EU will delay Brexit until February if Johnson fails to ratify deal this week - The Sunday Times

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

16 hours ago, tebee said:

What exactly is ambiguous about remaining ?

Leaving is pretty unambiguous if you ask me - we LEAVE all the institutions of the EU. How we do that most expediently and rapidly was never discussed, or probably even contemplated - to our collective chagrin.

 

Equally, if we were to remain now in 2019 - how much of the existing and ongoing EU policy do we subsrcibe to? For example - when we voted to leave in 2016 there was no EU army - not overtly anyway. The claims that this was being assembled behind our backs were mockingly derided and vociferously denied by Clegg, Cameron, Juncker and others. Now the unveiling of these plans has finally happened and prior suspicions have been confirmed. Go back only 17 years and the 'status quo' of the union at that time would have been conspicuously devoid of true fiscal and currency union, with European nations all having their own currencies intact. Go back just 7 years before the Germany EU initiated its disastrous 'refugees welcome policy' under Chancellor Merkel and the continent's appearance and atmosphere were palpably different to today. Go back to 2008 pre-Lisbon treaty introduction and the EU's foreign policy, commercial policy, customs union and legal jurisidicions were all very different or yet to enter into existence. These are all major existential changes and if we had had the referendum in say, 2001, none of the above would have been part of the narrative.

 

Hence the ambiguity lies in how much things have changed since just 2016 and how much things will continue to change going forward - to what extent does the UK as a nation remain subject to the edicts of the ECJ and to supranational EU policy? As these things have been numerous and rapid in their introduction over the years and will continue to be.      

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/european-leaders-push-angela-merkel-for-joint-eu-army-a7211861.html

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

There is ambiguity to both of course. As in 1973 the same binary choice was made, however fast-forward 46 years and the EU 'status quo' as Remainers love to deem it, is about as far removed from what it was in 1973 as anyone back then could have imagined.

There was no vote in 1973, either by parliament of the people. parliament made the decision to join and in 1975 the government held the first ever national referendum to confirm government policy.

You cannot compare the referendum with that held in 2016 as circumstances were completely different, people were well aware of how "sick" the UK was at the time. A state of emergency had been declared four times between 1970 and 1974.

Now remind me how many times has a state of emergency been declared since the 1975 referendum.

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

I am bored with the whole FUBAR of Brexit as I thing so many people are and wish it was over one way or the other.

 

My MP voted against the Benn act, resolution or what ever, which was probably a vote for Boris.

 

I am looking forward to the next election with great interest though.

Your first statement is spot on Bill but unfortunately views on the resolution vary from damage limitation to severe damage. Everyday something else comes out of the woodwork so it is not surprising that uncertainty reigns, even in parliament.

It has just come out that NI will have to "export" to the UK mainland, so what else is the government trying to keep to themselves.

 

I used to live in what was known as the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire so do not pay much attention to the MPs. Personally I think the election should be held off for some time and allow Johnson to hang himself, only interested in his own aspirations.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

17 minutes ago, sandyf said:

There was no vote in 1973, either by parliament of the people. parliament made the decision to join and in 1975 the government held the first ever national referendum to confirm government policy.

You cannot compare the referendum with that held in 2016 as circumstances were completely different, people were well aware of how "sick" the UK was at the time. A state of emergency had been declared four times between 1970 and 1974.

Now remind me how many times has a state of emergency been declared since the 1975 referendum.

 

'Sorry, quite right - the confirmatory ref. was in '75, not '73 (when the UK joined under Heath). We've been in the EU ever since - through all its incarnations and have witnessed its metamorphosis from the EEC single market which we voted to remain part of - to the unrecognisable entity that it is today.'

 

'I'm all for a second (third ) referendum in the future, but ONLY after the result of the current one is enacted.'

 

--

'Now remind me how many times has a state of emergency been declared since the 1975 referendum.' - Domestically within the UK perhaps not. I think you're really failing to recognise the situation within the EU's continental contingent though. Perhaps the 'deus ex machina' that might intervene in this whole fiasco if it is to drag out much longer will be the unraveling and disintegration of the EU itself, you need only look at the social, political and econimic catastrophes unfolding on the continent in the last few years to appreciate that this in the post.

 

[sandyf]

12 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

'Now remind me how many times has a state of emergency been declared since the 1975 referendum.' - Domestically within the UK perhaps not. I think you're really failing to recognise the situation within the EU's continental contingent though.

 

I am not failing to recognise anything. Now remind me how many "Unions", as in country groupings, ever hold referendums. 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

13 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I am not failing to recognise anything. Now remind me how many "Unions", as in country groupings, ever hold referendums. 

