No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
He did not say anything of the sort. He said fighting the CU was worth the risk of a second referendum. He is correct in saying that all deal outcomes, including Norway, are less damaging to the UK than permanent membership of the CU.
Semantics. He thinks a 2nd referendum is better than TMay's deal. He also admits that REMAINING (presumably after that vote) is better than TMay's deal.
And yes he also says he prefers EFTA or Canada to TMay's deal.
And this is fom Dan Hannan? It is a significant concession by arguably the most intellectually acute of Brexiteer politicians.
OK well he says nothing like that but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
Er, he says it explicitly here
"The proposed exit terms represent a deal worse than either STAYING or leaving."
and also implies it here
"frankly, any outcome – no deal, Norway, Canada, even the risk of a second referendum – would be better than what is currently on the table"
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Would that have been your reaction had that been HMG's stance?
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
So why did Remainers argue since the referendum result that we should unilaterally guarantee UK resident EU nationals' rights when no such guarantees were forthcoming from the EU? Surely 'taking the moral high ground' was going to lead to a 'generous EU response'?
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
Economic output for those working peaks at about 50, and then you see both output and participation rates drop.
Working later helps, but is no silver bullet.
I'm nearly 60 and I know I'm not as effective or do as much as I did ten years ago but I retain the knowledge and the network of relationships I have built up over the years.
Perhaps we spend too much time obsessing on how much people do instead of thinking about more quality-rated, less transactional and less quantifiable assets.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
TBF, it says the French, not the EU.
Which is why I made a point to note that being a part of the EU is supposed to elevate its members, we've seen Roger cry about how we are already diminished enough times about it, as though holding or not holding EU membership immediately makes a nation barbaric and crude.
Is it?
Maybe in the case of the Germans or the Bulgarians. But let's face it, both nations had sunk so low anything lower would have been spat back by a sewer.
I thought the rest of us were just on a gravy train.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
Economic output for those working peaks at about 50, and then you see both output and participation rates drop.
Working later helps, but is no silver bullet.
I'm nearly 60 and I know I'm not as effective or do as much as I did ten years ago but I retain the knowledge and the network of relationships I have built up over the years.
What we may lack in speed we more than make up for in low cunning.....
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Would that have been your reaction had that been HMG's stance?
Of course it wouldn't have been.
France can do as it pleases, but that is just it, it is making choices about what it wants to do, to pretend that what they choose is an inevitable response is to pretend everyone is an idiot. It is one of the most transparently partisan things I have ever seen on here, and that is saying something, since we're all guilty of it too a degree, but not usually so shamelessly and transparently.
He is doing exactly that. Can you not read? He suggests several alternatives, but amongst them he advocates a 2nd referendum if it is the only workable alternative to TMay's deal. Indeed he goes further than that and concedes that Remaining would be better than TMay's deal.
That's precisely what he says. In English. In sentences formed of words.
There is not, and never has been, any workable alternative to May's deal from the British side.
The fact that is in itself unworkable is the crux of the problem.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A) "No Deal Brexit"
or
Remain.
Much too logical. Things will have to get much worse before that is eventually done.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A) "No Deal Brexit"
or
Remain.
"There will be no second referendum, the people voted and this government will deliver”
Theresa May, 17 October 2018.
Note the statement is not qualified about whether or not there is a deal.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
You are Dr Michael Burry and I claim my five pounds.
Edit to add: Thnaks for the videos! Most enlightening.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
So why did Remainers argue since the referendum result that we should unilaterally guarantee UK resident EU nationals' rights when no such guarantees were forthcoming from the EU? Surely 'taking the moral high ground' was going to lead to a 'generous EU response'?
I have always pointed out that the EU cannot do such a thing. The rights of 3rd party nationals (as we will be post Brexit) are a national, not an EU competency.
I am all for giving permanent residence with full rights to EU immigrants in the UK, as they are an asset to our country. French people may feel a bit different about Britons there, or they may not, but they are perfectly entitled to their national sovereignty on the issue.
I suspect that they will be perfectly willing to give residency to those able to pay their way, and for freedom of movement of the wealthy to continue. It is poorer people who will lose their ability to move abroad.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
A brilliant act to destroy the french second homes market.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
TBF, it says the French, not the EU.
Which is why I made a point to note that being a part of the EU is supposed to elevate its members, we've seen Roger cry about how we are already diminished enough times about it, as though holding or not holding EU membership immediately makes a nation barbaric and crude.
Is it?
Maybe in the case of the Germans or the Bulgarians. But let's face it, both nations had sunk so low anything lower would have been spat back by a sewer.
I thought the rest of us were just on a gravy train.
I don't agree that mere membership elevates a nation, but some in effect claim that when they act as though civilization itself is ending as a result of leaving. If someone is one who puts EU membership on such a moral pedestal, then they have to accept, I would argue, that nations within the EU, while making choices, are held to a high standard.
Or perhaps the EU is not perfect and nor are its members.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
TBF, it says the French, not the EU.
And I still say if we had done what the French did, and ignored every rule we didn't like, this country would love the EU to death and it would be a great success.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
Macron is a posturing buffoon
In all honesty how is his government doing? He was very impressive to become president and get a parliamentary majority, it would be even more impressive if he is genuinely managing to change things too.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
He did not say anything of the sort. He said fighting the CU was worth the risk of a second referendum. He is correct in saying that all deal outcomes, including Norway, are less damaging to the UK than permanent membership of the CU.
Semantics. He thinks a 2nd referendum is better than TMay's deal. He also admits that REMAINING (presumably after that vote) is better than TMay's deal.
And yes he also says he prefers EFTA or Canada to TMay's deal.
And this is fom Dan Hannan? It is a significant concession by arguably the most intellectually acute of Brexiteer politicians.
OK well he says nothing like that but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
Er, he says it explicitly here
"The proposed exit terms represent a deal worse than either STAYING or leaving."
and also implies it here
"frankly, any outcome – no deal, Norway, Canada, even the risk of a second referendum – would be better than what is currently on the table"
Yes. That does not mean he advocates a second referendum, or that we should remain. He is saying we should not do May's deal.
