|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 3, 2018 19:58:41 GMT 1
I'm struggling to actually give the exact reference by snipping it, so I'm going to have to write it out:
"8.2 The Agreement does not contain any provision on its termination. In the absence of such a provision, it is not possible under international law for a party to withdraw from the Agreement unilaterally. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland contains specific provisions on when and in what circumstances it ceases to apply - see the discussion below of Articles 2 and 20 of the Protocol."
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 9, 2018 11:04:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Dec 10, 2018 13:39:18 GMT 1
Looks like Tuesdays “most definitely the last vote, vote” on the Withdrawl bill is off to be replaced by “the very very very last vote” early next year
European Courts have also confirmed parliament can universally cancel brexit if they want by withdrawing Article 50
Not yet lunch time on Monday and already the political climate is changing
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 10, 2018 13:54:56 GMT 1
It's going to come to head sooner rather than later so not entirely sure why the PM would want to delay the vote, get it over and done with. And then let the fun and games begin...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 15:28:26 GMT 1
I don't know about Political Correctness gone mad.
But, this is definitely Political Incompetence gone mad.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Dec 10, 2018 15:28:50 GMT 1
How embarrassing is this.
Looks like it is shaping up to be a peoples vote (which I think is the right decision) and then a remain conclusion.
Then it will be time for the Brexiteers to feel the rage.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Dec 10, 2018 15:43:07 GMT 1
I suspect some people are starting to get the Yellow Jackets ready....
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Dec 10, 2018 16:57:44 GMT 1
May and her shambolic government are utterly incompetent. Her speech this afternoon, when deferring the vote, beggars belief. She managed to make it sound like there is one small issue, ie the backstop, to resolve and then all will be okay. Cloud Cuckoo Land!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 10, 2018 17:19:42 GMT 1
Best of three anyone?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 18:31:45 GMT 1
What an utter shambles 😕
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Dec 10, 2018 18:38:25 GMT 1
I have a Dover - Calais ferry crossing booked for 29th March.
I’m starting to get worried.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Dec 10, 2018 18:42:30 GMT 1
I cannot believe that the backstop is all these idiot politicians are worried about.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Dec 10, 2018 19:05:27 GMT 1
Isn't it time that we stopped calling it a Brexit agreement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 19:54:27 GMT 1
Right so the all or nothing vote has been postponed. And the un-renegotiable deal is being renegotiated. Strong and stable.
Anything else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 20:22:53 GMT 1
Right so the all or nothing vote has been postponed. And the un-renegotiable deal is being renegotiated. Strong and stable. Anything else? Nothing has changed, nothing has changed. In my opinion Brexit means Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 10, 2018 20:30:04 GMT 1
Thank you Cameron and Osbourne for starting off this runaway train.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 21:03:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by percy on Dec 11, 2018 0:08:53 GMT 1
Right so the all or nothing vote has been postponed. And the un-renegotiable deal is being renegotiated. Strong and stable. Anything else? Nothing has changed, nothing has changed. In my opinion Brexit means Brexit. This is not true. The thing that has changed is that we now know the terms of the withdrawal agreement - a bizarre commitment to blunder into a non-existent deal which will be decided when we are out. Nobody in their right mind would vote for that kind of brexit. Those who cry that we must honour the vote don’t really understand the notion of democracy - the fact that the whigs were voted into power over two centuries ag does not mean that we have stuck with them. We voted for brexit; brexit has been worked on and we now know the terms of withdrawal - it’s only right that we take it back to the people.
