Jump to content

Brexit talks doomed? Labour concerned May's successor could ditch any deal


webfact

Recommended Posts



So, listening to the debate on LBC this morning, re Mrs May putting the withdrawal agreement back to Parliament (for the 4th time?) next month. 
Apparently she's thinking that after the Tories and Labour get destroyed by the Brexit party in the EU elections, MPs from the main two parties will be so shell shocked and frightened that they'll vote the w/d agreement through.
 
Why the is she still our PM? I'm seriously starting to think she needs psychiatric help...


Psychiatric help..since she was Home Secy...imo

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, vogie said:

If I joined a golf club and the committee surreptitiously turned it into a rugby club, and on the day of the monthly medal I turned up on the first tee and found a set of rugby posts there, I would leave tout suite, as I'm sure that most of the other members would too. Not another penny would leave my palm to such unscrupulous organization.

Funny, funny, I like your jokes. 

However you are wrong. 

If 27 members are happy with the Club (no new rules were implemented) then No 28 needs glasses, or see a doctor or leave the Club paying for his membership up to the end of agreed membership 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, evadgib said:

We'll be fine on WTO or Canada +++  when this nightmare is over ????

Related image

 

Please talk us through the process for agreeing protocols with all member countries of the WTO and include your estimation for how long this process is likely to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

 

 

Let me paste the text. All relevant to Brexit:

 

Reply from the Brexit Secretary and my response

By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: MAY 15, 2019

I have received a reply from the Brexit Secretary following to my recent letter to the Attorney General. The letter is available to view here.

 

Here is my further response to the Secretary of State:

 

Dear Stephen

 

 

Thank you for your letter.

 

You say the Withdrawal Agreement takes us out of the EU, yet you also agree with me that we may well stay fully in without vote or voice under it until December 2022, and you cannot of course tell me what our eventual departure would be  like given how much would need to be negotiated over the so called future partnership. There would also need to be resolution of the alleged Irish border difficulties which so far have proved impossible to resolve despite lengthy talks.

 

I am glad we agree we could be fully under the control of the EU until December 2022 and would have to accept all new rules and laws. I do not accept that these will  be few in number and limited by our possible departure. The EU is a very active legislature, generating a large proportion of our laws over everything from the environment to trade and from migration to transport.

 

I am intrigued that you think £35-39 bn a small sum, and that the Treasury forecasts of our gross contributions now amount to an annual  £16.7bn. One of the main advantages of leaving as was clear in the referendum is the ability to spend our own money on our priorities, which we should  be able to do from now, 3 years after our decision to leave.

 

In a number of areas you point out that the continuing powers of the ECJ and the EU relate to events or commitments made during the transition period. I and many others object to this. Leaving means ending the authority of the EU, not allowing it to interpret past events and impose continuing obligations upon us.

 

You confirm we will not take control of our fishing grounds during the transition period of the Agreement, nor can you promise that the independence of our fishing industry thereafter might not be compromised in subsequent negotiations to get out of the EU in due course.

 

The splitting of the Withdrawal issues from the future partnership issues is against our Manifesto and full of negotiating danger. Why should we sign up to so many things they want, before we have agreed some of the things we might want? Why have we dropped the mantra of “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?”. What exactly do we get for our £39bn (and the higher sums likely to result from the loose and general commitments of the Treaty) in this so called deal?

 

The Agreement is a very expensive invitation to talks about our possible exit. It does not give us either a clear date for leaving or the terms on which we might eventually be allowed out. It locks us into a binding Treaty to behave as a continuing member of the EU without vote or voice over what we have to obey whilst we try to negotiate our way out of the Irish backstop and the other restraints on us.

 

Yours ever

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Let me paste the text. All relevant to Brexit:

 

Reply from the Brexit Secretary and my response

By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: MAY 15, 2019

I have received a reply from the Brexit Secretary following to my recent letter to the Attorney General. The letter is available to view here.

 

Here is my further response to the Secretary of State:

 

Dear Stephen

 

 

Thank you for your letter.

 

You say the Withdrawal Agreement takes us out of the EU, yet you also agree with me that we may well stay fully in without vote or voice under it until December 2022, and you cannot of course tell me what our eventual departure would be  like given how much would need to be negotiated over the so called future partnership. There would also need to be resolution of the alleged Irish border difficulties which so far have proved impossible to resolve despite lengthy talks.

 

I am glad we agree we could be fully under the control of the EU until December 2022 and would have to accept all new rules and laws. I do not accept that these will  be few in number and limited by our possible departure. The EU is a very active legislature, generating a large proportion of our laws over everything from the environment to trade and from migration to transport.

 

I am intrigued that you think £35-39 bn a small sum, and that the Treasury forecasts of our gross contributions now amount to an annual  £16.7bn. One of the main advantages of leaving as was clear in the referendum is the ability to spend our own money on our priorities, which we should  be able to do from now, 3 years after our decision to leave.

 

In a number of areas you point out that the continuing powers of the ECJ and the EU relate to events or commitments made during the transition period. I and many others object to this. Leaving means ending the authority of the EU, not allowing it to interpret past events and impose continuing obligations upon us.

 

You confirm we will not take control of our fishing grounds during the transition period of the Agreement, nor can you promise that the independence of our fishing industry thereafter might not be compromised in subsequent negotiations to get out of the EU in due course.

 

The splitting of the Withdrawal issues from the future partnership issues is against our Manifesto and full of negotiating danger. Why should we sign up to so many things they want, before we have agreed some of the things we might want? Why have we dropped the mantra of “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?”. What exactly do we get for our £39bn (and the higher sums likely to result from the loose and general commitments of the Treaty) in this so called deal?

