Off Topic UK / EU Future

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.

I don't think so SH. You have not considered on what grounds countries are objecting to the schedules that currently exist and why they cannot be rolled over. Having already said they will not trade with the UK on the current rules outside the agreed ones, why should they suddenly change their minds to trade the same thing, but under an unspecified rule? It makes no sense, and they know full well that the UK will be in a desperate situation that they will be able to exploit.
 
I don't think so SH. You have not considered on what grounds countries are objecting to the schedules that currently exist and why they cannot be rolled over. Having already said they will not trade with the UK on the current rules outside the agreed ones, why should they suddenly change their minds to trade the same thing, but under an unspecified rule? It makes no sense, and they know full well that the UK will be in a desperate situation that they will be able to exploit.

You fail to understand. Read my post above.
 
You fail to understand. Read my post above.

Why are countries such as Australia and New Zealand saying that they will not agree to the rolling over of the existing schedules? If you understood that you might see why they will not agree to your unspecified schedules. You can say we will trade on those terms, but no one has to suddenly change to accommodate you The USA have also said that they will oppose them for different reasons. Your it will all be so simple just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
 
Why are countries such as Australia and New Zealand saying that they will not agree to the rolling over of the existing schedules? If you understood that you might see why they will not agree to your unspecified schedules. You can say we will trade on those terms, but no one has to suddenly change to accommodate you The USA have also said that they will oppose them for different reasons. Your it will all be so simple just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Read it again, all these countries can do is stop the UK having certification for a while, trading will continue under WTO rules.
 
The EU has been trading on uncertified schedules for years. It was only last year they reached agreement to cover the 28 members.
 
Read it again, all these countries can do is stop the UK having certification for a while, trading will continue under WTO rules.

I have seen it before. It doesn't deal with how countries that would rather deal with the large EU market than the small UK one, will sort out the division on the existing quotas. You only need one objection as correctly stated, but this is no longer in that situation. Two dozen have already objected. With Trump trying to put the boot in, the chances of a deal move nearer to the dustbin than ever before. The EU sorted out the schedules last year I believe, and that has made them stronger, while the UK wants to move backwards.
 
I have seen it before. It doesn't deal with how countries that would rather deal with the large EU market than the small UK one, will sort out the division on the existing quotas. You only need one objection as correctly stated, but this is no longer in that situation. Two dozen have already objected. With Trump trying to put the boot in, the chances of a deal move nearer to the dustbin than ever before. The EU sorted out the schedules last year I believe, and that has made them stronger, while the UK wants to move backwards.

You fail to understand it is quite normal to trade under uncertified schedules. The experts have said it is a storm in a tea cup (The Guardian report). You are welcome to disagree with trade experts to further your project fear nonsense but you will only convince those already on your desperate 'remain' bandwagon. I was hoping you could stick to the facts for a change.
 
You fail to understand it is quite normal to trade under uncertified schedules. The experts have said it is a storm in a tea cup (The Guardian report). You are welcome to disagree with trade experts to further your project fear nonsense but you will only convince those already on your desperate 'remain' bandwagon. I was hoping you could stick to the facts for a change.

I am afraid that you do not wish to see the practicalities of your position. I could give you far more details, but as other have pointed out trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed by a cult is a waste of time.
 
I am afraid that you do not wish to see the practicalities of your position. I could give you far more details, but as other have pointed out trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed by a cult is a waste of time.

Your attempt at exaggerating any problems regarding the UK trading on WTO rules is either born out of ignorance of the rules or something worse. Even the expert quoted by the Guardian called it 'a storm in a teacup'. You will need to fabricate another project fear non story today, this one failed miserably.
 
It is high time you faced up to reality SH. The wheels have come off the Brexit project, and you are losing. The hard Brexit which you favour has the support of about 40 MPs and a minority in the population - just a noisy minority. Recent polls suggest that only 14% of the electorate favours a hard, or a no deal Brexit. Whilst May's plan may not gain a majority in Parliament, it is the only sort of Brexit which will have the support of the electorate. Recent polls suggest that 45% of the electorate are against Brexit in all shapes and forms, 40% want to maintain close contact to the EU. and have access to the single market, and only about 15% want the type of Brexit which you desire. It means that if May's plan is not supported, that it can only go one way ie. a second referendum with the option of scrapping the whole thing. The people who voted for Brexit did so under the assumption that the EU. was going to cave in and allow Britain to cherry pick - apparently the German car industry was going to twist Merkel's arm and she would come riding in on a white horse and correct everything in Britain's favour - you have said this yourself on many occasions. It has all failed to materialize as you wanted. The suggestion that there may be civil unrest in the UK. if a second referendum is offerred, and the noisy minority are thwarted. is empty compared to the civil unrest of a hard Brexit which is against the wishes of the majority - which will, in all probability, trigger a general strike in the UK. For those worried about EU. immigration - this can be allayed by simply following current EU. laws to the letter, meaning that those without subsistence can be asked to leave, as is possible now and in all other EU. countries. The choice is a nasty one for you - either support May or you will get no Brexit of any sort, because the minute May's deal is voted down the clock starts ticking towards a new referendum - despite her rhetoric on this, she has already indicated that this will be the only possibility.

