Brexit

Non-fashion, non-skirt, non-gender discussions. If your post is related to fashion, skirts or gender, please choose one of the forums above for it.

Re: Brexit

Postby Gusto10 » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:50 am

SkirtsDad wrote:
skirtyscot wrote:
Gusto10 wrote:but still the question remains May it or May it not happen, all we now know is the May wouldn't fall during April. May has a hell of a job trying to get all wishes fulfilled for which she needs i.m.o. much respect.

She has spent the entire time ignoring everybody except the ERG.

Respect? Hahahahahahahaha no.


My sentiment exactly. She is nothing short of a belligerent, sanctimonious xenophobe, obsessed with imigration since her time at the homeoffice (if not before), and whose only interest, it would seem, is implimenting what she wants, regardless of concequences. The red lines that she has draw for Brexit are entirely her own doing and were not based on any cross-party concensus or even talking to her own people. Her idea of compromise, as even her own ministers have commented, is getting others to do what she wants, and if she can't she tries any unscupulous means to achieve it including bribary (DUP), trying to break the law (See Gina Miller court case) and threats (no deal/general election/no brexit) etc.

When it comes to her dislike of 'foreigners' just take a look at the Windrush Scandal where they deported people who have legitimately lived in the UK for over 40 years. This government goes after people who are legitimately here as presumably they make easier targets than chasing after people that are not in the system and who therefore can't be traced. In one instance, they tried to deport a friend of mine based on the idea that he was in a marriage of convenience (for 14 years and with a kid????) and that he'd married a Bulgarian so he could stay in Europe..... slight problem.... they overlook that when they got married Bulgaria was not even in the EU. After months of stress and meetings with lawyers it finally went to court..... the government didn't even turn up.... they were never going to win, but it didn't stop them wasting 10s of thousands of pounds of tax payers money.


Governments screwing their constituents is happening all over the place. In the mean time I have gained quit some experience in the field and am quit capable of giving the civil servants something to do for the tax money I pay. Such included a go at the supreme/high court with succes. They seem to have forgotten that they should talk the talk of the ones who pay them, being the constituent.

But it's not only your PM, but also Brussels playing tough. They will do all to penalise the UK for leaving and that might be the source of the red lines mentioned. And don't forget, when the camera's are rolling, the momentum between the actors will be totally different from what is going on behind the scenes/out of sight. No business like show business.

Something that happens most times out of sight of the general public, is that the civil servants draw up a letter with point of interest and plans for the coming years prior to the elections. Each political party take therefrom what they want to "preach". Hence the continuity in the way you are governed.

And may I point out, that the alternative plan presented twice by Corbyn in Brussels has not been incorporated at all?
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Brexit

Postby Ray » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:22 am

What I find amazing about all of this is that few really cared about the EU prior to the calling of the referendum on the subject. That was early 2016. Now we are a divided nation, leaderless to boot.
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby SkirtsDad » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:58 pm

Gusto10 wrote:But it's not only your PM, but also Brussels playing tough. They will do all to penalise the UK for leaving and that might be the source of the red lines mentioned.......

And may I point out, that the alternative plan presented twice by Corbyn in Brussels has not been incorporated at all?


Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "playing tough", since I do not see the intransigence of TM driven by her obsession as in any way tough. Would you also point out where you see the EU trying to penalise the UK? Leaving is simply a process that has to be gone through to tie up loose ends, such as how much we owe given that we committed to pay and now want to leave early... just in the same way that there are usually costs associated with leaving a morgage or rental agreement early, for instance. The conditions for leaving were set out when we joined, so how can the EU be "playing tough" by simply expecting the UK to honour the terms that we signed up to?

Sorry, but I am confused by your last point. Please would you explain.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby Sinned » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:35 am

SD, the problem with honouring the exit terms set out when we joined is that the European entity that exists now is a completely different beast that the one we joined. I don't have any experience to know whether the subsequent various treaties that were signed since to result in the current invocation of Europe ( version 4.0.1? ) updated the exit terms from what was in the original treaty. Maybe, maybe not? Was it even posited since that any member country [0] would want to leave?

[0] I refuse to use the term "state".
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3612
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Brexit

Postby SkirtsDad » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:15 pm

Sinned wrote:SD, the problem with honouring the exit terms set out when we joined is that the European entity that exists now is a completely different beast that the one we joined. I don't have any experience to know whether the subsequent various treaties that were signed since to result in the current invocation of Europe ( version 4.0.1? ) updated the exit terms from what was in the original treaty. Maybe, maybe not? Was it even posited since that any member country would want to leave?


