Surely what theOriginally Posted by Steely Glint
dimwitsidiotsracistsignorantxenophobeshalfwitsbraindeadBrexiteers wanted was a hard Brexit in the first place? I can't imagine many of them voted for a wishy-washy half-in half-out compromise.
Surely what thedimwitsidiotsracistsignorantxenophobeshalfwitsbraindeadBrexiteers wanted was a hard Brexit in the first place? I can't imagine many of them voted for a wishy-washy half-in half-out compromise.
By that point it's a bit too late. But hey, it's not my country you're running off the cliff at breakneck speed.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Highly relevant:
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I highly doubt the referendum would have been won if Leave had campaigned on the basis of a no deal Brexit.
No deal Brexit != disorderly Brexit. Article 50 can be postponed.By that point it's a bit too late. But hey, it's not my country you're running off the cliff at breakneck speed.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Sure, and a decision based on an advisory referendum can be undone. Legally, it's easier for the UK to revoke the A50 notification than to get an extension of the A50 period long enough to make an "orderly" NDB, during which the UK would have to be granted continued membership rights including continued representation in Brussels.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Indeed. Legally it would even be easier to revoke and then re-invoke A50 which is a bizarre situation but there we go.
(It's my understanding that the ECJ said that the first revocation would not be considered abuse but subsequent ones after re-invoking (is that a word?) could be.)
Safe bet that A50 would be changed to preclude subsequent abuses.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This article mentions such a comparison:
https://www.ft.com/content/202a60c0-...d-09f7778e7377
I think it's well written and balanced. Pros and cons are discussed and I remember reading it last year.
The most recommended comment is interesting:
I think this is a fair comment and I understand the concern some people have. Personally I'm not worried by closer political collaboration and haven't been persuaded that such a thing is bad for us. I think we achieve more together, have more power and influence and have more success in tackling the really difficult challenges - all of which increases the likelihood of peace."Perhaps the biggest issue in the June 23 referendum is the question of whether 43 years in the EU have helped or hurt the British economy."
The author has misunderstood the debate. Very few people will argue that the global movement toward free trade hasn't benefited the UK economy, including that part provided by membership of the EU.For the millions of sceptics though, the issue is not one of past benefits but of future direction.There wouldn't be a debate at all if the EU was solely a free trade organisation along the lines of NAFTA.However it is not. It is a political organisation with a trading dimension, - not the other way around. The issues that cause disquiet with millions of British voters are almost exclusively to do with its political aspect. The debate for most of them is about: unfettered immigration, the subordinacy of national law to EU law, the direction of travel toward the deeply unpopular concept of a Federal Europe and the perceived incompetency of an organisation that stumbles from one crisis to another without ever fully resolving those that came before.
All I can say now is good luck to the EU. I wish them very best success................ although not too much because they're now our competition. Sigh.
We're leaving, we won't return and we'll manage.
Sorry but you are mistaken ; you are not our competitors. Our competitors are not midsized European countries. Those are our sphere of influence.
Congratulations America
Ok, chap.
I doubt that. Changing the treaties isn't that simple. It's also not easy to re-write article 50 in a way that would not result in the same outcome. What I do foresee is an ECJ getting more involved in the whole process; the court has both given the right to revoke unilaterally AND injected insecurity in the way a revocation would be judged. By not referring to the good faith principles in the ruling future resolution in cases of abuse can only be given by the court. This also opens up the possibility of the court voiding a revocation it deems falling short of the requirements.
In other news; Credit Suisse is recommending it's clients to get their money out of the UK before the No Deal chaos breaks. Guess just more project fear.
Congratulations America
So Randy. Did you like our preparations for a 'no deal' scenario? It must be very reassuring for you that the EU has made it explicit that it will only act to alleviate problems on our side. And anything we allow you to continue doing will be time limited. And just before you start shouting that this is just some more Project Fear; actually the publication of this was held up in order to not make ratification in the UK more problematic.
Congratulations America
Seemed reasonable to me. We should be doing same.
Ah, but that's the fun of it; you can't and you won't.
Congratulations America
Oops, the EP is also threathening to vote down the Withdrawal Agreement.
Congratulations America
Where is that being reported?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...a-1244850.html
In German. Appearantly there is the issue of who gets to have a say over the joint committee as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. The president of the EP (backed by a majority in the EP) has demanded that the role of the EP is made significantly bigger than it is forseen at the moment, especially in the question of a extension of the transition.. The possibility of rejection is hinted at strongly.
Congratulations America
Twitter Link
I'm starting to think that No Deal is going to happen.
I think it's what the vast majority of leavers want.
It's not what we want but we need to be prepared for it and to be prepared to accept it if we can't get an acceptable deal.
The morons in government and opposition who have blocked no deal preparations on the grounds of its not what we want are both making it more likely and more risky.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
So with a deal, every sector in the UK suffers and everybody is worse off.
With no deal, every sector suffers more, and everybody is even worse off than that.
But its ok cos blablabla blue passport or something.
Says who?
Are you really sure about that?
RB - if the two options in front of us really are May's deal or no-deal, which one would you choose? And, would you like to be given the opportunity to vote on them?
FISH
*waves a fish around*
Govt says you should be prepared to vary your diet in the unlikely event of a no deal brexit.FISH
*waves a fish around*
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
*waves a can of Spam around*
BREXIT
Though I would deeply regret it, I would honestly choose no deal, but holding the door open to a revised deal that does away with the backstop. The backstop is beyond the pale to me. No I don't want the opportunity to vote on them, we have less than 100 days to go there simply isn't time (and any delay would take us to the EP elections which opens up a whole new can of worms), I want Parliament to get on with its job and then we judge it for succeeding or failing accordingly.
Or the projections are wrong.
If we had the time would you want to vote on it?
No because "the projections are wrong" aka. everything is fine
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Maybe, maybe not.
To be fair we should have had a vote on Lisbon [it was in all parties manifestos to have one on the Constitution] and probably prior agreements but we never did. Its funny to see people who were so opposed to giving the public a say in the original 2016 referendum or any previous treaties so desperate to get one now because they are desperate to reverse the last ballot. Whatever happened to not trusting the public and that the MPs should decide?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote