Brexit View

[flocker spotter]

I have decided I don't want the country back & I have no yearning for non specific sovereignty. Not that it was ever *ours* to begin with. maybe it was *yours of *theirs* but never mine. Maybe it was 'ginny Wades or Basil Brush's but never ever mine.

[Alan Medic]

JohnL Wrote:

>

> And David Davis has threatened to resign today

> over the "backstop" being time limited - May wants

> it time limited but with no specific time (typical

> May)

I think it's the other way round.

[JohnL]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

>

> >

> > And David Davis has threatened to resign today

> > over the "backstop" being time limited - May

> wants

> > it time limited but with no specific time

> (typical

> > May)

>

> I think it's the other way round.

Confused, you won't be after this weeks episode of Brexit.

[diable rouge]

It's a time-limited backstop with no time-limit on it :)

As someone succinctly put it - So Davis has won the competition to have his version of the backstop rejected by the EU. Bully for him.

And so the omnishambles goes on..and on...and on...

[JohnL]

And here's the fudge :) The UK expects (but it can expect all it wants if the EU doesn't listen)

"The UK is clear that the temporary customs arrangement, should it be needed, should be time limited, and that it will be only in place until the future customs arrangement can be introduced. The UK is clear that the future customs arrangement needs to deliver on the commitments made in relation to Northern Ireland. The UK expects the future arrangement to be in place by the end of December 2021 at the latest. There are a range of options for how a time limit could be delivered, which the UK will propose and discuss with the EU."

[edcam]

This hideous carnival gets no better, does it? Oh please let Labour replace Corbyn with someone with some balls. This nightmare could be over pretty quickly with the right leader who can read the country.

[diable rouge]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And here's the fudge :) The UK expects (but it

> can expect all it wants if the EU doesn't listen)

It's not about the EU not listening, they've made their position perfectly clear. It's the UK with their fingers in their ears.

''Expects'' isn't a legally binding term, which it needs to be, so on that alone it will get rejected.

Michel Barnier has already responded ...

I welcome publication of #UK proposal on customs aspects of IE/NI backstop.

We will examine it with 3 questions: is it a workable solution to avoid a hard border? Does it respect the integrity of the SM/CU? Is it an all-weather backstop?

That'lll be a ''Non'' then...:)

[JohnL]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Michel Barnier has already responded ...

>

> I welcome publication of #UK proposal on customs

> aspects of IE/NI backstop.

> We will examine it with 3 questions: is it a

> workable solution to avoid a hard border? Does it

> respect the integrity of the SM/CU? Is it an

> all-weather backstop?

>

> That'll be a ''Non'' then...:)

That sounds like a university tutor accepting a rather rubbish bit of work.

[Alan Medic]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > JohnL Wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > And David Davis has threatened to resign

> today

> > > over the "backstop" being time limited - May

> > wants

> > > it time limited but with no specific time

> > (typical

> > > May)

> >

> > I think it's the other way round.

>

> Confused, you won't be after this weeks episode of

> Brexit.

Confused.You or me?

[JohnL]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Alan Medic Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > JohnL Wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > And David Davis has threatened to resign

> > today

> > > > over the "backstop" being time limited -

> May

> > > wants

> > > > it time limited but with no specific time

> > > (typical

> > > > May)

> > >

> > > I think it's the other way round.

> >

> > Confused, you won't be after this weeks episode

> of

> > Brexit.

>

> Confused.You or me?

Everyone but I was going off the Guardian as always :) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/06/customs-backstop-we-expect-a-time-limit-stresses-david-davis. apologies if I re-phrased it badly.

Anyway the new editor of the Daily Mail is Geordie Greig who supports Remain - maybe things are moving our way.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/07/new-daily-mail-editor-to-be-geordie-greig

[DadOf4]

Anybody going along on the 23rd June ?

https://www.open-britain.co.uk/biggest_ever_pro_european_march_to_be_held_on_23rd_june_for_a_people_s_vote

[diable rouge]

I know who won't...Jeremy Corbyn

Meanwhile, Bigmouth strikes again...