I really don't see the relevance of how terms might have been when we joined. The exit terms as they exist today were know when the referendum was called. The British can hardly call foul when they draughted Article 50 in the first place. The Good Friday agreement, and the constraints that it brings was also known about.

Where were people informed that the leaving process would take years and that the way we leave is very limited, for good reason? Was No Deal ever a possibility? To abandon any form of customs union essencially tears up the Good Friday agreement that brought an end to decades of hostility and revenge killings. It not only affected Northern Ireland, but the UK mainland too. It is worth remembering that Northern Ireland voted remain, so did Wales, so did Scotland, and so did Gibraltar. The only country to vote leave, by just a small majority, was England, yet they are dragging the other countries out with them.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby Gusto10 » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:20 pm

SkirtsDad wrote:
Gusto10 wrote:But it's not only your PM, but also Brussels playing tough. They will do all to penalise the UK for leaving and that might be the source of the red lines mentioned.......

And may I point out, that the alternative plan presented twice by Corbyn in Brussels has not been incorporated at all?


Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "playing tough", since I do not see the intransigence of TM driven by her obsession as in any way tough. Would you also point out where you see the EU trying to penalise the UK? Leaving is simply a process that has to be gone through to tie up loose ends, such as how much we owe given that we committed to pay and now want to leave early... just in the same way that there are usually costs associated with leaving a morgage or rental agreement early, for instance. The conditions for leaving were set out when we joined, so how can the EU be "playing tough" by simply expecting the UK to honour the terms that we signed up to?

Sorry, but I am confused by your last point. Please would you explain.

Brussels will not make it easy for a country to leave. Hence the charges quoted as to what the UK has to pay. There are 27 countries on one side and the Uk on the other side. So those 27 will set the rules and TM will have to doe het utmost to get the best deal possible. As it will be difficult to amend an agreement under normal circumstances, now to alter the agreement reached between Brussels and TM on behalf of the Uk will be almost impossible. That is why Corbyn mentioned red lines. Contrary to a tennis court there is only an inner court no outer court. the outer court would give the possibility of renegotiating the deal (at points).
People like Junckers will consider it a personal matter when country decides to leave.
The conditions for leaving weren't set when joining, but in the European statute, where it's also indicated that the period for stepping out is 3 years. The statute is more a political document than a usable document. It's gibberish, incomprehensible, missing every form of logic.
You mentioned that Ireland, Wales, Gibraltar and Scotland sais no to a Brexit. In essence such a construction could be considered a form of federalism, but the centre of politics decides.
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Brexit

Postby Ray » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:55 pm

Two small technical points.

1. I believe that Wales narrowly voted to leave. Bizarre given the level of EU funding but there you are.

2. (The Republic of) Ireland, being a separate sovereign state to the UK, was not a party to the UK referendum. I believe you were referring to Northern Ireland - a different kettle of fish altogether..
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby SkirtsDad » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:05 pm

Gusto10 wrote:Brussels will not make it easy for a country to leave. Hence the charges quoted as to what the UK has to pay. There are 27 countries on one side and the Uk on the other side. So those 27 will set the rules and TM will have to doe het utmost to get the best deal possible. As it will be difficult to amend an agreement under normal circumstances, now to alter the agreement reached between Brussels and TM on behalf of the Uk will be almost impossible. That is why Corbyn mentioned red lines. Contrary to a tennis court there is only an inner court no outer court. the outer court would give the possibility of renegotiating the deal (at points).
People like Junckers will consider it a personal matter when country decides to leave.
The conditions for leaving weren't set when joining, but in the European statute, where it's also indicated that the period for stepping out is 3 years. The statute is more a political document than a usable document. It's gibberish, incomprehensible, missing every form of logic.
You mentioned that Ireland, Wales, Gibraltar and Scotland sais no to a Brexit. In essence such a construction could be considered a form of federalism, but the centre of politics decides.


"Brussels will not make it easy for a country to leave.": There is a withdrawl argreement that was concluded last year. The only thing stopping the UK leaving is the UK as the UK parliament isn't happy with it. The UK therefore asked for an extention to the leaving date, which the EU agreed to. The extention can be shortened or lengthened as required. How is Brussels made or going to make anything difficult?

"That is why Corbyn mentioned red lines.": Please elucidate. What did he say about red lines? What have the red lines got to do with the EU 27?
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby SkirtsDad » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:21 pm

Ray wrote:Two small technical points.

1. I believe that Wales narrowly voted to leave. Bizarre given the level of EU funding but there you are.

2. (The Republic of) Ireland, being a separate sovereign state to the UK, was not a party to the UK referendum. I believe you were referring to Northern Ireland - a different kettle of fish altogether..


