I didn't bother to read beyond the first few paras. He could say what he liked about WTO fine tuning and I wouldn't feel confident to refute it. As I say, Strolls, there is a need now for reliable authorities on both the Leave and Remain side to set out what WTO trade really entails. Hopefully, there'll be some common ground and doubtless there will be areas of disagreement. WTO has never been desirable, but since it looks like the Chequers deal will be rejected by Parliament, that may be where we're headed. I say "may" because there are mixed views as to whether the govt could force it through or Parliament could stop it. If May's agreement didn't include the EU's right to force an indefinite transition and customs union, it would have got Parliamentary approval, I think. Next week is going to be interesting.
As said many times before The solution has to take the 48% into account Keep reading democracy etc etc But you have 16m people to also consider How any Brexiteers have the right to call for a non deal must be wrong imo Therefore the final options must be considered carefully
Good point. There are plenty of scare stories going round. We need the opinions of respected, hopefully objecive authorities.
The No Deal mob are those who never really had a clue to start with and now just need to cling on to some sort of win. In my humblest of opinions.
I took a break away from this thread after some of the comments became..................well.........................ridiculous. I had one poster (DT) telling me that he would always HATE EVERYONE who voted for Brexit and another (Quite Possibly Raving) who lived up to his name by quite ludicrously suggesting that it was "reprehensible" for me to make any comment on the Irish border problem if I couldn't personally offer a solution!! So an ordinary poster on a QPR forum should be able to solve the Irish border problem or not make any comment whatsoever?!! Once the comments had reached these crazy levels of ****wittery I decided to leave it for a bit. However, having had a bit of a time out and having looked at everything from every point of view, I've come to the conclusion that a so called "soft" Brexit would be best for our Country. 48% of people voted to remain and they must have some feeling of "owning" the outcome too imo. Therefore, IMO, IF we can get the EU to agree to us being able to pull out from a possible back stop (if it's needed) when we want to, perhaps with a cleverly worded agreement so that they can have input too, then I think Parliament should get behind the current withdrawal agreement. That is my red line though. Otherwise we'll have to leave with no deal imo which is very undesirable, but I can't accept the EU having that level of control when we voted to leave such control.
It will be a miracle if it can be achieved. In that regard, which of the six key points that Starmer and his friends keep telling us must be satisfied before they will vote for it are they unhappy with? I've looked for specifics but all the reports I could find simply when I could be bothered to look, kept saying simply that they would vote against it because it didn't meet all six points of principle.
This is where I am. May needs to effect a change to the backstop guarantee anomoly, so that after a specified period of time to allow for negotiations on a new trade agreement, the UK can unilaterally end the guarantee. Hotel California is not acceptable and she won't get the majority she needs in Parliament. It's unlikely that the EU will agree to a change however, unless it genuinely believe we will go out on No Deal. At present, the EU still hopes we will jack it all in and return to the fold (on less favourable terms). Won't happen.
Well, who’d a thunk it, we agree. The backstop stuff is a real issue. Stunningly, apparently Leadsom has an interesting proposal - that the decision for the UK to leave the Customs Union if we end up in it through the backstop should be left to the UK in consultation with Ireland, not the rest of the EU. As Ireland have as much skin in this particular game as us, if not more, seems quite bright to me. And you are not above the odd snide comment yourself mate. Though I enjoy reading your assumptions about what I think, keep it up!
May could probably get through with most of the Tories, DUP and a sprinkling of Labour MP's. Labour's six tests are disingenuous and can never be met
We just have to hope that there are enough Labour MPs who actually think about the best interests of the country and vote on that basis rather than for party interest in trying to force an election. If ****ing Liam Fox can do it anyone with an ounce of integrity can. Big ask though.
My assumptions are based on what you say mate I think. Yes, we're all capable of snide comments, you especially, although I find your input insightful generally. The two comments I referred to weren't snide though, they were just plain daft.
Yes, and there were billions of pounds spent ensuring that the millennium bug didn't happen. We're sleepwalking into this disaster.
You are a gullible fool, Ellers. No-deal would be a disaster. A democratic vote to leap off a cliff, doesn't make it a sensible decision.
Yes, and a further vote once the impending cliff-edge becomes visible would also be democratic. And sensible.
What result do you want Col? Any kind of disastrous outcome, so long as your bogus vision of taking back control is satisfied?
On the contrary, Strolls, it would damage democracy and faith in the system for at least a generation and fuel far right activism. You would get the opposite of what you wanted.
We've had the result mate. Imo, voting in Corbyn would be a bigger disaster than Brexit with no deal and many economists agree with that. So, if he wins the next election in a democratic vote, but a large percentage of people think it's a catastrophic mistake for the country, should we vote again?
