It’s all he has Stainesy, same as the other europhile on here, when proved wrong or don’t have an argument to back yourself, go into personal attack mode, I’ve had worse than he can manage, physically or verbally.
How so ‘wrong’ and how so ‘again’? Sounds like you’ve just put some flesh on the bones I tossed into the mix. Where else have I been wrong, or do you mean just said **** you’ve disagreed with?
Mate, don’t be silly. I’ve happily had sensible adult debates on this thread plenty of times but when you just start ranting endless Brexit soundbites three years down the line it would be wrong of me not to mock it.
It would take months to agree on the wording of the question. Second to just throwing Brexit in the bin it’s the most sensible option but realistically impossible. Whatever happens, it’s a Tory mess that they should be forced to sort out rather than dragging the other parties down with them.
Are the trio still set on No Deal this week ? It looks likely that this with be against the law Seriously still want the UK to drop out this way? Do you fully understand what that would mean? Say No Deal is off the table then love to hear what sort on Brexit Deal you would like ?
Actually Boris is going to flash across the Channel on a Zipwire, drop-kick Barnier, batter Macron using whiff-whaff, shag Merkel and say you're all girly nerds so stick your deal up your vernacular...
I’ve been pretty clear on many occasions that I’d have gone for a Norway-type deal, Paul, which actually involves being in the EEA etc. (see Os’ response to me earlier). Norway has a fairly ‘soft’ border with Sweden that could’ve been largely mirrored in Ireland. For all intents and purposes, it would have been “off the shelf”, so quite easy to implement, I’d have thought. I’d have done May’s deal as well, imperfect though it was, on a proviso that the key parameters were revisited in a few years’ time (as she’d proposed), but would’ve included the Irish border into that condition. Whether the EU would’ve accepted such tweaks is arguable. What we do know, however, is that parliament batted it away in its current form. So, we have parliament saying we can’t leave unless we have deal, the EU saying what May came back with is the only deal that they’d do, but parliament refusing to accept it. If we have a second referendum that yields the same result, we’re no further forward. If we have a second referendum that says the electorate wants to leave on a no deal basis I can see parliament reneging on that verdict because those arrogant yet inept bag o’ ****s still think they know better than the Great Unwashed. If we have a second referendum and the outcome is a majority in favour of remaining, I suspect it’ll still be sub-60%, which us Leavers will find equally wholly unsatisfactory as the Remainers find the 2016 result, but I suspect that’d be it and we’ll never be asked the question again in my lifetime. Honestly, if that’s the outcome and you Remainers are satisfied with it, I question what sort of democrats you really are.
Logically, they absolutely do (or should). Isn’t that the whole point of them being there? Admittedly Mark Fracois undermines this theory a bit.
Norway / Sweden have not been in armed conflict across and around their border in more than 100 years. I don't have a lot of experience crossing from Ireland to NI, but the one time I did that you could reach out, touch, smell, and see the tension. The only time I felt tension crossing from Sweden to Norway, was when we were getting supplies in for a big party - very different.
I don't think the EU are saying they will only accept the deal May came back with. I think they would look at the Norway type deal you started your post with, with the UK staying in the single market. This would also resolve much if not all of the EU exit problems on the border in Ireland.
Features Brexit has its risks. But staying in the EU is now unthinkable Why are we criticising British politicians when it’s Brussels that’s causing our agonies? William Shawcross please log in to view this image William Shawcross 7 September 2019 This is one of the most crucial weeks in modern British history. We have a prime minister and cabinet who understand the stakes in terms of our future independence. But the forces fighting them — some of them sincere, many of them cynical — are fearsome. There are risks in proceeding with Brexit. But there are far greater risks in abandoning it. This endless crisis has led to widespread criticism of British politicians of all hues, some of it justified. I find it deeply distasteful to see very senior Conservatives plotting with the opposition to bring down the Prime Minister. But far less criticism has been levelled at the EU itself — which is odd, because Brussels is the cause of our agonies, past and present. The Brexit vote would have gone the other way if it had had the wit to give David Cameron the concessions he begged for. But that is not the nature of the EU imperial class. They intended to send a message: Brussels does not respond to democratic pressure. The British public got that message, and voted to leave. The EU should have been dismayed over the loss of its oldest democracy and its second largest contributor. Our Brexit vote was a stunning indictment of the way the EU has been run: we asked it to reform, it refused; it dared us to vote to leave and we did. But rather than learn lessons and negotiate Brexit in good faith, it deployed the kind of cynicism exposed in the BBC fly-on-the-wall documentary Brexit: Behind Closed Doors, in which we hear private conversations between the EU negotiators, who are clearly determined to delay and give nothing to the British negotiators whom they mock. Thus on the telephone Michel Barnier tells Guy Verhofstadt: ‘Frankly speaking, just between the two of us, there’s no justification in discussing the future relationship between the EU and UK in combination with their debts. I’ll tell them tomorrow quite brutally, calmly but clearly, that this is not negotiable.’ After a meeting at No. 10, Verhofstadt says to a colleague: ‘They’re going nowhere. They are stuck.’ On another occasion the two are seen drinking a toast to each other, and joyfully concluding: ‘We are together for two years — yeah. And then the transition period for another three years. At least!’ The withdrawal agreement struck with Theresa May was filled with further, often clandestine assaults on our sovereignty. It has been described as ‘a Boomerang Brexit, a trap, a one-way ticket back into the EU, and on far worse terms than we currently have’. As a result, it was rejected three times by the House of Commons. After that rebuff, would skilful EU diplomats eager for a compromise not propose amendments to enable Prime Minister May to get the deal through? For the sake of European unity? No — and now they are still trying to force us to accept either that original rejected text, or no deal. All this agony was predicted in a gem of a book, The Missing Heart of Europe. Its poignant title reveals the core problem of the EU. France has a heart, Germany has a heart, Britain has a heart. The EU does not. Equally poignant is the story of the author. Thomas Kremer was a Hungarian Jew who escaped from Belsen, and eventually fell in love with Britain and what he saw as its unique freedoms. He published his book in 2004. It is a cri de coeur against the ill-fitting uniformities being imposed on each country, especially Britain, by the heartless managerial class in Brussels. ‘The British people,’ he wrote, ‘are being asked by their own political leaders to weaken, or even surrender, those very rights, decision-making powers, institutions, laws, self governing habits that alone can guarantee a degree of individual freedom enjoyed by very few other nations in the world.’ At the last EU summit, Brussels reiterated its ambition to march forward into ever-closer union. Britain could never fall into step with this. If the government’s opponents force us to remain in the EU, it’s a fantasy to think that we’d be allowed to stay on terms that were anything other than punishing. Our rebate would probably go. We’d end up having to swallow projects we have tried to fend off: ever-closer regulatory alignment, eventually membership of the euro and an EU army which seeks to displace Nato, one of the greatest successes of the postwar years. Above all, we would be denying the democratic vote to leave. This is why the Prime Minister is right to be bold, because there is no other option. The Brexit talks have exposed the nature of the club in which we stayed for too long. In one scene of the BBC documentary we hear two of the EU team laughing about the British people: ‘We got rid of them. We kicked them out. We finally turned them into a colony, and that was our plan from the first moment.’ That is still their plan. It cannot be ours.