This statement is not correct.

The Commons chief clark, Sir David Natzler has confirmed that the vote MPs will take on what should happen in the event of a 'no deal' has no statutory significance. Officials confirmed that, from a legal perspective, parliament has little scope to stop Britain leaving the EU next March regardless of whether May's planned deal is approved or not.

Confirmation of the legal position will undoubtedly strengthen the UK government's position in parliament for its final proposed deal as the only possible alternative is leaving on a no deal basis.
 
It looks like the Tory party will do its usual suicide pact with itself... it either has to support May or implode.... all else will be a disaster for itself as the party of Government.....

An interesting parallel process with the changes in the Labour party...

Of course.... if we had PR ;)


..............................
...
 
This statement is not correct.

The Commons chief clark, Sir David Natzler has confirmed that the vote MPs will take on what should happen in the event of a 'no deal' has no statutory significance. Officials confirmed that, from a legal perspective, parliament has little scope to stop Britain leaving the EU next March regardless of whether May's planned deal is approved or not.

Confirmation of the legal position will undoubtedly strengthen the UK government's position in parliament for its final proposed deal as the only possible alternative is leaving on a no deal basis.
They have the numbers to force a second referendum whether you like it or not SH. Any attempt to nullify the sovereignty of Parliament in this way would be an insult to our democracy, and more fitting to some fascist republic. You do not have the numbers for the hard Brexit of your dreams, you can try to squirm out of that however you like, it will not work.
 
They have the numbers to force a second referendum whether you like it or not SH. Any attempt to nullify the sovereignty of Parliament in this way would be an insult to our democracy, and more fitting to some fascist republic. You do not have the numbers for the hard Brexit of your dreams, you can try to squirm out of that however you like, it will not work.
This is wishful thinking. The Commons Chief Clerk is aware of the law, you clearly are not.
 
This is wishful thinking. The Commons Chief Clerk is aware of the law, you clearly are not.
I am sorry SH. but it is you that are guilty of wishfull thinking. In the absence of numbers in Parliament (or in the country) you are hoping for a no deal Brexit ie. we simply run out of time. This is obvious - however, as you know, Parliament can always seek to amend motions, and this right cannot be ignored. There is a precedent for Parliamentarians to impose a referendum as a condition for passing a government bill - the 1979 devolution referendums came about in this way. And British law is 100% about precedence.
 
I am sorry SH. but it is you that are guilty of wishfull thinking. In the absence of numbers in Parliament (or in the country) you are hoping for a no deal Brexit ie. we simply run out of time. This is obvious - however, as you know, Parliament can always seek to amend motions, and this right cannot be ignored. There is a precedent for Parliamentarians to impose a referendum as a condition for passing a government bill - the 1979 devolution referendums came about in this way. And British law is 100% about precedence.

There is a chance of adding an amendment to the Brexit bill for a second referendum but there is not the numbers for this in parliament. When this fails the only choices are accept May's option or leave without a deal.
 
There is a chance of adding an amendment to the Brexit bill for a second referendum but there is not the numbers for this in parliament. When this fails the only choices are accept May's option or leave without a deal.
There could be the numbers for this if Corbyn agrees, and he has not ruled this out. There are many options if Parliament votes down her deal, and this is one of them - the other is to send her back to renogotiate until she gets a deal which Labour supports. Legally there is no barrier to a second referendum if the numbers are there - or are you suggesting that you know more about the law than 200+ members of Parliament ?
 
There could be the numbers for this if Corbyn agrees, and he has not ruled this out. There are many options if Parliament votes down her deal, and this is one of them - the other is to send her back to renogotiate until she gets a deal which Labour supports. Legally there is no barrier to a second referendum if the numbers are there - or are you suggesting that you know more about the law than 200+ members of Parliament ?

They cannot send her back to renegotiate, if the amendment fails any other vote has no statutory significance, this means the government can ignore any result. You need to listen to the expert, The Commons Chief clark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.