He is doing exactly that. Can you not read? He suggests several alternatives, but amongst them he advocates a 2nd referendum if it is the only workable alternative to TMay's deal. Indeed he goes further than that and concedes that Remaining would be better than TMay's deal.
That's precisely what he says. In English. In sentences formed of words.
I does not say that at all. He does not 'advocate' for a second referendum. He advocates for the rejection of May's deal. He says that voting down May's deal is 'worth the risk' of a second referendum - eg the risk the HoC may decide to go for a second referendum if there is no deal. He does say May's terms are worse than staying or leaving and he is right. That does not mean he advocates remaining. He advocates rejecting May's deal - "We need to drop our sunk costs stubbornness and try something different."
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A) "No Deal Brexit"
or
Remain.
"There will be no second referendum, the people voted and this government will deliver”
Theresa May, 17 October 2018.
Note the statement is not qualified about whether or not there is a deal.
But as you've already pointed out, she's one of the greatest liars in the history of politics. Therefore, this means there will be a second referendum. And possibly a third and a fourth too.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
You are Dr Michael Burry and I claim my five pounds.
Edit to add: Thnaks for the videos! Most enlightening.
I have a massive amount of respect for Dr Burry, so that comparison is a great compliment. £5 is in the post.
If I understand Barnier's scheme correctly, for the first time I can see a pathway to a semi workable Brexit. So you have transition period no 1, where you negotiate a backstop workaround. Nominally this is a "customs arrangement" and undefined harmonisation of rules in Northern Ireland and Great Britain that are both the same and different as each other so there is no need for a hard border either in Ireland or the Irish Sea. This is of course strictly time limited. Let's call this arrangement SM+CU for short. We give ourselves an extra year in transition 1 to negotiate the arrangement for transition no 2. In 2022 we move into transition no 2 where we negotiate the final arrangement. By this time the "technical solutions" to the border problem will have revealed themselves and we can begin work on Canada, which will be absolutely super. This should take us to 2032 or thereabouts. We will have been discussing Brexit for fifteen years and the grass will have grown to triffid proportions
Solid entertainment
Provided it holds politically in the UK on a domestic basis, though, that would be politically and economically sustainable in the longer term.
I’ve always liked the way Robert Smithson has described Brexit as a process, and think there is much to be said for it.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
Macron is a posturing buffoon
In all honesty how is his government doing? He was very impressive to become president and get a parliamentary majority, it would be even more impressive if he is genuinely managing to change things too.
currently his popularity is just above Hollande at the end of his presidency and Hollande tested the depths of unpopularity
you can interpret this as Macron is suffering from imposing overdue reforms or that the french just dont like him, on his walkabouts he displays an arrogance which even rankles the french
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
You are Dr Michael Burry and I claim my five pounds.
Edit to add: Thnaks for the videos! Most enlightening.
I have a massive amount of respect for Dr Burry, so that comparison is a great compliment. £5 is in the post.
I love that scene where he is reading the MBS spreadsheets in The Big Short.
From the original Lewis Book he struck me as the most maverick of all the let’s short the housing market Mavericks.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
Asserting superior knowledge is only part of the trick - you then have to explain where everyone else has it wrong.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A) "No Deal Brexit"
or
Remain.
"There will be no second referendum, the people voted and this government will deliver”
Theresa May, 17 October 2018.
Note the statement is not qualified about whether or not there is a deal.
But as you've already pointed out, she's one of the greatest liars in the history of politics. Therefore, this means there will be a second referendum. And possibly a third and a fourth too.
She would be the greatest liar in politics today...
...had Jeremy Corbyn not claimed his manifesto was fully costed.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
Macron is a posturing buffoon
In all honesty how is his government doing? He was very impressive to become president and get a parliamentary majority, it would be even more impressive if he is genuinely managing to change things too.
currently his popularity is just above Hollande at the end of his presidency and Hollande tested the depths of unpopularity
you can interpret this as Macron is suffering from imposing overdue reforms or that the french just dont like him, on his walkabouts he displays an arrogance which even rankles the french
The man is an arrogant, out of touch, c*nt.
But he has pushed through more labour market reforms in a year than Sarkozy and Hollande managed in a decade. Not enough yet, and we have to see if he has the balls to finish what he started.
My guess is that he'll manage to reform France somewhat, but get booted out for being an arse. His successor will then enjoy the legacy.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
Macron is a posturing buffoon
In all honesty how is his government doing? He was very impressive to become president and get a parliamentary majority, it would be even more impressive if he is genuinely managing to change things too.
currently his popularity is just above Hollande at the end of his presidency and Hollande tested the depths of unpopularity
you can interpret this as Macron is suffering from imposing overdue reforms or that the french just dont like him, on his walkabouts he displays an arrogance which even rankles the french
Yeah, but what does unpopularity matter when you have a majority in the parliament and nearly 4 years to the next election?
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A) "No Deal Brexit"
or
Remain.
"There will be no second referendum, the people voted and this government will deliver”
Theresa May, 17 October 2018.
Note the statement is not qualified about whether or not there is a deal.
But as you've already pointed out, she's one of the greatest liars in the history of politics. Therefore, this means there will be a second referendum. And possibly a third and a fourth too.
It does not 'mean there will be a second referendum'. It just means she is a liar and might try to change her mind. But I don't think she would do so. She could not possibly defend a change of position. She is much more likely to resign and let someone else sort it out.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A) "No Deal Brexit"
or
Remain.
"There will be no second referendum, the people voted and this government will deliver”
Theresa May, 17 October 2018.
Note the statement is not qualified about whether or not there is a deal.
But as you've already pointed out, she's one of the greatest liars in the history of politics. Therefore, this means there will be a second referendum. And possibly a third and a fourth too.
It does not 'mean there will be a second referendum'. It just means she is a liar and might try to change her mind. But I don't think she would do so. She could not possibly defend a change of position. She is much more likely to resign and let someone else sort it out.
Why would she need to defend a change of position?
The suggestion that the february recess may be cancelled leads me more and more to the view a second referendum is on it's way.
If we look at the politics, the DUP, Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson and others including labour seem to be leading a move towards staying in the customs union and the single market and if that becomes unlikely, no deal becomes almost default.
