[Politics] Brexit

[pb21]

Why have you omitted the withdrawal agreement "deal" ?

You complete clueless berk.
I didnt introduce 'The European Union (Withdrawal) Act' into the conversation,i never mentioned it once.This is your fabrication.
Anyone with half a brain knows( except you) the Article 50 withdrawal agreement "deal" (however you want to word it) is a clear reference to the Withdrawal Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom not our own parliamentary legislation.
Here is a draft of it.The 80% of it agreed represented by the parts highlighted in green.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf

I know you dont understand what is going on, highlighted by the fact you wrongly thought the chequers proposal WAS the withdrawal agreement
and didnt realise the chequers policy proposal addresses the future relationship......hence its official title.....“THE FUTURE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION”,and clearly cant comprehend the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship whilst linked are separate entities but dont make stuff up to mask your own failings.

I don't normally get involved in others discussions, but why when asked would your prefer Chequers or no deal did you ask why omit the 'withdrawal deal' option?

 

[pastafarian]

I am not sure it will.

We will know what the trading situation will be

If people vote that they are happy with the deal, then at least that will stop the argument that people didn't know what they voted for as they will know exactly what we are getting into.

You want another vote on exactly what we are getting ourselves into saying we will know what the trading situation will be.
But how will you know what the exact trading situation will be,when the crux of the trade talks will not start until next year, when we have left and we are a third country.
There is no trade deal attached to the withdrawal treaty, there is a non-binding political statement about the framework only of our future relationship. The meat and two veg of trade comes later, if you vote on it now you will have that discussion based on speculation as to the outcome of trade talks, something you seem to want to avoid.
This is another reason why the second referendum call for a rerun vote is so dishonest.
If you want to be honest say “lets do the vote again because we will have a rough idea what the trading arrangements will be”……….doesnt sound like a convincing argument anymore does it.

So the question will be, are you happy with the negotiated deal for the withdrawal of the EU?

Yes, we sign it and leave
No, we don't sign it and stay inside the EU.
.

This is just another repeat IN/OUT referendum because you didn’t like the first outcome.
You have left no allocation for those leavers that are not happy with the deal but want to Leave anyway or those remainers who don’t want to Leave but respect the democratic vote to Leave and think we should therefore Leave, (but not necessarily according to the agreed deal)

 

[Ernest]

I think we signed Andone in the end....

I think the Chequers deal is better than that one

 

[pastafarian]

I don't normally get involved in others discussions, but why when asked would your prefer Chequers or no deal did you ask why omit the 'withdrawal deal' option?

why omit it?
The question should be do you prefer the withdrawal agreement + the chequers(future relationship) proposal (chequers is not the withdrawal agreement) or no deal.....
as negotiations are ongoing and fluid, the withdrawal agreement is not finalised and the chequers proposal on the future relationship is clearly causing issues, it is a daft question.......they are separate entities

 

[pastafarian]

While I’d sincerely doubt they’ll have a second ref and I don’t want one, have you not learnt by now tomnot trust a thing that comes out of that silly ****’s mouth?!

Time for some contrition from leave voters now while the 48% try and make the best of this and see if we can't get you a second vote, clear up your mess for you..

Make your mind up

 

[Baldseagull]

Can someone clarify the exact current position. I know we offered about £39bn or so plus add ons but what has been offered in return?

The £39bn is not an offer we made, it is an estimate as to what we would pay for an agreed method of paying up what we owe, less what we are owed. Farages pension etc.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

I assume you are talking about the 'divorce bill'. This is what we had already committed pay in our last round of negotiations with the EU before Brexit (give or take a few bn between friends ?).

I think you know that we get nothing for what we have already committed to, but pulling payments we have already agreed to may make the next round of trade negotiations interesting with either the EU or WTO.

(And if you look at trading figures and WTO tariffs and you will see 39bn is chicken feed).

So the committed money is for projects etc already planned which I assume includes those to be undertaken in the UK. I also assume these will still be undertaken after we have left if they fall in the current budget

 

[WATFORD zero]

why omit it?
The question should be do you prefer the withdrawal agreement + the chequers(future relationship) proposal (chequers is not the withdrawal agreement) or no deal.....
as negotiations are ongoing and fluid, the withdrawal agreement is not finalised and the chequers proposal on the future relationship is clearly causing issues, it is a daft question.......they are separate entities

So why did you introduce it, when we were talking about trade deals going forward (I can guess where this is heading)

 

[WATFORD zero]

So the committed money is for projects etc already planned which I assume includes those to be undertaken in the UK. I also assume these will still be undertaken after we have left if they fall in the current budget

I don't know but would assume so as this has been negotiated by people with a better understanding of the details than me

Maybe ask Suella Braverman as she's the one who committed to it.

