Brexit: Germany says not time to discuss Article 50 extension

[Snow Leopard]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

What are you talking about Tories wanting to get rid of the EU?

 

.. makes sense in similar manner.. 

 

I assume you wouldn't take the DUP members who demand such thing too seriously.

Do you know what the DUP stands for? What the 12th of July is? Its the last party in the UK that would want to ditch the monarchy.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Snow Leopard said:

Do you know what the DUP stands for? What the 12th of July is? Its the last party in the UK that would want to ditch the monarchy.

Which was exactly the point. I'm afraid it went way over your head, not surprising for a Brexiteer. 555

[Snow Leopard]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The had 1, that's right, ONE MP elected to parliament and he was a sitting MP who had defected from the Tory party. Massive support? Really?

Not in local elections, they didn't. They split the 2 main parties and I call that democratic. The Brexit vote was democratic as well. 

 

The vote was the vote so let's move on. 

 

What do we do? Another referendum? Then if it goes to remain this time do we have best out of 3 or best out of 5?

 

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

Not in local elections, they didn't. They split the 2 main parties and I call that democratic. The Brexit vote was democratic as well. 

 

The vote was the vote so let's move on. 

 

What do we do? Another referendum? Then if it goes to remain this time do we have best out of 3 or best out of 5?

 

Do you agree that it would have been better for the government to have held the referendum after the negotiations had concluded rather than before they had started? Take your time.

 

That would be 1 referendum, held now rather than one referendum in 2016 and calls for a second referendum now.

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

What do we do? Another referendum? Then if it goes to remain this time do we have best out of 3 or best out of 5?

At the point when remain wins, the situation is on it's way back to normality. 

 

After that, the loud voices of the 5-7% Brexit mob can be once again ignored and forgotten.

 

Simple, really. The wounds caused by this mess will be forgotten in a year or two. Mogg can return to his form of being a silly hat in a Monopoly game. Farage moves to Germany to get away from awful British politics. Boris becomes the champion of EU, telling everybody how great it is for UK to stay in the EU with all it's benefits and with all UK's rebates. 

[Caledonia Boy]

It seems that if and when Brexit happens the plan is for there to be visa free travel between the UK and EU. Anyone that thinks that people coming to the UK from the EU won't work for cash in hand if they choose too is deluded. They will still come and go as they please and will not pay taxes. I'm sure there will be a reciprocal medical treatment agreement put in place as well. So what exactly will we have gained after the conclusion of this debacle. Taking back control of our borders? Yer havin a giraffe!

[JonnyF]

53 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Because that wouldn't have been true. The monies that we couldn't negotiate away were made public, but only made up a portion of the final settlement agreed to.

Therefore what I said IS true. 

 

Look, a very small amount is obligated. The rest of the 39 Billion is the EU demanding money for nothing. Why? Because they know May is stupid/weak enough to agree with it. We get nothing for it other than a promise of "best endeavors to agree a trade deal" in the future. 

 

It's amazing that they could even request that we agree the divorce payment amount before we started negotiating the deal (and therefore didn't know what we were paying for), but sums up perfectly the EU's unreasonable, cynical and dictatorial stance. As it turns out, it's 39 Billion for nothing but a promise, an amount agreed before we even negotiated the terms of any trade deal.

 

It's one of the reasons I prefer a clean Brexit. We can keep the vast majority of that taxpayers money and spend it on the UK people who paid those taxes to smooth out the leaving process. 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

21 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Regardless of whether Brexit is a good thing or not, this bungled leaving process has turned into a national humiliation for the UK, being gleefully watched around the globe.

 

The main culprits are the spineless government and manipulating civil service, neither of which want to do what the referendum vote told them to do.

disagree

the culprit is the UK parliament

 

[Snow Leopard]

24 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Do you agree that it would have been better for the government to have held the referendum after the negotiations had concluded rather than before they had started? Take your time.

 

That would be 1 referendum, held now rather than one referendum in 2016 and calls for a second referendum now.

 

 

They did. Where have you been? 