A second referendum with tacit support from those mentioned above, plus a majority in the HOC and HOL becomes a real prospect.
TM did say she would bring the matter to the HOC for their decision and if that happens, and the HOC, HOL and the country look in favour, a second referendum it will be.
And in those circumstances the hard brexiteers will have lost due to their obsession with only their way and a poorly presented case. The plummeting popularity of Boris and JRM should be a warning. The public are losing faith in the hard brexit WTO way, if they had any in the first place
Obviously we disagree on the outcome. But the point about this being due to the hard Brexiteers is clearly false. The talks are stuck on the backstop, not the trade deal. And as has become clear in the last week, ANY type of deal with the EU cannot be done now, under A50; will have to be approved in the form of a mixed competency trade deal, and therefore will require the backstop which almost everyone, including Ruth Davidson, says is unacceptable. There is no evidence that Tory Remainers support the backstop - they all agreed with May when she said she could never agree to it.
Do you believe there is a majority for the NI backstop with Tory MPs? If not, how does a 'softer' Brexit make any difference to the current problem?
No the backstop is dead. Staying in the single market and customs union or a second referendum is becoming ever more likely
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
Asserting superior knowledge is only part of the trick - you then have to explain where everyone else has it wrong.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
Should the UK do the same?
In a No Deal environment we too are obliged to do so. Indeed unless the government changes the rules employers and landlords will be liable for massive fines for employing/housing 3rd party nationals without work visas.
The suggestion that the february recess may be cancelled leads me more and more to the view a second referendum is on it's way.
If we look at the politics, the DUP, Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson and others including labour seem to be leading a move towards staying in the customs union and the single market and if that becomes unlikely, no deal becomes almost default.
A second referendum with tacit support from those mentioned above, plus a majority in the HOC and HOL becomes a real prospect.
TM did say she would bring the matter to the HOC for their decision and if that happens, and the HOC, HOL and the country look in favour, a second referendum it will be.
And in those circumstances the hard brexiteers will have lost due to their obsession with only their way and a poorly presented case. The plummeting popularity of Boris and JRM should be a warning. The public are losing faith in the hard brexit WTO way, if they had any in the first place
Staying in the CU has been defeated FIVE SEPARATE TIMES in the HoC.
I know you really like the sound of it, Big G, but it isn’t going to happen. There aren’t votes for it in the House.
The House voted by just 6 votes to Leave the CU, that can easily be overturned.
Even only 327 MPs voted to Leave the Single Market, just 1 more than a majority, most Labour MPs abstained
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
Should the UK do the same?
In a No Deal environment we too are obliged to do so. Indeed unless the government changes the rules employers and landlords will be liable for massive fines for employing/housing 3rd party nationals without work visas.
We're obliged to do the same as France? I don't think that's what the government are planning .
Well, it's been obvious to anyone with more than half a brain for a long time that he was a less bright version of Blair. Traingate alone was proof of that.
The question is though, in size terms - is he smaller than Trump?
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
So why did Remainers argue since the referendum result that we should unilaterally guarantee UK resident EU nationals' rights when no such guarantees were forthcoming from the EU? Surely 'taking the moral high ground' was going to lead to a 'generous EU response'?
Because it’s the right thing to do. Human beings should not be used as bargaining chips.
"You know my background, I’m a Republican. I long for a united Ireland but I recognise democracy, and Ireland will not be reunited around some contortions over the relationship with the EU.
“It will only be reunited on the basis of the popular support of the Irish people and that is what I respect.”
Not everyone gets tearful over "our precious Union". John McDonnell doesn't.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
Should the UK do the same?
In a No Deal environment we too are obliged to do so. Indeed unless the government changes the rules employers and landlords will be liable for massive fines for employing/housing 3rd party nationals without work visas.
But Mrs May has said we won't and will adopt the proposals we set out in the event of a deal.
The suggestion that the february recess may be cancelled leads me more and more to the view a second referendum is on it's way.
If we look at the politics, the DUP, Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson and others including labour seem to be leading a move towards staying in the customs union and the single market and if that becomes unlikely, no deal becomes almost default.
A second referendum with tacit support from those mentioned above, plus a majority in the HOC and HOL becomes a real prospect.
TM did say she would bring the matter to the HOC for their decision and if that happens, and the HOC, HOL and the country look in favour, a second referendum it will be.
And in those circumstances the hard brexiteers will have lost due to their obsession with only their way and a poorly presented case. The plummeting popularity of Boris and JRM should be a warning. The public are losing faith in the hard brexit WTO way, if they had any in the first place
Staying in the CU has been defeated FIVE SEPARATE TIMES in the HoC.
I know you really like the sound of it, Big G, but it isn’t going to happen. There aren’t votes for it in the House.
Just as happened on the eve of the GE when I shared David's view that it was touch and go, my view is instinctive on the direction of travel.
The fact something has been defeated does not mean it cannot be approved by the HOC
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
Brexit means Brexit. We become 3rd party nationals and are dealt with by relevant national laws in the event of No Deal.
What is it about No Deal Brexit that Brexiteers cannot understand?
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
I’m looking forward to the howls from the Remainers who condemned us for not unilaterally protecting EU citizen’s rights.
And the apologies to those of us who said acting unilaterally it would be turned into a hostage to fortune.
Give over, you patronising twerp. The 3m can and should stay, regardless of other countries’ policies.
Just thought it might be interesting to copy out what the EU Withdrawal Act actually says about the process in Parliament.
If there is a deal, the provisions are pretty much a straight vote on approval:
The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if...the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown
If there is no deal, this is what happens:
(10) Subsection (11) applies if, at the end of 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of— (a ) the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and (b) the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
(11) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of five days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019— (a) make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed, and (b) make arrangements for—
(i) a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Commons sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019, and
(ii) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019.
[My emphasis above].
Clearly, none of this allows Parliament to dictate the process.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
Should the UK do the same?
In a No Deal environment we too are obliged to do so. Indeed unless the government changes the rules employers and landlords will be liable for massive fines for employing/housing 3rd party nationals without work visas.
But Mrs May has said we won't and will adopt the proposals we set out in the event of a deal.