 

The Agreement is a very expensive invitation to talks about our possible exit. It does not give us either a clear date for leaving or the terms on which we might eventually be allowed out. It locks us into a binding Treaty to behave as a continuing member of the EU without vote or voice over what we have to obey whilst we try to negotiate our way out of the Irish backstop and the other restraints on us.

 

Yours ever

 

John

All questions you should have put to the fraudsters who lead the Leave campaign before you voted for Brexit.

 

All of the current mess was predicted by Remain, you’ll find it filed under ‘Project Fear’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All questions you should have put to the fraudsters who lead the Leave campaign before you voted for Brexit.

 

All of the current mess was predicted by Remain, you’ll find it filed under ‘Project Fear’.

Nonsense. The problem is May's surrender treaty (that she refers to as a deal), not Brexit. Had we left on 29th March with no deal we'd have kept the 39 Billion, be free of the EU and be in the process of negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world. 

 

May's inability to negotiate a deal is on her, not on Brexiteers. The Brexiteers gave her the ball, she made a half hearted attempt of running with it, tripped over her own untied shoelaces and fell face first into the lap of Jean-Claude Juncker, possibly deliberately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All questions you should have put to the fraudsters who lead the Leave campaign before you voted for Brexit.

 

All of the current mess was predicted by Remain, you’ll find it filed under ‘Project Fear’.

 

Do you like talking through your hat? The letter concerns the so-called Withdrawal Agreement, which did not exist until last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All questions you should have put to the fraudsters who lead the Leave campaign before you voted for Brexit.
 
All of the current mess was predicted by Remain, you’ll find it filed under ‘Project Fear’.
" All questions " etc etc.

Direct them at terreesa the appeesa..Olliewhatshisface etc etc
The UK negociating team should have been full of BREXITEERS..not eeeeuuuu lemming luvvies.tapatalk_1557101001668.jpegtapatalk_1556804328843.jpegtapatalk_1554989961500.jpeg

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Please talk us through the process for agreeing protocols with all member countries of the WTO and include your estimation for how long this process is likely to take.

Davis's effort remains on file & WTO is a default position therefore none would be necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Do you like talking through your hat? The letter concerns the so-called Withdrawal Agreement, which did not exist until last year. 

The boundaries of any deal the EU might offer were explicitly stated before the referendum vote took place.

 

Brexiteer response to which was some hogwash about BMWs and the EU being desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The boundaries of any deal the EU might offer were explicitly stated before the referendum vote took place.

 

Brexiteer response to which was some hogwash about BMWs and the EU being desperate.

More hat-chat. Details of any deal were not known and so could not discussed before the 2016 referendum - what you refer to is speculation from all sides - and we have yet to see how desperate EU industry might become if there is no deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU.
 
Just like Theresa May set her red lines.
 
Except tge EU meant what they were saying.
Surprise..surprise..
If we had had s Brexiteer as PM..and he/she had sent diehard Brexiteers to brussels to wheel/deal on behalf of the UK taxpayers..it would have been a totally different scenario.
However..as very soon..terreeesa the appeeesa will be given her p45..all is NOT LOST from the Brexiteer point of view.
Have a lovely daytapatalk_1556588083630.jpeg

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Alexander Boris (man of the people) de Pfeffel Johnson, favorite to replace Theresa May stated he would not be held to any agreement with Labour, he surely knew that would scupper any chance of the PM

cutting a deal with Labour.

 

Perhaps that was his intent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2019 at 7:59 PM, sawadee1947 said:

Funny, funny, I like your jokes. 

However you are wrong. 

If 27 members are happy with the Club (no new rules were implemented) then No 28 needs glasses, or see a doctor or leave the Club paying for his membership up to the end of agreed membership 

Most of these 27 will be happy enough until they have to ante up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When Alexander Boris (man of the people) de Pfeffel Johnson, favorite to replace Theresa May stated he would not be held to any agreement with Labour, he surely knew that would scupper any chance of the PM

cutting a deal with Labour.

 

Perhaps that was his intent.

 

Perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All questions you should have put to the fraudsters who lead the Leave campaign before you voted for Brexit.

 

All of the current mess was predicted by Remain, you’ll find it filed under ‘Project Fear’.

I bet you couldn't stand to read it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Just a copy of Redwood's letter - I can help if you didn't take it all in?

Thanks for your kind offer, but I don’t need help understanding what Redwood has to say or that what he observes is a direct result of Brexit failing to plan and planning to fail.

 

No part of the crock of Brexit surprises me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Thanks for your kind offer, but I don’t need help understanding what Redwood has to say or that what he observes is a direct result of Brexit failing to plan and planning to fail.

 

No part of the crock of Brexit surprises me.

What he observes here are the main failings of the WA. These are due to weak negotiations of over 2 years, which are due to poor planning and ultimately due to poor or non-existent leadership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What he observes here are the main failings of the WA. These are due to weak negotiations of over 2 years, which are due to poor planning and ultimately due to poor or non-existent leadership. 

And to setting off chasing a pipe dream with zero planning and in complete denial that the U.K. has an extremely weak hand to play in the negotiations.

 

The crock of Brexit is exactly what it was always going to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Thanks for your kind offer, but I don’t need help understanding what Redwood has to say or that what he observes is a direct result of Brexit failing to plan and planning to fail.

 

No part of the crock of Brexit surprises me.

The first time you've served that.....today ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And to setting off chasing a pipe dream with zero planning and in complete denial that the U.K. has an extremely weak hand to play in the negotiations.

 

The crock of Brexit is exactly what it was always going to be.

Anyone following UK will duly take note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...