1. You are correct. My error. Yes, it is odd, but it is also true of some one the Northern constituencies too. They are some of the biggest recipients of EU funding. In recent interviews, the people they spoke to in Wales were saying that they thought the government should make up the EU funding shortfall. Good luck to them with that one.... this government doesn't have a good track record of handing money to disadvantaged people or areas.

2. I assume you are refering to the comment by Gusto as I did state N.I. and was about to mentioned of his comment that Ireland is very much in the EU and staying there. However you got there before me :-)
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby Gusto10 » Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:31 pm

SkirtsDad wrote:
Gusto10 wrote:Brussels will not make it easy for a country to leave. Hence the charges quoted as to what the UK has to pay. There are 27 countries on one side and the Uk on the other side. So those 27 will set the rules and TM will have to doe het utmost to get the best deal possible. As it will be difficult to amend an agreement under normal circumstances, now to alter the agreement reached between Brussels and TM on behalf of the Uk will be almost impossible. That is why Corbyn mentioned red lines. Contrary to a tennis court there is only an inner court no outer court. the outer court would give the possibility of renegotiating the deal (at points).
People like Junckers will consider it a personal matter when country decides to leave.
The conditions for leaving weren't set when joining, but in the European statute, where it's also indicated that the period for stepping out is 3 years. The statute is more a political document than a usable document. It's gibberish, incomprehensible, missing every form of logic.
You mentioned that Ireland, Wales, Gibraltar and Scotland sais no to a Brexit. In essence such a construction could be considered a form of federalism, but the centre of politics decides.


"Brussels will not make it easy for a country to leave.": There is a withdrawl argreement that was concluded last year. The only thing stopping the UK leaving is the UK as the UK parliament isn't happy with it. The UK therefore asked for an extention to the leaving date, which the EU agreed to. The extention can be shortened or lengthened as required. How is Brussels made or going to make anything difficult?


Extending the date is one thing, but will Brussels amend what ws agreed?

Skirtsdad wrote:"That is why Corbyn mentioned red lines.": Please elucidate. What did he say about red lines? What have the red lines got to do with the EU 27?

An example: https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news ... red-lines/


Indeed I also intended to mention N-i instead of Ireland
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Brexit

Postby Grok » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:31 pm

I have seen comments in other venues. Such as:

1. The French want the Brits out of the EU.

2. Patience is wearing thin, and we might expect one of the EU27 to veto any more extensions.
Grok
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 am

Re: Brexit

Postby SkirtsDad » Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:59 pm

Grok wrote:The French want the Brits out of the EU
Gusto10 wrote:
Extending the date is one thing, but will Brussels amend what ws agreed?

Skirtsdad wrote:"That is why Corbyn mentioned red lines.": Please elucidate. What did he say about red lines? What have the red lines got to do with the EU 27?

An example: https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news ... red-lines/


There is no requirement to amend the withdrawl agreement. There is a political document that goes with it. That is flexible and allows Britiain to adopt various different options such as staying in the Customs Union, the Norway Model etc. etc. So, again, where do you see the EU giving Britain a hard time? From what you have said so far I cannot see anything to support that. The red lines that you seem to be trying to attribute to EU?/Corbyn?, I'm not sure, are May's red line that she has arbitrarily set and are nothing to do with the EU or Corbyn. She is intransigent and refuses to change her proposal despite the UK parliment having thrown it out 3 times. She lacks any leadership skills whatsoever. This is not a secret (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-the-worst-pm_uk_5c937e98e4b068bfd50c5f1c), even many in her own party are critical of her, and some have left, however, she cannot be removed before the 12th December 2019 when they can next raise a vote of no confidance.

Grok wrote:I have seen comments in other venues. Such as:

1. The French want the Brits out of the EU.

2. Patience is wearing thin, and we might expect one of the EU27 to veto any more extensions.


Are you talking about the past or the present? If it's now then it really wouldn't surprise me. I did read a report from a Far-Right German MEP that was now saying that the French have always wanted us out, but I don't see how I can give much creadence at the moment given that it seems to be the first ever mention and the Far-Right are not really that known for their impartiality.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby Gusto10 » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:41 pm

SkirtsDad wrote:
Grok wrote:The French want the Brits out of the EU
Gusto10 wrote:
Extending the date is one thing, but will Brussels amend what ws agreed?

Skirtsdad wrote:"That is why Corbyn mentioned red lines.": Please elucidate. What did he say about red lines? What have the red lines got to do with the EU 27?