I think that's the right thing to do.
The French, evidently do not.
That is the Governments decision, but not binding on other countries. That is what No Deal means!
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
My hon. Friend’s question involves a number of assumptions. We are working to get a good deal with the European Union. If, at the end of the negotiation process, both sides agreed that no deal was there, that would actually come back to this House, and then we would see what position the House would take in the circumstances of the time.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A) "No Deal Brexit"
or
Remain.
"There will be no second referendum, the people voted and this government will deliver”
Theresa May, 17 October 2018.
Note the statement is not qualified about whether or not there is a deal.
But as you've already pointed out, she's one of the greatest liars in the history of politics. Therefore, this means there will be a second referendum. And possibly a third and a fourth too.
Not now Donald Trump is in politics. I heard an academic saying on radio earlier that Trump is completely amoral. A fair description and though unprovable i'd say he's at least as amoral as Saddam and Assad though happily without their unfettered power.
The suggestion that the february recess may be cancelled leads me more and more to the view a second referendum is on it's way.
If we look at the politics, the DUP, Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson and others including labour seem to be leading a move towards staying in the customs union and the single market and if that becomes unlikely, no deal becomes almost default.
A second referendum with tacit support from those mentioned above, plus a majority in the HOC and HOL becomes a real prospect.
TM did say she would bring the matter to the HOC for their decision and if that happens, and the HOC, HOL and the country look in favour, a second referendum it will be.
And in those circumstances the hard brexiteers will have lost due to their obsession with only their way and a poorly presented case. The plummeting popularity of Boris and JRM should be a warning. The public are losing faith in the hard brexit WTO way, if they had any in the first place
Obviously we disagree on the outcome. But the point about this being due to the hard Brexiteers is clearly false. The talks are stuck on the backstop, not the trade deal. And as has become clear in the last week, ANY type of deal with the EU cannot be done now, under A50; will have to be approved in the form of a mixed competency trade deal, and therefore will require the backstop which almost everyone, including Ruth Davidson, says is unacceptable. There is no evidence that Tory Remainers support the backstop - they all agreed with May when she said she could never agree to it.
Do you believe there is a majority for the NI backstop with Tory MPs? If not, how does a 'softer' Brexit make any difference to the current problem?
No the backstop is dead. Staying in the single market and customs union or a second referendum is becoming ever more likely
Staying in the single market and customs union cannot be done without agreeing the backstop.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
So why did Remainers argue since the referendum result that we should unilaterally guarantee UK resident EU nationals' rights when no such guarantees were forthcoming from the EU? Surely 'taking the moral high ground' was going to lead to a 'generous EU response'?
Because it’s the right thing to do. Human beings should not be used as bargaining chips.
But if the French do it to resident Brits "its the law"?
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
His attitude is repulsive. The mask slips. "Foxy" just hates Brexit and therefore most Brits, he WANTS the EU to hurt us, to punish us, for leaving. And he doesn't give a fuck about all those Brits in France now living in total uncertainty, they're collateral damage in his personal war on Leavers.
And these Remainers want a second referendum? How do they expect to win when they reveal themselves as scumbags like this?
Pah. I shall go to the gym and work off my anger. Later.
Nope, merely recognising national sovereignty.
It is the Brexiteers that have threatened the status of Britons in the EU27, not anyone else.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A. "No Deal Brexit"
or
B. Remain.
And when No Deal wins... ?
And then that has to be implemented and indeed it could be the result of asking again
"You know my background, I’m a Republican. I long for a united Ireland but I recognise democracy, and Ireland will not be reunited around some contortions over the relationship with the EU.
“It will only be reunited on the basis of the popular support of the Irish people and that is what I respect.”
Not everyone gets tearful over "our precious Union". John McDonnell doesn't.
I don't know that's a lot better than the original snippet. If national self-determination is the key, he should surely have said 'Northern Irish' not 'Irish'?
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
Yes, I think you're right. Cole probably misread it.
The wording is obscure: we shall have to wait and see what the French propose, in full.
PS That said, the reaction of people like Foxy was very telling. Remainers sneering smugly and saying this is what Britons deserve.
Yuk.
I did not say it is what Britons deserve, just that their status becomes 3rd party nationals.
Most Britons in the EU are by their very being there pro EU FOM.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
Macron is a posturing buffoon
In all honesty how is his government doing? He was very impressive to become president and get a parliamentary majority, it would be even more impressive if he is genuinely managing to change things too.
currently his popularity is just above Hollande at the end of his presidency and Hollande tested the depths of unpopularity
you can interpret this as Macron is suffering from imposing overdue reforms or that the french just dont like him, on his walkabouts he displays an arrogance which even rankles the french
The man is an arrogant, out of touch, c*nt.
But he has pushed through more labour market reforms in a year than Sarkozy and Hollande managed in a decade. Not enough yet, and we have to see if he has the balls to finish what he started.
My guess is that he'll manage to reform France somewhat, but get booted out for being an arse. His successor will then enjoy the legacy.
And France, at least, has sensible demographics.
Unless his successor is Le Pen or Melenchon which is not impossible
The suggestion that the february recess may be cancelled leads me more and more to the view a second referendum is on it's way.
If we look at the politics, the DUP, Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson and others including labour seem to be leading a move towards staying in the customs union and the single market and if that becomes unlikely, no deal becomes almost default.
A second referendum with tacit support from those mentioned above, plus a majority in the HOC and HOL becomes a real prospect.
TM did say she would bring the matter to the HOC for their decision and if that happens, and the HOC, HOL and the country look in favour, a second referendum it will be.
And in those circumstances the hard brexiteers will have lost due to their obsession with only their way and a poorly presented case. The plummeting popularity of Boris and JRM should be a warning. The public are losing faith in the hard brexit WTO way, if they had any in the first place
Obviously we disagree on the outcome. But the point about this being due to the hard Brexiteers is clearly false. The talks are stuck on the backstop, not the trade deal. And as has become clear in the last week, ANY type of deal with the EU cannot be done now, under A50; will have to be approved in the form of a mixed competency trade deal, and therefore will require the backstop which almost everyone, including Ruth Davidson, says is unacceptable. There is no evidence that Tory Remainers support the backstop - they all agreed with May when she said she could never agree to it.