2016 - "A door has magically opened in our lives. We can see the sunlit meadows beyond."

2018 - "I don't want anybody to panic during the meltdown"

:)

[Alan Medic]

DadOf4 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anybody going along on the 23rd June ?

> https://www.open-britain.co.uk/biggest_ever_pro_eu

> ropean_march_to_be_held_on_23rd_june_for_a_people_

> s_vote

I've never been on a march in my life, but I may start here.

[poch]

Am going!

Looking more and more likely it's going to be a soft Brexit - Labour limping in that direction - which means a botched outcome that doesn't satisfy anyone PLUS years more of this crap.

PEOPLE'S VOTE MARCH JUNE 23rd!

[keano77]

I would presume that any final deal will be a hard fought compromise agreed by both Britain and the EU on the basis it stands a good chance of being passed by our parliament and all 27 EU parliaments and their regional ones, regardless of how unsatisfactory or unpalatable it is to Brexiters or Remainers.

If a ?People?s vote? then rejects it you might have voted for a hard Brexit

[Jenny1]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've never been on a march in my life, but I may

> start here.

Same.

[JohnL]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would presume that any final deal will be a hard

> fought compromise agreed by both Britain and the

> EU on the basis it stands a good chance of being

> passed by our parliament and all 27 EU parliaments

> and their regional ones, regardless of how

> unsatisfactory or unpalatable it is to Brexiters

> or Remainers.

>

> If a ?People?s vote? then rejects it you might

> have voted for a hard Brexit

If a vote didn't include "remain" then it wouldn't be worth having.

What the government is saying is beginning to sound more and more like something from Alice in Wonderland - what does the below mean ? are they accepting defeat is probable now ? As I understand it if TM loses the vote Parliament will direct what happens next (new vote, remain, leave with no deal) - she's not taking newly won parliament authority away.

"The government has proposed a 28-day breathing space if parliament rejects Theresa May?s Brexit deal.

The MPs have held their fire thus far in response to the compromise offer, though one said they believed it to be insubstantial. The amendment would bind the offer of a parliamentary vote into law, but remove the timetable laid down in a Lords amendment of how the government should respond to any defeat."

"A spokesperson for the Department for Exiting the European Union said: ?Our amendment removes parliament?s ability to direct the government in relation to negotiations, which would set a huge constitution precedent in terms of which branch of the state hold prerogative to act in the international sphere.?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/08/theresa-may-to-hold-peace-summit-over-brexit-white-paperal

[JoeLeg]

Look, people can march as much as they like, but realistically we all know it?s not going to be put to a public vote again.

I think marches etc are fine for purposes of keeping public pressure on government, but I hope no one is kidding themselves that it will actually to any kind of referendum, plebiscite or vote. Nor should it, to my mind (and everyone is free to tell me I?m wrong). We elect officials to lead the country, and this is part of it. The final deal will be so complex that there?s no way the whole of the voting public can be expected to comprehend it in enough detail to render a considered vote. That?s not to call people stupid, just that this is a sodding complex issue way beyond the realms of Twitter.

I?m still really angry that the govt has been so idiotic thus far, and part of me hopes the whole thing is a clever Trump-esque ?method in our madness? scheme, and not the amateur hour it appears to be so far.

We?re going to be arguing about it for a long time regardless...

[JohnL]

If I can read body language the UK is at the back of the queue for a US trade deal again.

[JoeLeg]

Wherever we are in the queue, we?re going to get screwed by them. Kiss goodbye to the NHS in any reasonable form because a non-negotiable stance from Washington is that we have to open it up to US healthcare business. Not convinced that May will hold her ground on this matter, even though she claims the NHS is not for sale.