 

The Beginning

It starts with an election pledge.

In 2013, then-prime minister David Cameron promises to take the issue of Europe back to the people if the Conservatives win the next election.

In its 2015 manifesto, the party says people's concerns over Britain's membership of the European Union have been ignored, and promises them an in-out referendum by the end of 2017 at the latest.

For too long, your voice has been ignored on Europe. We will give you a say over whether we should stay in or leave the EU with an in-out referendum before the end of 2017. Conservative Party Manifesto 2015

Europe had bedevilled Tory leaders for decades - think of the problems experienced by Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Having once promised to stop his party "banging on about Europe", Cameron finds the issue creeping back up the political agenda as his time in Downing Street wears on.

A key driver of his decision to promise a referendum is the rise of UKIP, then led by Nigel Farage. The eurosceptic party was enjoying strong opinion poll ratings, so the thinking was that Cameron wanted to halt the rise of UKIP and definitively settle the European question.

The Conservatives win a surprise majority in the election, bringing to an end the coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and setting Britain on a path that will eventually result in Brexit.

Within months of returning to Downing Street, Cameron embarks on a much-trumpeted tour of Europe in an attempt to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Brussels.

He returns with what he thinks is a good deal, although debate rages to this day as to whether Cameron could - and should - have demanded more.

On the steps of Downing Street in February 2016, he announces the EU referendum will be held on 23 June that year and pledges to campaign for Britain to stay in a reformed EU.

[Snow Leopard]

8 minutes ago, Caledonia Boy said:

It seems that if and when Brexit happens the plan is for there to be visa free travel between the UK and EU. Anyone that thinks that people coming to the UK from the EU won't work for cash in hand if they choose too is deluded. They will still come and go as they please and will not pay taxes. I'm sure there will be a reciprocal medical treatment agreement put in place as well. So what exactly will we have gained after the conclusion of this debacle. Taking back control of our borders? Yer havin a giraffe!

Maybe the UK can get Big Joke on a 5-year contract. 

[Enki]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

He quit because he was ill-prepared and made demands that the EU found laughable.

Correct. UK wants to quit while keeping all benefits of the EU and don't be burdened by payments or obligations to the EU or EU citizens.

No deal simply means, they are on the level as Somalia ... no worker from the EU can enter the UK without visa, can not work without work permit etc.

No UK citizen can visit the EU without visa, can not work ... can not make vacation in Spain, have his retirement in Portugal or Greece or on Martinique or Madeira etc.

 

I simplify ... but bottom line that is the "no deal".

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Snow Leopard said:

They did. Where have you been? 

Another post flown straight over your head.

 

The hypothetical scenario is: a choice between having a referendum in 2016 or triggering Article 50 without a referendum and then holding the referendum once negotiations had been concluded, I.e early 2019.

 

Which would have been the sensible thing to do?

 

Feel free to phone a friend.

[Snow Leopard]

2 minutes ago, Enki said:

Correct. UK wants to quit while keeping all benefits of the EU and don't be burdened by payments or obligations to the EU or EU citizens.

No deal simply means, they are on the level as Somalia ... no worker from the EU can enter the UK without visa, can not work without work permit etc.

No UK citizen can visit the EU without visa, can not work ... can not make vacation in Spain, have his retirement in Portugal or Greece or on Martinique or Madeira etc.

 

I simplify ... but bottom line that is the "no deal".

Rubbish. Visas will only be required if working. 

[melvinmelvin]

17 hours ago, smedly said:

yes we will stop buying your goods lol

 

if only

 

trade will continue between the EU and UK, if it doesn't then the EU will implode and the UK will still continue trading across Europe - win win for the UK not so sure about the EU

my gawd

dream on

 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Snow Leopard said:

Rubbish. Visas will only be required if working. 

Probably true but we don't know that for certain yet.

[Enki]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

I wonder, am I alone in detecting some (perhaps unconscious) irony in using a photograph of a German politician addressing a conference on "issues of a hundred years of German Polish policy" to accompany a report of same German politician commenting on German Government umh, reaction to and involvement in possible events driving UK relationships with Europe.