Do you believe there is a majority for the NI backstop with Tory MPs? If not, how does a 'softer' Brexit make any difference to the current problem?
No the backstop is dead. Staying in the single market and customs union or a second referendum is becoming ever more likely
Staying in the single market and customs union cannot be done without agreeing the backstop.
Which will be to keep Northern Ireland in the single market and customs union
AfD-Fraktionschef Alexander Gauland erinnerte an den Kampf der Briten für ein freies Europa in den Kriegen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Er forderte, die „Briten auch außerhalb der EU als die Freunde zu behandeln, die sie sind“. Das Land verlasse die EU, aber nicht Europa.
Yes, I think you're right. Cole probably misread it.
The wording is obscure: we shall have to wait and see what the French propose, in full.
PS That said, the reaction of people like Foxy was very telling. Remainers sneering smugly and saying this is what Britons deserve.
Yuk.
The way the French press are reporting it is that No Deal might not be officially confirmed until Feb 2019, and there's not enough time for legislation to be passed, so that's why they are planning on giving Macron emergency powers to make sure Brits living in France don't become stateless next March.
I don't know that's a lot better than the original snippet. If national self-determination is the key, he should surely have said 'Northern Irish' not 'Irish'?
It's obviously left deliberately vague. As we found with the Scottish Referendum, it all depends on who you think needs to be asked. Had the question of Scottish independence involved the rest of the UK there might have been a different answer (or there might not). Had the Scots resident in the test of the UK been allowed to vote there might have been a more definite win for YES.
Similarly, should any vote asking the people of Northern Ireland whether they wish to leave the UK and join with the Republic be confined to those living in the Province, should it include all within the island of Ireland and should it include Northern Irish-born people resident in the rest of the UK?
I don't have an answer but I hope it's one of the questions.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
Yes, I think you're right. Cole probably misread it.
The wording is obscure: we shall have to wait and see what the French propose, in full.
PS That said, the reaction of people like Foxy was very telling. Remainers sneering smugly and saying this is what Britons deserve.
Yuk.
I did not say it is what Britons deserve, just that their status becomes 3rd party nationals.
Most Britons in the EU are by their very being there pro EU FOM.
really ?
one of my best mates lives there and he makes Farage look a remainer
I think you are saying that if we have a 'soft border' in NI we have to have a soft border everywhere else? I don't believe this is the case.
The purpose of the soft border is simply a different way of enforcing the same rules. The WTO also have dispensations for these types of situations. So on this basis, I do not believe that the proposed ERG solution is in any way incompatible with WTO rules. And of course, the head of HMCE has already confirmed that in a no deal there would be no need to introduce checks at the border; presumably if it really was against WTO rules May would have him screaming it from the rooftops.
It would depend on the dispute resolution mechanism and outcome of the (hated, foreign, supra-national, sovereignty-eating) WTO, which is a member-driven organisation.
They might decide that a hard border (ie checks on everything) was not needed given the special situation of NI/RoI and the history. But the central premise is that if we let EU widgets in without checking them, then the US, say, could bring a dispute against us under MFN demanding that we let their widgets, or perhaps their chicken, likewise in without checks. So the WTO does not mandate a hard border, and nor is one certain as a result of a WTO dispute process.
But one is possible and that is what I am and have been saying Theresa May cannot risk.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A. "No Deal Brexit"
or
B. Remain.
And when No Deal wins... ?
Then "No Deal"
I suggested this a couple of days ago. If you get to a position where No Deal is the only option then I think even May can swallow her pride and go back on her word of no 2nd referendum because the result is right at the extreme of the leave options and you can't possibly conclude that the referendum result definitely meant that. If the only options you can achieve are Remain or No Deal then so be it.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
AfD-Fraktionschef Alexander Gauland erinnerte an den Kampf der Briten für ein freies Europa in den Kriegen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Er forderte, die „Briten auch außerhalb der EU als die Freunde zu behandeln, die sie sind“. Das Land verlasse die EU, aber nicht Europa.
cerainly across europe the base is rumbling, the EU generals are now managing to spook their own troops
I don't know that's a lot better than the original snippet. If national self-determination is the key, he should surely have said 'Northern Irish' not 'Irish'?
It's obviously left deliberately vague. As we found with the Scottish Referendum, it all depends on who you think needs to be asked. Had the question of Scottish independence involved the rest of the UK there might have been a different answer (or there might not). Had the Scots resident in the test of the UK been allowed to vote there might have been a more definite win for YES.
Similarly, should any vote asking the people of Northern Ireland whether they wish to leave the UK and join with the Republic be confined to those living in the Province, should it include all within the island of Ireland and should it include Northern Irish-born people resident in the rest of the UK?
I don't have an answer but I hope it's one of the questions.
I think that's a fairly easy question to answer. It would be all those living in Northern Ireland who are entitled to a vote.
All other considerations aside, there would be actual violence if your second option were even mooted and the third option strikes me as cumbersome not to mention something that could undermine the legitimacy of the vote in the event of a close result.
But as they are the ones most significantly affected, the people resident in Northern Ireland should have the say on what happens to them.
(I realise in saying this it would have a major impact on Ireland too.)
I don't know that's a lot better than the original snippet. If national self-determination is the key, he should surely have said 'Northern Irish' not 'Irish'?
It's obviously left deliberately vague. As we found with the Scottish Referendum, it all depends on who you think needs to be asked. Had the question of Scottish independence involved the rest of the UK there might have been a different answer (or there might not). Had the Scots resident in the test of the UK been allowed to vote there might have been a more definite win for YES.
Similarly, should any vote asking the people of Northern Ireland whether they wish to leave the UK and join with the Republic be confined to those living in the Province, should it include all within the island of Ireland and should it include Northern Irish-born people resident in the rest of the UK?
I don't have an answer but I hope it's one of the questions.
wrt NI leaving and joining the RoI you'd have to ask all those directly involved (ie both NI and RoI) whereas for scotland only those in scotland would be eligible to vote.
Yes, I think you're right. Cole probably misread it.