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Dec 11, 2018 7:22:01 GMT 1
The problem is yes 52% voted to leave the EU. However as we all know what that really meant was impossible to be clearly defined at the time. So now we know what leaving means , it's still not acceptable to certain elements. Now I am no supporter of Theresa May but I do wonder what those MPs against the deal she negotiated expected. I believe whoever had been leading the negotiations from any party, we would still have more or less ended up with the same terms. The mistake in the first place was with David Cameron for not laying before the electorate the truth about the torturous route ahead if they voted to leave the EU. What the final outcome will be , who knows but personally it will take a lot of convincing to believe that we are going to be better off leaving the EU after what we have seen over the last 2 years of negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 11, 2018 8:04:58 GMT 1
Nothing has changed, nothing has changed. In my opinion Brexit means Brexit. This is not true. The thing that has changed is that we now know the terms of the withdrawal agreement - a bizarre commitment to blunder into a non-existent deal which will be decided when we are out. Nobody in their right mind would vote for that kind of brexit. Those who cry that we must honour the vote don’t really understand the notion of democracy - the fact that the whigs were voted into power over two centuries ag does not mean that we have stuck with them. We voted for brexit; brexit has been worked on and we now know the terms of withdrawal - it’s only right that we take it back to the people. I think the question at the time of the referendum was a pretty simple one wasn't it? There was no question of any withdrawal agreement, there was no question of terms. It was a simple question of whether the UK should leave the EU or remain in the EU. That was the decision taken at the time of the referendum. Whilst I could understand a second referendum to decide upon that withdrawal, if say the UK should accept the deal May has received from the EU, I don't understand a second referendum do ask a question that has already been decided in 2016. Think it was made pretty clear at the time that whatever decision was made that it would be implemented. If we do what others have done; simply vote, vote and vote again until we see a vote go the way of the EU (as we have seen elsewhere) then I think the notion of democracy and its credibility would be pretty hard hit. We vote, vote and vote again until the "establishment" get their own way anyhow (as lets be honest, most MP's, including the PM, are for remain). For me Brexit was just that, I really couldn't understand the talk of what kind of Brexit. It simply means the EU invoking Article 50 and then leaving the EU. That is Brexit. Brexit is what has since been called 'hard' Brexit. What is then to be decided is how, from outside of the EU, the UK works alongside and with the EU. The referendum question was pretty simple, it was stay or leave. It was decided to leave. If in the end we don't, at any point, then I think that notion of democracy you talk of would look pretty hollow. I'm sure May and many others would like to go for a second referendum to be honest but I think she knows that if she does then it would do parliaments credibility no good at all (and yeah, I think it just has a little left still to lose...just)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 8:14:44 GMT 1
Nothing has changed, nothing has changed. In my opinion Brexit means Brexit. Those who cry that we must honour the vote don’t really understand the notion of democracy -. Easy now. When I suggested that a while back some people got upset. But, you're right on the rest of your post.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 11, 2018 10:21:16 GMT 1
This is not true. The thing that has changed is that we now know the terms of the withdrawal agreement - a bizarre commitment to blunder into a non-existent deal which will be decided when we are out. Nobody in their right mind would vote for that kind of brexit. Those who cry that we must honour the vote don’t really understand the notion of democracy - the fact that the whigs were voted into power over two centuries ag does not mean that we have stuck with them. We voted for brexit; brexit has been worked on and we now know the terms of withdrawal - it’s only right that we take it back to the people. I think the question at the time of the referendum was a pretty simple one wasn't it? There was no question of any withdrawal agreement, there was no question of terms. It was a simple question of whether the UK should leave the EU or remain in the EU. That was the decision taken at the time of the referendum. Whilst I could understand a second referendum to decide upon that withdrawal, if say the UK should accept the deal May has received from the EU, I don't understand a second referendum do ask a question that has already been decided in 2016. Think it was made pretty clear at the time that whatever decision was made that it would be implemented. If we do what others have done; simply vote, vote and vote again until we see a vote go the way of the EU (as we have seen elsewhere) then I think the notion of democracy and its credibility would be pretty hard hit. We vote, vote and vote again until the "establishment" get their own way anyhow (as lets be honest, most MP's, including the PM, are for remain). For me Brexit was just that, I really couldn't understand the talk of what kind of Brexit. It simply means the EU invoking Article 50 and then leaving the EU. That is Brexit. Brexit is what has since been called 'hard' Brexit. What is then to be decided is how, from outside of the EU, the UK works alongside and with the EU. The referendum question was pretty simple, it was stay or leave. It was decided to leave. If in the end we don't, at any point, then I think that notion of democracy you talk of would look pretty hollow. I'm sure May and many others would like to go for a second referendum to be honest but I think she knows that if she does then it would do parliaments credibility no good at all (and yeah, I think it just has a little left still to lose...just)... I think a lot of the second referendum appealers just want us to vote the "right" way next time, like they told us to last time. But, it's the government that has to get us in or out of the EU, what we need is an election, quiz the candidates on what they propose and vote accordingly. A second referendum that resulted in an out vote would leave us pretty close to where we are now, just with hard Brexit as the probable outcome. An election is what should have happened at the time Cameron gave up when he knew he couldn't do the clean Brexit the public had voted for, the Tories were just too scared to have an election and put party politics above the Country.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 11, 2018 10:54:52 GMT 1