 

Maybe it is just my warped sense of humour...

No, not warped sense of humor. That was my first impression, too! And I'm German ????

[Snow Leopard]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Another post flown straight over your head.

 

The hypothetical scenario is: a choice between having a referendum in 2016 or triggering Article 50 without a referendum and then holding the referendum once negotiations had been concluded, I.e early 2019.

 

Which would have been the sensible thing to do?

 

Feel free to phone a friend.

I see your point almost. My opinion as always been this.

 

UK has a non-binding referendum after the General Election.

For sure that vote would have been to leave. 

Go to Brussels and negotiate.

Then have a binding referendum based on the offer on the table.

 

The outcome would be what it would be

 

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

I see your point almost. My opinion as always been this.

 

UK has a non-binding referendum after the General Election.

For sure that vote would have been to leave. 

Go to Brussels and negotiate.

Then have a binding referendum based on the offer on the table.

 

The outcome would be what it would be

 

So you agree that we should have a 2nd referendum now?

[Snow Leopard]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

So you agree that we should have a 2nd referendum now?

No, I don't. Too late. The first one was binding. I would agree to another referendum in a few years on whether we should re-enter or not. 

 

You cannot win this argument now either way.  Anything but abiding by the result is undemocratic. 

[JAG]

2 hours ago, mfd101 said:

I should have thought that any half-intelligently run democracy requires the voters to have a clear knowledge and understanding of current issues BEFORE they vote so that the collective outcome can be at least half rational ...

Whoa! 

 

The whole point of a democracy is that it is based on the universal franchise. That means that everyone has the vote, one person one vote. The only limitations should be age (18 in the UK), and possibly a few disbarred: in the UK prisoners serving a sentence after a conviction, members of the House of Lords and (I think) the insane. As soon as you introduce any subjective qualification, educational attainment. religious convictions, political views, race, income threshold, owning property, perceived intelligence, anything really, you no longer have a universal franchise, you no longer have a democracy.

 

 

To return to my first point, as soon as you start to rationalise that because someone disagrees with you they must be a fool, and too stupid to be entrusted with a vote (a not uncommon argument on this forum lately) you have ceased to practice democracy.

[mfd101]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

Whoa! 

 

The whole point of a democracy is that it is based on the universal franchise. That means that everyone has the vote, one person one vote. The only limitations should be age (18 in the UK), and possibly a few disbarred: in the UK prisoners serving a sentence after a conviction, members of the House of Lords and (I think) the insane. As soon as you introduce any subjective qualification, educational attainment. religious convictions, political views, race, income threshold, owning property, perceived intelligence, anything really, you no longer have a universal franchise, you no longer have a democracy.

 

 

To return to my first point, as soon as you start to rationalise that because someone disagrees with you they must be a fool, and too stupid to be entrusted with a vote (a not uncommon argument on this forum lately) you have ceased to practice democracy.

I wasn't suggesting ANY of that. This is the C21st not the C19th.

 

I was merely suggesting that political & other leaders have a moral (non-partisan) duty to ensure that, to the extent possible, every voter is well-informed of issues, consequences & related facts so that the voters can make (one hopes) rational decisions BEFORE they vote. Something that was apparently NOT the case in the Brexit referendum.

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

I wasn't suggesting ANY of that. This is the C21st not the C19th.

 

I was merely suggesting that political & other leaders have a moral (non-partisan) duty to ensure that, to the extent possible, every voter is well-informed of issues, consequences & related facts so that the voters can make (one hopes) rational decisions BEFORE they vote. Something that was apparently NOT the case in the Brexit referendum.

1

Who is to decide whether political & other leaders have failed to comply with that duty? And if it is decided that they have who decides, and by what means, to "qualify" an electoral result to reflect that?

 

You see, that is inevitably where such a practice will lead.

 

I. and I am sure a great many others thought long and hard and weighed up many of the issues, consequences & related facts before we cast our vote. We may not have come to the same conclusions as you did, that does not mean that out decisions were neither rational nor valid. 