The wording is obscure: we shall have to wait and see what the French propose, in full.
PS That said, the reaction of people like Foxy was very telling. Remainers sneering smugly and saying this is what Britons deserve.
Yuk.
The way the French press are reporting it is that No Deal might not be officially confirmed until Feb 2019, and there's not enough time for legislation to be passed, so that's why they are planning on giving Macron emergency powers to make sure Brits living in France don't become stateless next March.
Many Britons in France have already acted. There does not seem to be a lack of willingness by the French to regularise status, though clearly some capacity issues. This tweet antedates today's announcement:
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
Brexit means Brexit. We become 3rd party nationals and are dealt with by relevant national laws in the event of No Deal.
What is it about No Deal Brexit that Brexiteers cannot understand?
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
Yes, I think you're right. Cole probably misread it.
The wording is obscure: we shall have to wait and see what the French propose, in full.
PS That said, the reaction of people like Foxy was very telling. Remainers sneering smugly and saying this is what Britons deserve.
Yuk.
I did not say it is what Britons deserve, just that their status becomes 3rd party nationals.
Most Britons in the EU are by their very being there pro EU FOM.
really ?
one of my best mates lives there and he makes Farage look a remainer
Yes, I am sure that there are some without insight.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
Brexit means Brexit. We become 3rd party nationals and are dealt with by relevant national laws in the event of No Deal.
What is it about No Deal Brexit that Brexiteers cannot understand?
It’s like talking to a brick wall.
I mean, you don’t even think before you post.
Moron.
The French are making their soverign decision on the status of 3rd party nationals.
That is what Brexit means. We lose our rights to FOM in the EU27, and all the attached rights and privileges.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
Brexit means Brexit. We become 3rd party nationals and are dealt with by relevant national laws in the event of No Deal.
What is it about No Deal Brexit that Brexiteers cannot understand?
It’s like talking to a brick wall.
I mean, you don’t even think before you post.
Moron.
The French are making their soverign decision on the status of 3rd party nationals.
That is what Brexit means. We lose our rights to FOM in the EU27, and all the attached rights and privileges.
No one is arguing they don't have the right. Just pointing out that there has been little criticism of the decision from those that demanded the UK unilaterally guarantee EU citizen rights.
Insurance company Aviva is preparing to transfer the administration of insurance policies from the UK to Ireland, to safeguard against the possible implications of Brexit.
The company is writing to policy holders here to inform them of the proposed changes, which it says will provide certainty into the future.
It says that the UK withdrawal from the European Union may lead to changes in the law that could alter the way Aviva operates in other European countries.
In a letter to customers, the company says Brexit means it is likely to lose the right to offer insurance covering risks in the EU or European Economic Area (EEA) in the same way as it does now.
The move, which has to be approved by a court in Scotland, will involve the transfer of policies from Aviva Insurance Limited in the UK to Aviva Insurance Ireland DAC. This entity will provide cover for all risks situated in the EU or the EEA.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
Yes, I think you're right. Cole probably misread it.
The wording is obscure: we shall have to wait and see what the French propose, in full.
PS That said, the reaction of people like Foxy was very telling. Remainers sneering smugly and saying this is what Britons deserve.
Yuk.
I did not say it is what Britons deserve, just that their status becomes 3rd party nationals.
Most Britons in the EU are by their very being there pro EU FOM.
really ?
one of my best mates lives there and he makes Farage look a remainer
Yes, I am sure that there are some without insight.
lol
I suspect people living in France have a much better perception of what a unitary EU would be like
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Jesus. You're almost gleeful that the EU - in the form of France - is making life horribly uncertain for Brits in France, even as the British government unilaterally guarantees the rights of French people in the UK.
We're the good guys here, they're the bad guys, for once there is no grey area - and yet still you're cheering for the EU? Go jump in a lake.
Are you really this much of a twat? They should accede just because what, you want them to be nice? Jeez. Even I said from the outset that the Brits should not give concessions unilaterally to EU citizens, despite what some wanky Leavers (R Tyndall foremost amongst them) wanted because, well duh, it is a negotiation and doing what we did meant that we would be leaving our citizens in the EU high and dry.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
So why did Remainers argue since the referendum result that we should unilaterally guarantee UK resident EU nationals' rights when no such guarantees were forthcoming from the EU? Surely 'taking the moral high ground' was going to lead to a 'generous EU response'?
Because it’s the right thing to do. Human beings should not be used as bargaining chips.
It's all in play. I am a Remainer ( @CarlottaVance pls note) and I advocated a negotiation to determine both sides' citizens.
Moronic Leavers want to choose when nations should be nice and fluffy and seem to be blissfully unaware that all this is precisely what they voted for.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
His attitude is repulsive. The mask slips. "Foxy" just hates Brexit and therefore most Brits, he WANTS the EU to hurt us, to punish us, for leaving. And he doesn't give a fuck about all those Brits in France now living in total uncertainty, they're collateral damage in his personal war on Leavers.
And these Remainers want a second referendum? How do they expect to win when they reveal themselves as scumbags like this?
Pah. I shall go to the gym and work off my anger. Later.
“The French are proposing to force anyone British who overstays their tourist visa without leave by more than 24 hours to sing La Marseillaise and sleep in garlic for a week, charge them £2,000 for seeing a doctor, force our men to wear berets in the Summer as a condition of entry, urinate on any P&O ferries that dock in their ports, and fine any speaking of French with a bad accent by Les Anglais by a compulsory surcharge of €100 on their bill whenever they visit a restaurant.”
“Brexit means Brexit. You voted for it! Suck it up!!”
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
Yes, I think you're right. Cole probably misread it.
The wording is obscure: we shall have to wait and see what the French propose, in full.
PS That said, the reaction of people like Foxy was very telling. Remainers sneering smugly and saying this is what Britons deserve.
Yuk.
I did not say it is what Britons deserve, just that their status becomes 3rd party nationals.