 

'I am not failing to recognise anything' - Seems patently obvious that you are. Do you disagree that the EU has devolved into a mess over the last 30 years or that the many issues being faced on the continent are not - at least in part - due to the supranational authoritarianism of the EU?

 

48 referendums held since its creation, regarding a multitude of aspects of the EU and its constitution etc. The UK being the only extant 'union of nations' to hold such a referendum. What is your point? 

[HHTel]

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The election is due in May 2020.

Due in 2022 (unless parliament agrees to an earlier one).  Don't forget Theresa already held an election which reduced her majority but did reset the clock.

[DannyCarlton]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

That about sums up the whole fiasco,our" betters" thinking they know best,( for themselves )

Yep. Like Vauxhall. over 70% remain and their MP is one of the most ardent Brexiteers in parliament. And pro foxhunting. Won't be standing again.

[DannyCarlton]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

I used to live in what was known as the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire so do not pay much attention to the MPs. Personally I think the election should be held off for some time and allow Johnson to hang himself, only interested in his own aspirations.

May be you should take more note of them. The honourable member for Don Valley consistently voted for the war in Iraq and now consistently votes with the government on Brexit. A complete disgrace (nice knockers though). Husband (and father to her kids) was a Tunisian stockbroker who got busted for violent disorder and deported.

 

 

[billd766]

5 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

In the meantime........... life goes on.

Out here life definitely life goes on.

 

The damn grass and scrub still keeps growing, despite my efforts to keep it down. 

[billd766]

5 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

In the meantime........... life goes on.

From the Moody Blues In the beginning album.

 

"There you go man, keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials
With smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave
And keep on thinking free

[tebee]

3 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Leaving is pretty unambiguous if you ask me - we LEAVE all the institutions of the EU. How we do that most expediently and rapidly was never discussed, or probably even contemplated - to our collective chagrin.

 

 

You are reinventing history again. in other words lieing.

 

May I remind you that it was said at the time we could have all the benefits of being a member of of the EU without being one. The only way you can have all the benefits is to remain a member of the institutions of the EU like the single market and customs union while not being a member proper - sort of Switzerland +  

 

No deal was only mentioned as  a bad outcome - something that was never going to occur because of Britain's wonderfully powerful negotiating position.

 

The EU army is another red herring - it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed. Trump's America has made relying on Nato support unreliable. If we don't want it, we can remain a member and block it.

[Jip99]

11 minutes ago, tebee said:

You are reinventing history again. in other words lieing.

 

May I remind you that it was said at the time we could have all the benefits of being a member of of the EU without being one. The only way you can have all the benefits is to remain a member of the institutions of the EU like the single market and customs union while not being a member proper - sort of Switzerland +  

 

No deal was only mentioned as  a bad outcome - something that was never going to occur because of Britain's wonderfully powerful negotiating position.

 

The EU army is another red herring - it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed. Trump's America has made relying on Nato support unreliable. If we don't want it, we can remain a member and block it.

 

 

Don’t know what comic you were reading but nobody told me we would have all the benefits of EU membership without actually being a member.

 

I voted to leave in the full knowledge of NOT having some of the benefits of membership.....that was the price worth paying to exit.

 

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

You are reinventing history again. in other words lieing.

 

May I remind you that it was said at the time we could have all the benefits of being a member of of the EU without being one. The only way you can have all the benefits is to remain a member of the institutions of the EU like the single market and customs union while not being a member proper - sort of Switzerland +  

 

No deal was only mentioned as  a bad outcome - something that was never going to occur because of Britain's wonderfully powerful negotiating position.

 

The EU army is another red herring - it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed. Trump's America has made relying on Nato support unreliable. If we don't want it, we can remain a member and block it.

 

I've reinvented nothing, typical obfuscation on your part. What part of my reply lacks veracity? Please point it out. 

I am not interested in the supposed benefits of the 'big club' nor were 17.5 million of my compatriots. The perceived benefits to me are far outweighed by the negatives and the huge bill we have to foot for it all.

 

'No deal was only mentioned as a bad outcome - something that was never going to occur because of Britain's wonderfully powerful negotiating position.' - We had a strong negotiating position to start with, May and her quislings weakened the UK's bargaining position to such an extent it is almost laughable - but then again perhaps it shouldn't be, as she was elected by the Tory party to negotiate and enact something that she was vehemently against in the first place. So let's not go down that road again, it's been discussed on this forum to no end - and is provably the case.

 

'The EU army is another red herring - it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed. Trump's America has made relying on Nato support unreliable. If we don't want it, we can remain a member and block it.'

