We should really do what JRM, Davies and Redwood suggested regarding a public vote on the negotiated deal. Unless they have changed their minds.....
Sorry bob I couldn't be bothered to read.Thats fair enough ellers. You dont really bring much to the party anyway if truth be told. I do find you quite amusing when you spout your soundbites with little to no substance behind them but its each to their own. You certainly dont require my help in tying you up in misunderstandings. You voted leave, not for a deal or renegotiation of an already agreed deal. You keep your chin up lad and box on![]()
I understand fella, I set my expectations a little too highSorry bob I couldn't be bothered to read.![]()

It's not really amazing. The EU is demanding $39 billion plus an Irish backstop in perpetuity plus customs arrangement that would allow the EU to carry on selling their goods to the UK. What's not to like?
If you look behind the EU and member countries, they are all fighting like rats in a sack on other issues
That's Stella Creasy who's a lightweight. No, I haven't watched it yet, but will probably do so this evening. The problem is there are almost as many views on how Brexit should (or should not) roll out, as there are MP's. This is why the pending Letwin/ Cooper amendment trying to create a constitutional earthquake by having Parliament take over ruling the country on this issue from a democratically elected government and making it law that there can be no deal, is senseless. No deal is the legal backstop. Any lengthy delay will cause turmoil in the country and in business due to uncertainty.
It's not really amazing. The EU is demanding $39 billion plus It's not. We agreed that in negotiations an Irish backstop in perpetuity It's not. It is an interim measure pending a trade agreement - something you said earlier could be achieved within 5 years in your earlier post. Are you retracting that now? plus customs arrangement that would allow the EU to carry on selling their goods to the UK. and us to sell to them - that is the essence of a bilateral trade agreement between trading partners who currently both buy and sell from each other What's not to like?
Subject to those corrections, I agree. All good for everybody
Agree - it would be awful if all of those unelected MPs took control over an issue in place of a directly elected Prime Minister. Glad we also agree that turmoil as a result uncertainty for businesses is also an important issue...no deal is clearly the way to resolve that one!
Ah it was in the Tory manifesto. Those bloody Tories hey, never can trust them to respect peoples wishes
wasn't it also in the labour manifesto
Can't trust none of themI'm sure it was but what has that got to do with it?
Doesn't necessarily mean we trade less with them in that time. Since we buy more from the EU than we sell, it's in both sides interests to rely on interim measures.
No, one deal negotiated with Brussels but it will have to be ratified by our parliament and each of the 27 countries
So easy than?
£39bn - The EU demanded it in return for the withdrawal agreement and a promise of a future free trade agreement. May/Robbins waved the white flag. Shameful.
Backstop in perpetuity - It would be an interim measure and there would be a trade agreement in about 5 years if we don't agree this indefensible concession. Otherwise, it can be used as leverage against us to force us to accept a poorer deal. Surely even you, with your EU star-spangled spectacles, can see that?
Trading - the point I was making is that the EU gets a bigger benefit than we do, since they sell more to us than we do to them. It gives them greater incentive as an organisation
So you do actually agree that the backstop is an interim measure not a permanent arrangement as you had stated. Also that 5 years should be long enough to do the trade deal. Surely even you with Brexit blinkers on can see that your original post was wholly misleading. You justify it by referring to the 'indefensible concession' where you completely distorted the truth to make your point. To remind you and anyone else who saw and read what was going on at the time. - the 39 billion was not the price demanded for the EU agreeing to the Withdrawal agreement - it was payment of debts incurred and acknowledged by the UK for benefits received and to be received in the future paid for by European funds. That has never been disputed until now. Which Brexiteer came up with that rewrite of very recent history? It couldn't be right because once Article 50 is triggered the EU is unable to stop a withdrawal. It will happen either with or without a deal
As for your last point, if that is what you meant why not say so instead of "plus customs arrangement that would allow the EU to carry on selling their goods to the UK." In one sentence you convert a bilateral trading relationship into one where the EU sells to us only.Finally, before your attention span wanes, can I remind you that David Davies was still in post and fully supportive of the figure agreed as was Johnson - not just May and Robbins. If it was the correct figure for them then and I don't recall any dissent at all from other Brexiteers at that time please don't try to mislead us now about it. That really is shameful.
Brexit is 1000 hours away.![]()
Great what are you going to do then ?
As a fully independent country, stand by and be a good neighbour to Europe and help where we can with their many difficulties