Most Britons in the EU are by their very being there pro EU FOM.
really ?
one of my best mates lives there and he makes Farage look a remainer
Yes, I am sure that there are some without insight.
lol
I suspect people living in France have a much better perception of what a unitary EU would be like
There was this rather interesting poll by Yougov that showed Britons want FOM for ourselves in the EU, but not the reverse:
The advantage of a police state in Turkey is that nothing goes on without them knowing - for example knowing exactly what's been going on in the Saudi Consulate.
How could that be true, the EU is the most noble, glorious and civilized entity in the world, and merely being a part of its club elevates all its members as a result, how could they do less than we on something?
How to lose the moral high ground, in one go.
So Britain is generously and unilaterally offering EU citizens guaranteed rights as full UK subjects. France does nothing of the sort in return.
No doubt Remoaners will find some way to blame this on the horrible Brexity Brits. I don't know quite how, though.
I can’t think of anything that will turn the British against the EU more quickly than the French being Gallic twats and threatening us.
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I think Harry Cole is misunderstanding what he's read.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
Ah, thanks.
What you mean you jumped to a jingoistic nationalistic conclusion? Mon Dieu!
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
So why did Remainers argue since the referendum result that we should unilaterally guarantee UK resident EU nationals' rights when no such guarantees were forthcoming from the EU? Surely 'taking the moral high ground' was going to lead to a 'generous EU response'?
Because it’s the right thing to do. Human beings should not be used as bargaining chips.
It's all in play. I am a Remainer ( @CarlottaVance pls note) and I advocated a negotiation to determine both sides' citizens.
Moronic Leavers want to choose when nations should be nice and fluffy and seem to be blissfully unaware that all this is precisely what they voted for.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
Brexit means Brexit. We become 3rd party nationals and are dealt with by relevant national laws in the event of No Deal.
What is it about No Deal Brexit that Brexiteers cannot understand?
It’s like talking to a brick wall.
I mean, you don’t even think before you post.
Moron.
The French are making their soverign decision on the status of 3rd party nationals.
That is what Brexit means. We lose our rights to FOM in the EU27, and all the attached rights and privileges.
I don’t need you to tell me what Brexit means. I know more about the EU and Brexit than you ever will.
The point is there’s no behaviour you’d ever call out as unreasonable by the EU or the EU27 in response to our vote to Leave - no matter how generous the UK was in return - because, for you, anything and everything is justified in response to a vote you despise.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Do not pretend for a second that you would not be saying what a travesty it was if our government declared it was doing the same, that would be insulting. Not least because it pretends that one course of action arising from leaving the EU is an inevitability, when the whole point of negotiating various things, and the discretion afforded to governments world over, means they have a choice about what they do. You are pretending they have no choice, which is absurd.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
The French are merely preparing for No Deal. Obviously if there is a deal, that applies, via the Withdrawal agreement. No deal means no WA, in which case each country has to apply its rules on 3rd party nationals.
I don’t think there’s any action the EU or any of its member states could take that you wouldn’t excuse.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
His attitude is repulsive. The mask slips. "Foxy" just hates Brexit and therefore most Brits, he WANTS the EU to hurt us, to punish us, for leaving. And he doesn't give a fuck about all those Brits in France now living in total uncertainty, they're collateral damage in his personal war on Leavers.
And these Remainers want a second referendum? How do they expect to win when they reveal themselves as scumbags like this?
Pah. I shall go to the gym and work off my anger. Later.
“The French are proposing to force anyone British who overstays their tourist visa without leave by more than 24 hours to sing La Marseillaise and sleep in garlic for a week, charge them £2,000 for seeing a doctor, force our men to wear berets in the Summer as a condition of entry, urinate on any P&O ferries that dock in their ports, and fine any speaking of French with a bad accent by Les Anglais by a compulsory surcharge of €100 on their bill whenever they visit a restaurant.”
“Brexit means Brexit. You voted for it! Suck it up!!”
I wouldn't expect or advocate that, but when we Brexit we lose rights to FOM.
What is it about Leavers that makes them so obtuse?
Comments
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
Perhaps we spend too much time obsessing on how much people do instead of thinking about more quality-rated, less transactional and less quantifiable assets.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/midterms-are-referendum-trump-he-s-embracing-it-n920086
So, no change there.
Maybe in the case of the Germans or the Bulgarians. But let's face it, both nations had sunk so low anything lower would have been spat back by a sewer.
I thought the rest of us were just on a gravy train.
You are behaving no better than any 'A true brexit must be a super diamond hard brexit that I want' Brexiteer who insists their interpretation alone is correct.
1. Negotiations with the EU have led to the inescapable conclusion that the only achievable Brexit is a "No Deal" Brexit. All other possible Brexits require the partitioning of the UK; which is both unacceptable to HMG and unlawful.
2. A "No Deal Brexit" was not presented to the UK electorate as a likely outcome of the Referendum and opinion polls suggest that there is not and never has been a majority for a "No Deal" Brexit.
3. Given that HMG feels that the electorate did not vote for a "No Deal" Brexit and that this is the only available Brexit, then the electorate should vote again to decide in favour of
A. "No Deal Brexit"
or
B. Remain.
France can do as it pleases, but that is just it, it is making choices about what it wants to do, to pretend that what they choose is an inevitable response is to pretend everyone is an idiot. It is one of the most transparently partisan things I have ever seen on here, and that is saying something, since we're all guilty of it too a degree, but not usually so shamelessly and transparently.
The fact that is in itself unworkable is the crux of the problem.
Things will have to get much worse before that is eventually done.
Theresa May, 17 October 2018.
Note the statement is not qualified about whether or not there is a deal.
Edit to add: Thnaks for the videos! Most enlightening.
I am all for giving permanent residence with full rights to EU immigrants in the UK, as they are an asset to our country. French people may feel a bit different about Britons there, or they may not, but they are perfectly entitled to their national sovereignty on the issue.
I suspect that they will be perfectly willing to give residency to those able to pay their way, and for freedom of movement of the wealthy to continue. It is poorer people who will lose their ability to move abroad.
Macron is a posturing buffoon
Or perhaps the EU is not perfect and nor are its members.
and wed be respected more
Hell, it might even make TSE think twice.
I’ve always liked the way Robert Smithson has described Brexit as a process, and think there is much to be said for it.
you can interpret this as Macron is suffering from imposing overdue reforms or that the french just dont like him, on his walkabouts he displays an arrogance which even rankles the french
I love that scene where he is reading the MBS spreadsheets in The Big Short.