The fact that we have been blocking it is the only reason it is not further developed at this point, but judging from the rhetoric emanating from the federalist EU big-wigs, I would suggest this would change. But your correct in saying that IF we actually leave then we would lose any ability to veto. Still, this doesn't disprove my point one bit - it was flatly denied by the proponents of Remain and those within the EC until very recently. Why? It is as good an example of ambiguity as one could reference - 'it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed' - they have indeed, changed one hell of a lot since 1975, even since 2009 - hence the issue of ambiguity we have been discussing.

 

'British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told The Times newspaper this month that London would resist any attempts to duplicate infrastructure that already existed in NATO.

However, von der Leyen told Reuters in an interview that she expected Britain to “make good its promise that it will not hinder important European Union reforms.”

She said she had called Fallon before the initiative was unveiled to tell him that it was not directed against Britain.

“I told him the initiative is designed for a strong Europe, and that this Europe also wants to have good relations with Britain in the future, especially in the area of defense.”

Von der Leyen and the other EU defense ministers will discuss the proposals in Bratislava on Monday evening and Tuesday.'

 

'The proposals include a joint and permanent EU headquarters for civilian and military missions, possibly in Brussels, which London says will drain away finite resources when NATO already has its military command center, also in Belgium.'

 

'She said deeper EU defense ties could start early next year if EU leaders agreed to move forward at their meeting in December.'

 

Personally I wouldn't trust any of them to keep their word any more than I do the majority of our own MPs. Why anyone would is beyond me.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany/germany-to-britain-live-up-to-promise-not-to-block-eu-reforms-idUSKCN11W06H

  

[tebee]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Don’t know what comic you were reading but nobody told me we would have all the benefits of EU membership without actually being a member.

 

I voted to leave in the full knowledge of NOT having some of the benefits of membership.....that was the price worth paying to exit.

 

 

[david555]

49 minutes ago, tebee said:

Liam Fox is the winner from all contesters I find ....with head & shoulders , but competition was hard ….

[evadgib]

"It's that man again!"

(& I wasn't even looking!)

 

[tebee]

1 hour ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

I've reinvented nothing, typical obfuscation on your part. What part of my reply lacks veracity? Please point it out. 

I am not interested in the supposed benefits of the 'big club' nor were 17.5 million of my compatriots. The perceived benefits to me are far outweighed by the negatives and the huge bill we have to foot for it all.

 

'No deal was only mentioned as a bad outcome - something that was never going to occur because of Britain's wonderfully powerful negotiating position.' - We had a strong negotiating position to start with, May and her quislings weakened the UK's bargaining position to such an extent it is almost laughable - but then again perhaps it shouldn't be, as she was elected by the Tory party to negotiate and enact something that she was vehemently against in the first place. So let's not go down that road again, it's been discussed on this forum to no end - and is provably the case.

 

'The EU army is another red herring - it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed. Trump's America has made relying on Nato support unreliable. If we don't want it, we can remain a member and block it.'

The fact that we have been blocking it is the only reason it is not further developed at this point, but judging from the rhetoric emanating from the federalist EU big-wigs, I would suggest this would change. But your correct in saying that IF we actually leave then we would lose any ability to veto. Still, this doesn't disprove my point one bit - it was flatly denied by the proponents of Remain and those within the EC until very recently. Why? It is as good an example of ambiguity as one could reference - 'it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed' - they have indeed, changed one hell of a lot since 1975, even since 2009 - hence the issue of ambiguity we have been discussing.

 

'British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told The Times newspaper this month that London would resist any attempts to duplicate infrastructure that already existed in NATO.

However, von der Leyen told Reuters in an interview that she expected Britain to “make good its promise that it will not hinder important European Union reforms.”

She said she had called Fallon before the initiative was unveiled to tell him that it was not directed against Britain.

“I told him the initiative is designed for a strong Europe, and that this Europe also wants to have good relations with Britain in the future, especially in the area of defense.”

Von der Leyen and the other EU defense ministers will discuss the proposals in Bratislava on Monday evening and Tuesday.'

 

'The proposals include a joint and permanent EU headquarters for civilian and military missions, possibly in Brussels, which London says will drain away finite resources when NATO already has its military command center, also in Belgium.'

 

'She said deeper EU defense ties could start early next year if EU leaders agreed to move forward at their meeting in December.'

 

Personally I wouldn't trust any of them to keep their word any more than I do the majority of our own MPs. Why anyone would is beyond me.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany/germany-to-britain-live-up-to-promise-not-to-block-eu-reforms-idUSKCN11W06H

  

OK this statement for a start "Leaving is pretty unambiguous if you ask me - we LEAVE all the institutions of the EU. How we do that most expediently and rapidly was never discussed, or probably even contemplated - to our collective chagrin"

 

You appear to be pointing out it's own ambiguity it your own second sentence, but no one at the time ever said we must leave all the institutions of the EU. That would be commercial suicide 

 

"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it
Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave"  

 

Does that sound like No deal?

