Brexit Phase Two - Trade

It is an option, that most of the HoC believe is the worst option.
FFS, hard brexit is not an "option", it is the current default position. To do anything other than that, Parliament must either a) vote for May's "deal", or b) repeal the WA.

CURRENTLY, we're heading for hard brexit because that is the default position at law as we stand today.
 
FFS, hard brexit is not an "option", it is the current default position. To do anything other than that, Parliament must either a) vote for May's "deal", or b) repeal the WA.

CURRENTLY, we're heading for hard brexit because that is the default position at law as we stand today.
I guess this is true, in the same way that your "default position" is to starve to death if you don't bother eating.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
FFS, hard brexit is not an "option", it is the current default position. To do anything other than that, Parliament must either a) vote for May's "deal", or b) repeal the WA.

CURRENTLY, we're heading for hard brexit because that is the default position at law as we stand today.
No doubt we will soon have BL on telling us (incorrectly) that there is no mandate for a hard brexit. Just to pre-empt him, yes there is a mandate, it was the referendum of June 16, which BL refuses to acknowledge his side lost.
 
No doubt we will soon have BL on telling us (incorrectly) that there is no mandate for a hard brexit. Just to pre-empt him, yes there is a mandate, it was the referendum of June 16, which BL refuses to acknowledge his side lost.
In which case surely there's also a mandate for May's deal? The only options in the ballot were in or out so any form of out surely has a mandate?
 
In which case surely there's also a mandate for May's deal? The only options in the ballot were in or out so any form of out surely has a mandate?

I'm guessing that most people wouldn't regard May's draft of "out in a few years, maybe, if the EU is benevolent, and everyone agrees or nothing has changed by then, or..." is considered "out".

The overt and covert attempts to nullify Brexit by the politicians tasked with conducting it mean that much of the population has absolutely no trust in any sort of conditional or legally open-ended transition deal - particularly one which appears to be explicitly designed to string matters out until the electorate "get it right this time".

The huge advantage of "no deal", as ordinary people see it, is that the deed of absolute severance is done right there in real time, and that it cannot thus be subverted.
 
Exactly.

just because the eu is sharting as it sees its best (arguably) member head out of the club doesn't mean it's acceptable to subvert democracy.

ditto because a number of has been politicos are watching a cushy number drift out of view.
 
Can you say if those two examples you used are, in your opinion, both negatives?

Or is the Irish example a positive outcome?
Ireland know what the reality is

Why it was a surprise to most in the U.K. the other day is beyond comprehension

That is the best deal on the table and it’s the one no one (including Ireland and the EU) want
 
But, is May's deal real leaving ?
I'm guessing that most people wouldn't regard May's draft of "out in a few years, maybe, if the EU is benevolent, and everyone agrees or nothing has changed by then, or..." is considered "out".

The overt and covert attempts to nullify Brexit by the politicians tasked with conducting it mean that much of the population has absolutely no trust in any sort of conditional or legally open-ended transition deal - particularly one which appears to be explicitly designed to string matters out until the electorate "get it right this time".

The huge advantage of "no deal", as ordinary people see it, is that the deed of absolute severance is done right there in real time, and that it cannot thus be subverted.
It's almost as if it was stupid to break such a nuanced question of multiple shades of grey into a simple black or white question, isn't it?
 
No doubt we will soon have BL on telling us (incorrectly) that there is no mandate for a hard brexit. Just to pre-empt him, yes there is a mandate, it was the referendum of June 16, which BL refuses to acknowledge his side lost.
The Conservative Party were elected on a mandate to “deliver the best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit

They “need(ed) to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe” andget the right deal for Britain in Europe”

Please now explain how No Deal meets this mandate. ^^

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
 
In which case surely there's also a mandate for May's deal? The only options in the ballot were in or out so any form of out surely has a mandate?
That is certainly May's argument and not an unreasonable one either. The moot point is this: is it really the best deal that May can get? I still think that there is some room for manoeuvre (as does the EU) but it will not get ratified by all 27MS before 29/03/19.
 
That is certainly May's argument and not an unreasonable one either. The moot point is this: is it really the best deal that May can get? I still think that there is some room for manoeuvre (as does the EU) but it will not get ratified by all 27MS before 29/03/19.
The EU have said they will not negotiate any further now. We've had over two years already. Rushing the Article 50 letter in with no planning was almost criminally stupid.
 
No doubt we will soon have BL on telling us (incorrectly) that there is no mandate for a hard brexit. Just to pre-empt him, yes there is a mandate, it was the referendum of June 16, which BL refuses to acknowledge his side lost.
We'll know by the middle of January at the latest what Parliament decides to do and enact. It ought to be obvious that No Deal is a non-starter and an empty bluff.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
CptDanjou Brexit 269
S11Blade Brexit 474
B Medals 22

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top