I think the question at the time of the referendum was a pretty simple one wasn't it? There was no question of any withdrawal agreement, there was no question of terms. It was a simple question of whether the UK should leave the EU or remain in the EU. That was the decision taken at the time of the referendum. Whilst I could understand a second referendum to decide upon that withdrawal, if say the UK should accept the deal May has received from the EU, I don't understand a second referendum do ask a question that has already been decided in 2016. Think it was made pretty clear at the time that whatever decision was made that it would be implemented. If we do what others have done; simply vote, vote and vote again until we see a vote go the way of the EU (as we have seen elsewhere) then I think the notion of democracy and its credibility would be pretty hard hit. We vote, vote and vote again until the "establishment" get their own way anyhow (as lets be honest, most MP's, including the PM, are for remain). For me Brexit was just that, I really couldn't understand the talk of what kind of Brexit. It simply means the EU invoking Article 50 and then leaving the EU. That is Brexit. Brexit is what has since been called 'hard' Brexit. What is then to be decided is how, from outside of the EU, the UK works alongside and with the EU. The referendum question was pretty simple, it was stay or leave. It was decided to leave. If in the end we don't, at any point, then I think that notion of democracy you talk of would look pretty hollow. I'm sure May and many others would like to go for a second referendum to be honest but I think she knows that if she does then it would do parliaments credibility no good at all (and yeah, I think it just has a little left still to lose...just)... I think a lot of the second referendum appealers just want us to vote the "right" way next time, like they told us to last time. But, it's the government that has to get us in or out of the EU, what we need is an election, quiz the candidates on what they propose and vote accordingly. A second referendum that resulted in an out vote would leave us pretty close to where we are now, just with hard Brexit as the probable outcome. An election is what should have happened at the time Cameron gave up when he knew he couldn't do the clean Brexit the public had voted for, the Tories were just too scared to have an election and put party politics above the Country. To be fair though we have had an election in the mean time. And with Labour keeping things very cagey and keeping their cards very close to their chest I'm not sure an election would bring about any more clarity than we already have when it comes to the question of Brexit. Listening to to the radio this morning and listening to a Labour MP and it's not really clear what else Labour would do differently. The lady interviewed was talking about the six points (which at least one individual in the Labour party has labelled b******s), that Labour knows what it wants, that Corbyn would go about the negotiations differently and that they would want the "same benefits" from any deal (which I think we all know isn't going to happen with the UK outside of the EU no matter how much charm Corbyn could muster). If Labour were outright calling for say a second referendum (on leave or the method of leaving) I could understand the calls for a general election. But as far as I can see their plan is to go back to the EU and try and get a better deal than the one May has been offered. And I'm not entirely confident Labour could do that and the EU are open to do so... Because there seems to little between the two main parties when it comes to Brexit (if both say they are to honour the result of the referendum) I'm not sure how an election would help. I think that's how a lot of people see it too. Not sure too many have confidence that Corbyn could come back with anything better...
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 11, 2018 10:55:53 GMT 1
If there is to be a 2nd referendum, the choice should NOT just be between the Chequers Agreement and staying in the EU. Her dog's breakfast of a deal is clearly worse than actually staying in the EU. Both sides can see this, so setting up the referendum like that would effectively rig it in favour of the Remainers.
No. The referendum should be the same as the 1st one. In or out, with it being made quite clear to the electorate that out will mean a hard Brexit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 11:03:57 GMT 1
How embarrassing is this. Looks like it is shaping up to be a peoples vote (which I think is the right decision) and then a remain conclusion. Then it will be time for the Brexiteers to feel the rage. On June 23rd 2016 we had the peoples vote, now if there is to be a 2nd Referendum, then the only 2 choices should be May's deal or no deal, if this is not the case then democracy is lost. The political system will be in meltdown. For those of you who THINK that people did not know what they voted for on this date, the please take your head from up your arse, it was not all about immigration, or even the economy. it was a wide ranging vote for many reasons. the 2 videos show what Cameron said about his visit to Europe in Nov of 15 on what concessions he went to Europe for, and came back with nothing!!and the second outlined exactly what leave meant!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 11:16:16 GMT 1
The problem is yes 52% voted to leave the EU. However as we all know what that really meant was impossible to be clearly defined at the time. So now we know what leaving means , it's still not acceptable to certain elements. Now I am no supporter of Theresa May but I do wonder what those MPs against the deal she negotiated expected. I believe whoever had been leading the negotiations from any party, we would still have more or less ended up with the same terms. The mistake in the first place was with David Cameron for not laying before the electorate the truth about the torturous route ahead if they voted to leave the EU. What the final outcome will be , who knows but personally it will take a lot of convincing to believe that we are going to be better off leaving the EU after what we have seen over the last 2 years of negotiations. I value your opinion, but i disagree. TM is a remainer, always has been and always will be. If Cameron had handed over to David Davies, or JRM or dare say it BoJo, then i feel we would be in a much stronger position. TM has started in Europe and begged to be released from some of its regulation, which to be fair to the EU they have given very little. Where as if we had a BREXIT orientated PM, then we would be in a different position, our opening Gambit would be We are leaving, its in your interests as well as yours for us to reach an agreement. The EU are running scared, or were until TM was made Prime Minister, they then knew they were in for an easy ride, make no mistakes about it, if we leave with No Deal, the EU are buggered, one if its 4 main contributors are going to leave. and they will get nothing, and whats more, despite the fear that is being pumped into everyone, this country will survive, we will be great!! we have some of the best companies in the world, we wont starve and we wont all die of the Lurgi.... we may have a couple of years of further hardship, so what!! If Labour by the way had a stable leader, with some decent people behind it rather than McDonald and Abbott, then they would possibly even get my vote after the cock ups the Conservatives have made.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 11, 2018 11:28:11 GMT 1
The EU have never been running scared of the U.K. It has not negotiated and it never will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 11:34:11 GMT 1
The EU have never been running scared of the U.K. It has not negotiated and it never will. You misunderstand. Its not running scared of us, but of us leaving. They will not negotiate, they will just tell us to vote again!!
