I don't think we should be forced into a Brexit nightmare. Leave is the path to ruin as plotted out by Leavers in a No Deal. It is not just a case of Leaving but finding a way of doing as little damage as possible to the economy and peoples lives.
I am ........hand could have the blood on their hands of many many innocent victims.
BiB - I think this is a problem with politics
Yes, I suspect the EU has never killed anyone. But that doesn't mean we should stay in it. As for our current predicament, I'm really not sure what I'd do if I was an MP. It angers me that we're havingwalk away at a later date (hop - though I wonder if the EU would throw their toys out of the pram if we started to make preparations).
Any country can announce its intention to withdraw from a treaty. NAFTA doesn't have a "clause" covering the exit of a country, but that wasn't an impidement to departure,
In fact, a vanishinglyprovisions for bringing them to a conclusion. Heck of the 210 different treaties signed between Switzerland and the EEC/EC/EU betweenose 210, perhaps only 180 are currently in force. Simply, new treaties came along and Switzerland and the EU ripped up old ones. (And some of these brought Switzerland and the EU closer together, and some of them moved them apart.)
It is perfectly reasonable to argue for No Deal - although I find that many of those doing so don't appreciate the extent to which it would affect the UK's trading relationships with the rest of the world. But it is dishonest to suggest that this deal - or any subsequent one - is in any way "final".
I'm not sure this correct. I think a treaty can be terminated for one of three reasons. 1. By a condition specified in the treaty, eg by giving 6 month's notice; 2. By mutual agreement; 3. By breaching the terms of the treaty. Tig86 talks about 3, I think, when you are maybe referring to 2.
In reality, I suspect it’s almost always by mutual agreement.
HMG saying we want a new treaty is hard to refuse, given the levers that modern governments have by controlling access to borders, services and trade.
This is how Switzerland have been able to continually renegotiate.
I agree with RIchard T - being outside the EU under almost any deal or absences thereof gives us far more options vis a vis europe, and far more chance of representing the views of our citizens, than being in does. Part of many Leavers’ objection to the EU is that it can’t be as fleet of foot as a nation state in negotiating bilaterals, because of the need to assuage too many competing interests and because of the cumbersome system of supra-national controls combined with some subsidiarity. I don’t think we’ll see a new EU treaty for member states for a long time.
Please note that we're miles away from a second vote still. The Tory hierarchy (Even May) isn't for it.
According to the Sunday Times May's advisers expect her to lose the first vote but she will wait for the markets to crash on the prospect of No Deal and after they have done so she will then call a second vote
Surely (unless the current mood shifts) a first vote defeat should be priced in. It won't move the markets suddenly and trying to assess how much of any fall between deal announcement and initial rejection would rightly be rejected as blather given there are many other factors moving the markets.
I would expect voting down the deal on the first vote to see the biggest market fall since the Leave vote. Voting it down a second time without an agreed proposal for EUref2 or single market/customs union membership as an alternative could see an even bigger market fall than the 2008 crash
Sounds like you suspect there's an incredibly easy way to make money coming up on the day of the first vote then!
I think loyalist Tories gleefully pointing out Brady doesn't have the 48 are misjudging this. This is asymetrasy warfare. Terrorism not a conventional land battle. What the ERGers are doing very sucessfully is denying May the chance to sell her deal. We've just finished Day 5 of the media grid and it's been oobliterated by process stories about her leadership not the detail of her deal. They burning up all her ' Oxygen of Publicity ' and suffercating the deal. Sometimes in politics all you have to do is change the subject and that's what they've done.
Surely if they fail to get the VoNC this week then the deal isn't yet politically dead (as TMay isn't) and that will then continue to progress - it's not like the substantive vote is until next month as I understand it.... see off the heat and fury now of the ERG, prove there's no other game in town and then move on to whether there's any way to get it through Parliament?
Is that not what's going on?
But when the VONC gets called on say Wednesday-Thursday this week, they will have completely denied May the ability to sell her deal at all.
And she may well not be around to sell it at all after the process is complete.
But it wasn't. Leave won the referendum because it assembled a broad church - on one end the EEAers, on the other the throw-out-the-foreigners lot. Hence the leave result represents those two incompatible and contradictory positions. I cannot say - and you cannot say either - the position the majority of leavers took, as it was not differentiated on the ballot paper.
This was bound to lead to the chaos we're seeing now, as leavers on both ends argue that 'their' Brexit is the one, true Brexit. It's easy to throw insults at May and others, but no-one could devise a Brexit that would satisfy leavers and hence 'match' the referendum result.
This was all predictable before the referendum, and was indeed predicted. But such voices were ignored as leavers were keener on winning than what would happen afterwards.
Remain did likewise (financial sector workers and Momentum activists?) and it's not conceivable that our future relationship with the EU would have suited all Remain voters. Does that mean a Remain vote would have justified a referendum every couple of years to check that the broad church had held together?
Rubbish. The remain vote was clear: it was on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation. If remain had won, then that is what would have been implemented.
Now, I and others had concerns that that would not last, and that in the future we'd get dragged deeper in. However that's far from certain, but the actions on a remain win were certain.
Leave wasn't, which is why we are where we are now.
I think loyalist Tories gleefully pointing out Brady doesn't have the 48 are misjudging this. This is asymetrasy warfare. Terrorism not a conventional land battle. What the ERGers are doing very sucessfully is denying May the chance to sell her deal. We've just finished Day 5 of the media grid and it's been oobliterated by process stories about her leadership not the detail of her deal. They burning up all her ' Oxygen of Publicity ' and suffercating the deal. Sometimes in politics all you have to do is change the subject and that's what they've done.
Surely if they fail to get the VoNC this week then the deal isn't yet politically dead (as TMay isn't) and that will then continue to progress - it's not like the substantive vote is until next month as I understand it.... see off the heat and fury now of the ERG, prove there's no other game in town and then move on to whether there's any way to get it through Parliament?
Is that not what's going on?
But when the VONC gets called on say Wednesday-Thursday this week, they will have completely denied May the ability to sell her deal at all.
And she may well not be around to sell it at all after the process is complete.
The question should be how long the people in the UK are going to allow this mess to continue before they start thinking about removing government heads from shoulders...
Comments
HMG saying we want a new treaty is hard to refuse, given the levers that modern governments have by controlling access to borders, services and trade.
This is how Switzerland have been able to continually renegotiate.
I agree with RIchard T - being outside the EU under almost any deal or absences thereof gives us far more options vis a vis europe, and far more chance of representing the views of our citizens, than being in does. Part of many Leavers’ objection to the EU is that it can’t be as fleet of foot as a nation state in negotiating bilaterals, because of the need to assuage too many competing interests and because of the cumbersome system of supra-national controls combined with some subsidiarity. I don’t think we’ll see a new EU treaty for member states for a long time.
And she may well not be around to sell it at all after the process is complete.
Now, I and others had concerns that that would not last, and that in the future we'd get dragged deeper in. However that's far from certain, but the actions on a remain win were certain.
Leave wasn't, which is why we are where we are now.
When...
When..
I expect Labour would split judging by reports soon after with a new anti Brexit centrist party created in January if Corbyn does not back EUref2