[edcam]

Which is precisely why we shouldn?t have had a referendum in the first place. If we had referenda on everything we would have capital punishment and many other ills.

would have JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Look, people can march as much as they like, but

> realistically we all know it?s not going to be put

> to a public vote again.

>

> I think marches etc are fine for purposes of

> keeping public pressure on government, but I hope

> no one is kidding themselves that it will actually

> to any kind of referendum, plebiscite or vote. Nor

> should it, to my mind (and everyone is free to

> tell me I?m wrong). We elect officials to lead the

> country, and this is part of it. The final deal

> will be so complex that there?s no way the whole

> of the voting public can be expected to comprehend

> it in enough detail to render a considered vote.

> That?s not to call people stupid, just that this

> is a sodding complex issue way beyond the realms

> of Twitter.

>

> I?m still really angry that the govt has been so

> idiotic thus far, and part of me hopes the whole

> thing is a clever Trump-esque ?method in our

> madness? scheme, and not the amateur hour it

> appears to be so far.

>

> We?re going to be arguing about it for a long time

> regardless...

[Alan Medic]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Look, people can march as much as they like, but

> realistically we all know it?s not going to be put

> to a public vote again.

>

> I think marches etc are fine for purposes of

> keeping public pressure on government, but I hope

> no one is kidding themselves that it will actually

> to any kind of referendum, plebiscite or vote. Nor

> should it, to my mind (and everyone is free to

> tell me I?m wrong). We elect officials to lead the

> country, and this is part of it. The final deal

> will be so complex that there?s no way the whole

> of the voting public can be expected to comprehend

> it in enough detail to render a considered vote.

> That?s not to call people stupid, just that this

> is a sodding complex issue way beyond the realms

> of Twitter.

>

> I?m still really angry that the govt has been so

> idiotic thus far, and part of me hopes the whole

> thing is a clever Trump-esque ?method in our

> madness? scheme, and not the amateur hour it

> appears to be so far.

>

> We?re going to be arguing about it for a long time

> regardless...

Joe, to extract the country from the EU is a complex issue (as you say) which the current government has shown itself incapable of dealing with due to TM having to deal with the different factions in her own party. I for one have no confidence that they are capable of deciding what is best for the country, when in my opinion they are deciding what is best for each of them individually.

If it's a case of a 'people's vote' or parliament deciding, I will accept it. This is on the proviso that MP's are not whipped into voting one way or another.Leaving will be a disaster in my opinion. A free vote after debate is the best option. Then at least the UK will get the country it deserves.

[JoeLeg]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is precisely why we shouldn?t have had a

> referendum in the first place. If we had referenda

> on everything we would have capital punishment and

> many other ills.

>

>

Agreed. Very very very much agreed.

[Alan Medic]

Well in Ireland they had one recently and for the most part it went very well. But they have a constitution and to alter it they are obliged to have a referendum. That seems perfectly correct.

They do have a part to play in the right circumstances. Here though it was all about party politics.

[keano77]

JoeLeg: a nice generalisation there.

?Kiss goodbye to the NHS in any reasonable form?

The NHS needs top to bottom reform.

Some extreme examples:

1. Smokers/drinkers. Bad Lifestyle choice don?t treat them. Understandable until you add up the taxes that they have paid that have helped train NHS doctors and staff.

2. Healthy lifestyles. You choose to jog. Your hibs, knees, ankles. boobs suffer. Your choice. Why should NHS treat you for free?

3. One goes to, say, Prague, for a holiday and boob job. Complications. Why should NHS treat you for free?

4. An individual is confused over gender, was born with a witch?s nose, cross-eyed etc. Why should NHS treat you for free?

5. Unproven homeopathic nonsense.

Politicians are too frightened to grasp the nettle on flagrant waste of limited resources.

Edcam:

You appear to be worried that if ?the people? have their say you will find that the majority do not hold your views.

There is a reason why, unlike the Republic of Ireland, the British people were not given the chance to vote on gay marriage. The politicians knew it would not pass.