 

[astralavi]

So if no one budges - parliament will vote down a no deal. Transition period granted by the EU for a GE - Followed by a GE, with labour winning (with the conservatives split and shell shocked) ?

 

[Ernest]

I don't know but would assume so as this has been negotiated by people with a better understanding of the details than me

Maybe ask Suella Braverman as she's the one who committed to it.

Another thick as mince totally out of her depth MP

 

[pastafarian]

So why did you introduce it, when we were talking about trade deals going forward (I can guess where this is heading)

You omit it because you wrongly believed the future relationship proposal (chequers) IS the withdrawal agreement-it isn’t-it is a separate entity. Your question of chequers or no deal is stupid if you don’t include the withdrawal agreement,(you cant grasp this because you thought chequers and withdrawal were the same thing) neither have reached a negotiated conclusion-more stupidity on your part. This goes cap in hand with you previously believing(you are not alone) the future relationship discussion is a trade deal-it isn’t, it is a non binding political statement. The real trade talks will commence after we have left and we are a third country.
You are all over the shop ,now tell me, where did I introduce 'The European Union (Withdrawal) Act' into the conversation like you wrongly said I did .----try not to deflect if that is possible for you

 

[Wozza]

This is a great piece...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...umiliation-row-political-crisis-a8547551.html

 

[Dave the OAP]

You want another vote on exactly what we are getting ourselves into saying we will know what the trading situation will be.
But how will you know what the exact trading situation will be,when the crux of the trade talks will not start until next year, when we have left and we are a third country.
There is no trade deal attached to the withdrawal treaty, there is a non-binding political statement about the framework only of our future relationship. The meat and two veg of trade comes later, if you vote on it now you will have that discussion based on speculation as to the outcome of trade talks, something you seem to want to avoid.
This is another reason why the second referendum call for a rerun vote is so dishonest.
If you want to be honest say “lets do the vote again because we will have a rough idea what the trading arrangements will be”……….doesnt sound like a convincing argument anymore does it.




This is just another repeat IN/OUT referendum because you didn’t like the first outcome.
You have left no allocation for those leavers that are not happy with the deal but want to Leave anyway or those remainers who don’t want to Leave but respect the democratic vote to Leave and think we should therefore Leave, (but not necessarily according to the agreed deal)

Sorry I have you on block, so I have no idea what you just wrote but it is bound to be bigoted twaddle.

 

[Jackthelad]

The EU have dominated these discussions from the start. I guess we are heading for another referendum then as no chance a no deal gets through the house and now there will be huge pressure on Corbyn to support another referendum.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Interesting take on things, particularly his final analysis:

The negotiations go on - but an important part of them now is a dangerous cross-continental game of no-deal chicken.

After spending two days suggesting to several EU leaders directly that they are not ready for no-deal - and having a piece of compelling evidence for that in the form of a leaked notice from their airports sector - I can only conclude that they are utterly confident that no-deal will be terrible for the UK and only merely awkward for them.

And some nations such as the Netherlands and Ireland are incredulous that they are more prepared for no-deal, a stated possible consequence of UK policy, than the UK itself.

There is nothing the UK could do to dissuade the EU27 from this fundamental judgement about who will be damaged.

They are showing now that they think, in the Brexit parlance, that they hold all the cards.

https://news.sky.com/story/is-it-fa...or-theresa-may-after-salzburg-summit-11503469

 

[pastafarian]

Sorry I have you on block, so I have no idea what you just wrote but it is bound to be bigoted twaddle.

Of course you know what i wrote, you had to press the "view post" button to reply to it after all.
pointing out the truth to you isnt bigoted.

 

[bha100]

The EU have no right excluding the UK from meetings, the last time i checked we were still currently in the EU

 

[Simster]

The EU have no right excluding the UK from meetings, the last time i checked we were still currently in the EU

Yes because our cabinet discuss all Brexit business in front of the EU rather than behind closed doors.

FFS.

 

[melias shoes]

The EU have no right excluding the UK from meetings, the last time i checked we were still currently in the EU

Vile organisation. They wonder why we want out.