only leaving with a deal, which is actually the withdrawal agreement and requires the EU to negotiate a deal. So does your comment suggest you support the Withdrawal Agreement now?

[Davy51]

Perhaps Bercow is really an ardent Brexiteer who has thrown hot potato in the court of the EU by banning a third vote. 

All this talk of extensions is not what the country needs ,it is high time Brexit was over & done with then domestic issues can be concentrated on once more. Two more years of confusion is definitely not  needed.

[Observer II]

Whether official or not;  a no deal will require mutual negotiations. Surely you don't believe the Remoaner scare stories that suggest that all the downsides apply to the UK?   The worst hit nation will be Ireland;  but Spanish, French, Dutch and Belgian farmers won't want to be watching their produce rot in the fields and neither will German car workers relish being laid off.  So expediency will take over.

[Confused52]

7 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Whether official or not;  a no deal will require mutual negotiations. Surely you don't believe the Remoaner scare stories that suggest that all the downsides apply to the UK?   The worst hit nation will be Ireland;  but Spanish, French, Dutch and Belgian farmers won't want to be watching their produce rot in the fields and neither will German car workers relish being laid off.  So expediency will take over.

It is time you considered it from the other side for a change, having messed the EU about like this and forcing the administrative costs of No Deal I would expect a period of punishment beatings to be applied by the EU. Just like you are trying to apply to them, it could all be very nasty.

This afternoon Barnier made it harder "EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said the EU would not grant a delay without a "concrete plan" from the UK about what they would do with it. " I would suggest it is a bit late and the EU is making it clear that the only unilateral course Mrs May has left in revoking Article 50. She hasn't got time to introduce the laws needed for no deal, a delay needs Parliament to agree what the future is going to be, which seems unlikely and getting the withdrawal agreement though require changes by the EU which are also unlikely.

Who would be a Prime Minister eh?

[Observer II]

30 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

It is time you considered it from the other side for a change, having messed the EU about like this and forcing the administrative costs of No Deal I would expect a period of punishment beatings to be applied by the EU. Just like you are trying to apply to them, it could all be very nasty.

This afternoon Barnier made it harder "EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said the EU would not grant a delay without a "concrete plan" from the UK about what they would do with it. " I would suggest it is a bit late and the EU is making it clear that the only unilateral course Mrs May has left in revoking Article 50. She hasn't got time to introduce the laws needed for no deal, a delay needs Parliament to agree what the future is going to be, which seems unlikely and getting the withdrawal agreement though require changes by the EU which are also unlikely.

Who would be a Prime Minister eh?

If you read back a couple of years Con, you'll see that I and other posters have been fairly consistent in our approach, from the beginning. I never expected the EU to give us anything, let alone a good deal; and fully expected a punishment deal in order to send a clear message to the rest of the EU in order to keep them in line.  The EU is a construct of "rules" and the UK Gov to have believed that such rules would be contravened EG: free movement in the single market, was a totally naive cakeist assumption by HMG from the start. So the only logical way to enact the mandate of the referendum was a NO DEAL Brexit from the word go.