[Baerboxer]

22 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It would be amusing if the EU declared the UK had to leave, change of mind or not.

It'll never happen of course, but I can dream.

 

The other member states cannot legally do that. So dream on.

[Baerboxer]

26 minutes ago, JAG said:

Who is to decide whether political & other leaders have failed to comply with that duty? And if it is decided that they have who decides, and by what means, to "qualify" an electoral result to reflect that?

 

You see, that is inevitably where such a practice will lead.

 

I. and I am sure a great many others thought long and hard and weighed up many of the issues, consequences & related facts before we cast our vote. We may not have come to the same conclusions as you did, that does not mean that out decisions were neither rational nor valid. 

 

Agreed. But the UK is a representative democracy. Cameron instigated the referendum and it was stated in the legislation that it was advisory only. May on replacing the idiot Cameron, tried to ignore parliamentary procedure by claiming it was more than advisory and therefore she could simply use the Royal Prerogative and her cabinet could implement this and negotiate the terms without any reference to parliament. When challenges she took it all the way to the Supreme Court, losing, at great tax payer expense.

Now we have government and opposition who both seem trying to put forward an alternative that simply isn't wanted or achievable. A deal few support or an inexperienced opposition leader who claims he could do better without saying how!

 

Whilst I'm sure some gave this very serious thought before voting , and were rational, whether leave or remain, I'm sure others were swayed by the lies told by both sets of campaigners.

 

Now parliament seems split, political parties seem split and many if not all are pursuing their own agendas rather than fighting for what's best for the country, facing up to reality and admitting the truth.

 

Whichever option is taken, British politics will never be the same.

[Enki]

2 hours ago, Snow Leopard said:

Rubbish. Visas will only be required if working. 

No.

If YOU have no deal. You fall into the same category as e.g. my Thai GF. You will need a visa, just like her, to enter the EU ... and you will retaliate by demanding the same from EU citizens. Hence: you need a "no visa deal" ... so far you have "no deal" .... so much to "rubbish".

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Snow Leopard said:

No, I don't. Too late. The first one was binding. I would agree to another referendum in a few years on whether we should re-enter or not. 

 

You cannot win this argument now either way.  Anything but abiding by the result is undemocratic. 

 

The legal act which was necessary for the first one clearly described it as advisory and not binding.

[bomber]

13 hours ago, vinny41 said:

It's not Brexit Britain most likely to have a recession. It's Germany

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/08/its-not-brexit-britain-most-likely-to-suffer-recession-its-germany

theres a world recession coming and all nations will be affected,China has just sold less cars for the first time in the last 20 years,that tells you its coming for sure,not the time to be acting the big boy thinking you can go it alone and thrive,just not going to happen no matter how many baldy drunken bulldogs down spoonies tell you it will,get real even our MPs are starting to realise the dream is over.Germany will still put the UK to shame before,during and after the coming recession.

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, mfd101 said:

I wasn't suggesting ANY of that. This is the C21st not the C19th.

 

I was merely suggesting that political & other leaders have a moral (non-partisan) duty to ensure that, to the extent possible, every voter is well-informed of issues, consequences & related facts so that the voters can make (one hopes) rational decisions BEFORE they vote. Something that was apparently NOT the case in the Brexit referendum.

yes, this is the 21st,

problem is UK state governance lives in the 17th or 18th century

 

UK has challenges, severe ones

 

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Spidey said:

That's because we wanted to negotiate without triggering Article 50. As soon as it was triggered the negotiations started.

 

There was nothing to prevent the government from doing this without a referendum and then holding a referendum, leave or remain, once negotiations had been concluded.

 

I honestly can't see how anyone, brexiteer or remainer, could argue that it was better to hold a referendum before the negotiations rather than after the deal was concluded and all of us could see what was on the table.

 

 

Cobblers. Same as yesterday.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

disagree

the culprit is the UK parliament

 

disagree

the culprit is the UK government the day, which includes the Civil Service.