 

The benefits vs  costs 

 

The money we pay to the EU may sound like a lot, but it's peanuts compared to UK or EU GDP. It's socializing costs in the same way that the NHS does. As we see from US health care when the individual has to pay we all end up paying more.

 

 

 

For example the FT estimates the cost of paperwork for our exporters to be £15 billion per year post brexit - that not including the duties they may have to pay on top.  

 

Or the NHS wants to employ a doctor - now that will be £2,500 each time for a tier 2 visa + all the paperwork costs - certified translations  of documents and proving that qualifications are equivalent for example.

 

All the EU agencies we use - Medicines, Aircraft and pilots, Food safety, Euratom + many more - will need to be duplicated  and companies may face the cost of dual certification unless we can agree equivalence.

 

Everyone going on holiday to europe will face having to get health insurance .

 

All these costs end up to being way more than our membership cost  and that's no even considering losses  because our exports become uncompetitive. 

 

The current problem with Nato is Trump - he is unreliable and possibly russian influenced - I can't blame people for looking at alternatives that don't involve him or the US at the moment. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Yep. Like Vauxhall. over 70% remain and their MP is one of the most ardent Brexiteers in parliament. And pro foxhunting. Won't be standing again.

For fox sale what's that got to do with it?.

[kingdong]

4 hours ago, tebee said:

You are reinventing history again. in other words lieing.

 

May I remind you that it was said at the time we could have all the benefits of being a member of of the EU without being one. The only way you can have all the benefits is to remain a member of the institutions of the EU like the single market and customs union while not being a member proper - sort of Switzerland +  

 

No deal was only mentioned as  a bad outcome - something that was never going to occur because of Britain's wonderfully powerful negotiating position.

 

The EU army is another red herring - it's only been brought up because circumstances have changed. Trump's America has made relying on Nato support unreliable. If we don't want it, we can remain a member and block it.

And would freedom of movement be part of the above mentioned deal?

[tebee]

13 minutes ago, kingdong said:

And would freedom of movement be part of the above mentioned deal?

Presumably not, though benefits which were promised could only be obtained if it were to continue.

 

The lie that we could have our cake and eat it was in my opinion,  the main dishonesty of the leave campaign.

 

Why, even now,does the government  refuse to give it's assessment of the economic cost/benefit  of borrises deal?

[DannyCarlton]

31 minutes ago, kingdong said:

For fox sale what's that got to do with it?.

I wouldn't expect a howling brexiter to understand.

[Opl]

5 hours ago, tebee said:

 

+ how to take back control and regain sovereignty, just for a starter, a warm-up

A six-day trip to the US by former Brexit secretary David Davis was partly funded by an American lobbying organisation that is alleged to favour weakening European Union regulations on environmental and food standards.

[beautifulthailand99]

I wish to inform the house that shortly I will be writing to the honourable member Malagateddy a PM which reminds him of an agreement we reached several months ago. And I will be seeking assurances that should such a situation that I anticipated many months ago occur then the agreement we reached will be honoured in full. ENDS

[beautifulthailand99]

5 hours ago, evadgib said:

"It's that man again!"

(& I wasn't even looking!)

 

Good old Nigel he wants this rotten deal do die in its ditch - I think we can all agree with that. !

[beautifulthailand99]

31st March 2019 

30th June 2019

31st October 2019 

[Jip99]

6 hours ago, tebee said:

 

 

As I suggested, choose your sources wisely.

[Bruntoid]

20 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I wish to inform the house that shortly I will be writing to the honourable member Malagateddy a PM which reminds him of an agreement we reached several months ago. And I will be seeking assurances that should such a situation that I anticipated many months ago occur then the agreement we reached will be honoured in full. ENDS

Haven’t all the No Dealers now left the building ? 

[Bruntoid]

One thing I genuinely don’t understand - BoJo is statistically the worst PM EVER having lost every single vote he’s put forward, he has stood up in Parliament and stated TEN times I will not request an extension, shortly before requesting an extension. The EU has outwitted him every step of the way without actually doing anything, and the strategies BoJo comes up with are so easily defeated it’s embarrassing. In an open sack he would head downwards. 

 

So can someone please enlighten me as to why Dominic Cummings is regularly touted as a brilliant strategist ??? ????

[beautifulthailand99]

6 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

Haven’t all the No Dealers now left the building ? 

vogie was one wasn't he who else has done a runner ?