From the original Lewis Book he struck me as the most maverick of all the let’s short the housing market Mavericks.
...had Jeremy Corbyn not claimed his manifesto was fully costed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6286877/John-McDonnell-says-longs-united-Ireland.html
But he has pushed through more labour market reforms in a year than Sarkozy and Hollande managed in a decade. Not enough yet, and we have to see if he has the balls to finish what he started.
My guess is that he'll manage to reform France somewhat, but get booted out for being an arse. His successor will then enjoy the legacy.
And France, at least, has sensible demographics.
For you, the fact we’re voted to Leave justifies everything.
Even only 327 MPs voted to Leave the Single Market, just 1 more than a majority, most Labour MPs abstained
Merkel getting criticised for status of Brexit negotiations by all sides
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article182272044/Brexit-Angela-Merkels-auffallend-entspannte-Regierungserklaerung.html
The question is though, in size terms - is he smaller than Trump?
His actual words:
"You know my background, I’m a Republican.
I long for a united Ireland but I recognise democracy, and Ireland will not be reunited around some contortions over the relationship with the EU.
“It will only be reunited on the basis of the popular support of the Irish people and that is what I respect.”
Not everyone gets tearful over "our precious Union". John McDonnell doesn't.
I think that's the right thing to do.
The French, evidently do not.
The fact something has been defeated does not mean it cannot be approved by the HOC
What is it about No Deal Brexit that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Give over, you patronising twerp. The 3m can and should stay, regardless of other countries’ policies.
If there is a deal, the provisions are pretty much a straight vote on approval:
The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if...the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown
If there is no deal, this is what happens:
(10) Subsection (11) applies if, at the end of 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
(a ) the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and
(b) the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
(11) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of five days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019—
(a) make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed, and
(b) make arrangements for—
(i) a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Commons sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019, and
(ii) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019.
[My emphasis above].
Clearly, none of this allows Parliament to dictate the process.
Reading the French press it is clear they are doing this to ensure these Brits in France don't get lost in limbo via legislative delay.
Or as the Guardian put it
France has published a draft bill that would allow the government to introduce new legal measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a hard Brexit by emergency decree, as opposed to parliamentary vote, within 12 months of the law being passed.
It said those consequences would include include Britons needing visas to visit and UK nationals resident in the country being in an “irregular” legal situation.
Without emergency measures, British citizens living in France would become third-country nationals, the draft bill states, which would prevent them from holding jobs restricted to EU nationals and limit their access to healthcare and welfare.
I mean I love bashing the nation of collaborators but in this instance it isn't deserved.
http://bit.ly/2P6agrW
Not 'if the House votes down the deal, but 'both sides agreed that no deal was there'.
So that requires a failure of UK-EU negotiations, not a failure to pass an agreed deal in the House.
It is the Brexiteers that have threatened the status of Britons in the EU27, not anyone else.
Like, I said wealthy people will be fine.
Most Britons in the EU are by their very being there pro EU FOM.
AfD-Fraktionschef Alexander Gauland erinnerte an den Kampf der Briten für ein freies Europa in den Kriegen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Er forderte, die „Briten auch außerhalb der EU als die Freunde zu behandeln, die sie sind“. Das Land verlasse die EU, aber nicht Europa.
Similarly, should any vote asking the people of Northern Ireland whether they wish to leave the UK and join with the Republic be confined to those living in the Province, should it include all within the island of Ireland and should it include Northern Irish-born people resident in the rest of the UK?
I don't have an answer but I hope it's one of the questions.
one of my best mates lives there and he makes Farage look a remainer
They might decide that a hard border (ie checks on everything) was not needed given the special situation of NI/RoI and the history. But the central premise is that if we let EU widgets in without checking them, then the US, say, could bring a dispute against us under MFN demanding that we let their widgets, or perhaps their chicken, likewise in without checks. So the WTO does not mandate a hard border, and nor is one certain as a result of a WTO dispute process.
But one is possible and that is what I am and have been saying Theresa May cannot risk.
All other considerations aside, there would be actual violence if your second option were even mooted and the third option strikes me as cumbersome not to mention something that could undermine the legitimacy of the vote in the event of a close result.
But as they are the ones most significantly affected, the people resident in Northern Ireland should have the say on what happens to them.
(I realise in saying this it would have a major impact on Ireland too.)
https://twitter.com/petertimmins3/status/1050400880770596864?s=19
Presumably you have your German Gastarbeiter permit sorted
I mean, you don’t even think before you post.
Moron.
That is what Brexit means. We lose our rights to FOM in the EU27, and all the attached rights and privileges.
Insurance company Aviva is preparing to transfer the administration of insurance policies from the UK to Ireland, to safeguard against the possible implications of Brexit.
The company is writing to policy holders here to inform them of the proposed changes, which it says will provide certainty into the future.
It says that the UK withdrawal from the European Union may lead to changes in the law that could alter the way Aviva operates in other European countries.
In a letter to customers, the company says Brexit means it is likely to lose the right to offer insurance covering risks in the EU or European Economic Area (EEA) in the same way as it does now.
The move, which has to be approved by a court in Scotland, will involve the transfer of policies from Aviva Insurance Limited in the UK to Aviva Insurance Ireland DAC. This entity will provide cover for all risks situated in the EU or the EEA.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/1017/1004759-aviva-ireland/
I suspect people living in France have a much better perception of what a unitary EU would be like
And lo, it came to pass.
Moronic Leavers want to choose when nations should be nice and fluffy and seem to be blissfully unaware that all this is precisely what they voted for.
“Brexit means Brexit. You voted for it! Suck it up!!”
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/03/british-attitudes-freedom-movement/
Hypocrisy is a great British tradition
The point is there’s no behaviour you’d ever call out as unreasonable by the EU or the EU27 in response to our vote to Leave - no matter how generous the UK was in return - because, for you, anything and everything is justified in response to a vote you despise.
Erugh. Yuk.
What is it about Leavers that makes them so obtuse?
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1052493667645177856