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Dec 11, 2018 11:44:42 GMT 1
The problem is yes 52% voted to leave the EU. However as we all know what that really meant was impossible to be clearly defined at the time. So now we know what leaving means , it's still not acceptable to certain elements. Now I am no supporter of Theresa May but I do wonder what those MPs against the deal she negotiated expected. I believe whoever had been leading the negotiations from any party, we would still have more or less ended up with the same terms. The mistake in the first place was with David Cameron for not laying before the electorate the truth about the torturous route ahead if they voted to leave the EU. What the final outcome will be , who knows but personally it will take a lot of convincing to believe that we are going to be better off leaving the EU after what we have seen over the last 2 years of negotiations. I value your opinion, but i disagree. TM is a remainer, always has been and always will be. If Cameron had handed over to David Davies, or JRM or dare say it BoJo, then i feel we would be in a much stronger position. TM has started in Europe and begged to be released from some of its regulation, which to be fair to the EU they have given very little. Where as if we had a BREXIT orientated PM, then we would be in a different position, our opening Gambit would be We are leaving, its in your interests as well as yours for us to reach an agreement. The EU are running scared, or were until TM was made Prime Minister, they then knew they were in for an easy ride, make no mistakes about it, if we leave with No Deal, the EU are buggered, one if its 4 main contributors are going to leave. and they will get nothing, and whats more, despite the fear that is being pumped into everyone, this country will survive, we will be great!! we have some of the best companies in the world, we wont starve and we wont all die of the Lurgi.... we may have a couple of years of further hardship, so what!! If Labour by the way had a stable leader, with some decent people behind it rather than McDonald and Abbott, then they would possibly even get my vote after the cock ups the Conservatives have made. Totally agree. There is no credible opposition, considering JC is this alleged messiah they're still not taking over in the polls, mainly due to the fact like you say he's backed up by McDonald and Abbott. That said, TM is making a huge mess of it, it should have been a passionate brexiteer in charge.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Dec 11, 2018 11:50:33 GMT 1
The problem is yes 52% voted to leave the EU. However as we all know what that really meant was impossible to be clearly defined at the time. So now we know what leaving means , it's still not acceptable to certain elements. Now I am no supporter of Theresa May but I do wonder what those MPs against the deal she negotiated expected. I believe whoever had been leading the negotiations from any party, we would still have more or less ended up with the same terms. The mistake in the first place was with David Cameron for not laying before the electorate the truth about the torturous route ahead if they voted to leave the EU. What the final outcome will be , who knows but personally it will take a lot of convincing to believe that we are going to be better off leaving the EU after what we have seen over the last 2 years of negotiations. The problem was caused at the outset when article 50 was invoked. This isn't, and never has been. a party political issue but the Tories have treated it like one by trying, when they don't even have a majority in the commons, to plough a lone furrow and try to force through their version or interpretation of brexit. The opportunity has now been sadly lost, but what was required at the outset was a cross-party approach to the brexit negotiations involving politicians from all sides, that was the only way this could ever have succeeded and had a consensus in the commons. This was a unique situation that required a unique solution. Typical Tory arrogance has brought us to this position, they think they know better and won't listen to anyone else's view. I do completely agree with your comments about Cameron though. History will be very harsh on him whichever direction this now goes.
|
|