An example: https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news ... red-lines/


There is no requirement to amend the withdrawl agreement. There is a political document that goes with it. That is flexible and allows Britiain to adopt various different options such as staying in the Customs Union, the Norway Model etc. etc. So, again, where do you see the EU giving Britain a hard time? From what you have said so far I cannot see anything to support that. The red lines that you seem to be trying to attribute to EU?/Corbyn?, I'm not sure, are May's red line that she has arbitrarily set and are nothing to do with the EU or Corbyn. She is intransigent and refuses to change her proposal despite the UK parliment having thrown it out 3 times. She lacks any leadership skills whatsoever. This is not a secret (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-the-worst-pm_uk_5c937e98e4b068bfd50c5f1c), even many in her own party are critical of her, and some have left, however, she cannot be removed before the 12th December 2019 when they can next raise a vote of no confidance.

Grok wrote:I have seen comments in other venues. Such as:

1. The French want the Brits out of the EU.

2. Patience is wearing thin, and we might expect one of the EU27 to veto any more extensions.


Are you talking about the past or the present? If it's now then it really wouldn't surprise me. I did read a report from a Far-Right German MEP that was now saying that the French have always wanted us out, but I don't see how I can give much creadence at the moment given that it seems to be the first ever mention and the Far-Right are not really that known for their impartiality.


I take it that you have read both the Withdrawal Agreement and the separate Political Declaration. For others: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eclaration (585 pages)
Interesting is to see that in the public discussion hardly any attention is given to the position of the Chanel Islands etc. The extension of time is mentioned in the WA.
In my opinion, it would have been better if the draft WA would have been put to the UK parlement prior to having all 27 EU countries agree on it. Hindsight is beautiful. In essence there is an agreement between the EU an the appointed representatie of the UK with a full proxy. The practise is that considering the way TM's agreement is treated by the UK Parlement, means that her hands were tied afterwards.
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Brexit

Postby SkirtsDad » Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:56 pm

Gusto10 wrote:I take it that you have read both the Withdrawal Agreement and the separate Political Declaration. For others: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eclaration (585 pages)
Interesting is to see that in the public discussion hardly any attention is given to the position of the Chanel Islands etc. The extension of time is mentioned in the WA.
In my opinion, it would have been better if the draft WA would have been put to the UK parlement prior to having all 27 EU countries agree on it. Hindsight is beautiful. In essence there is an agreement between the EU an the appointed representatie of the UK with a full proxy. The practise is that considering the way TM's agreement is treated by the UK Parlement, means that her hands were tied afterwards.


Yes, I have previously looked at the WA, although being a slow reader I have not yet completed the 585 pages ;-) I cannot see any particular reason why the Channel Islands should get a mention since they are Crown Dependencies, and not a part of the UK or in the EU, unlike Gibraltar (that TM initially forgot about!!!) that is a British Overseas Territory and a part of the EU.

People know from TM's time in the Home Office that her modus operandi is not to consult people. Therefore she has tied her own hands as she neither consulted, nor intended to consult parliament regarding the WA. She was hoping to use the Government (and even tried to flout the law to do so) to get the agreement through, not parliament, which is why she called the general election (despite saying that she was not going to call an early general election) and, as is well know, ended up weakening her position, not strengthening it. To that extent, the country, at least for the time being, has probably been saved by her opportunistic error.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Brexit

Postby Gusto10 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:15 pm

SkirtsDad wrote:
Gusto10 wrote:I take it that you have read both the Withdrawal Agreement and the separate Political Declaration. For others: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eclaration (585 pages)
Interesting is to see that in the public discussion hardly any attention is given to the position of the Chanel Islands etc. The extension of time is mentioned in the WA.
In my opinion, it would have been better if the draft WA would have been put to the UK parlement prior to having all 27 EU countries agree on it. Hindsight is beautiful. In essence there is an agreement between the EU an the appointed representatie of the UK with a full proxy. The practise is that considering the way TM's agreement is treated by the UK Parlement, means that her hands were tied afterwards.


Yes, I have previously looked at the WA, although being a slow reader I have not yet completed the 585 pages ;-) I cannot see any particular reason why the Channel Islands should get a mention since they are Crown Dependencies, and not a part of the UK or in the EU, unlike Gibraltar (that TM initially forgot about!!!) that is a British Overseas Territory and a part of the EU.

People know from TM's time in the Home Office that her modus operandi is not to consult people. Therefore she has tied her own hands as she neither consulted, nor intended to consult parliament regarding the WA. She was hoping to use the Government (and even tried to flout the law to do so) to get the agreement through, not parliament, which is why she called the general election (despite saying that she was not going to call an early general election) and, as is well know, ended up weakening her position, not strengthening it. To that extent, the country, at least for the time being, has probably been saved by her opportunistic error.

The continental fog, under which I live, blurs the vision on what is going on at Downingstreet 10. Fm what I can see is that TM, save her own character, is in a spot not to be envied.
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests