Put your cards on the table, EU makes last Brexit call to Britain

[The Renegade]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But they did not say definitely it will happen, but likely, perhaps, possibly or maybe, because nobody really know what the future may bring.

Did they miss out '' Could '' Could appears to be remainer code for FACT ??

 

I am fairly certain that the ICAO will also have something to say on the matter ??

[tomacht8]

Just now, billd766 said:

But they did not say definitely it will happen, but likely, perhaps, possibly or maybe, because nobody really know what the future may bring.

How could they do that?
No one is aware yet of what regulations will be made until the UK's exit date.
That is the Problem.
There is a lot of regulatory work to be done, but the time left is far too short to get this mountain of contracts right on time.
Affected companies and institutions are no longer waiting there, until the politicians have finished cooking their soup.

[Ron19]

A flame post has been removed.

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

But they did not say definitely it will happen, but likely, perhaps, possibly or maybe, because nobody really know what the future may bring.

Bill'd. You've probably been swamped with similar concerns, which themselves are understandable as businesses etc. need to be able to prepare for Brexit. It's no good hanging around to wait and see but to be proactive to ensure damage if any is limited.

 

What should concern you more, is the 'swamp' of concerns that is expanding daily plus an ineffective and disjointed government who are blindly trusting it will be alright on the night.

[kwilco]

I think it's fair to say the Brexit is now dead in the water - the multiple views on how it shoud have happened are far to conflicting for any rational result and th boat is now rudderless. Unfortunately it is still in the middle of a fast flowing river and headed for the cateracts.

some of the cbinet have seen or een wished for this and have jumped ship.....

[The Renegade]

43 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

You are wrong, or, more correctly, misunderstand what the referendum question asked.

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

 

There was no obligation for May to do anything other than leave the EU sometime, if she respected the referendum vote. No mandate for anything else.

 

And no immediate obligation to invoke Article 50, or to leave the single market, or customs union, or Euratom, or reject the ECJ's rulings. Something Brexiteers ignore, and they would be wise to realise that their 'winning' mandate should not be overloaded with meanings not in the referendum question. That May chose to do the opposite, IMO, is her right as PM, and with parliament approval and the Queen's permission. 

 

Repeated for a better understanding. 

 

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

 

So please don't try and obfuscate the facts and truths. 

 

 

 

That is what I said

 

1 hour ago, The Renegade said:

The referendum was a clear cut question '' Leave or Stay ''

 

Quote

So please don't try and obfuscate the facts and truths. 

Time to start heeding your own advice on obfuscation, facts and truths.

 

Despite your howls of protest. A parliamentary vote, which voted 4-1 in favour of invoking Article 50 was the reason A50 was triggered. Theresa May was only the conduit to give the EU the good news.

 

Para 3, A50, The Lisbon Treaty

 

Quote

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

 

Now go and report this post

[Jip99]

6 minutes ago, kwilco said:

I think it's fair to say the Brexit is now dead in the water

 

 

Dream on.....

 

 

Just because it is not being handled well, doesn't mean it is not going to happen.

 

 

IT IS.........

 

Care for a wager if you believe strongly in your assertion ?

[tomacht8]

48 minutes ago, candide said:

So do I. I never understood why it is considered as the ultimate evil. Probably because it is "European".

I mean, there should be a long list of erroneous or unfair decisions to back this hatred, but I have never seen it (nor have I been able to collect it).

So do I.
Maybe they do not like the ECJ because one Judge is from scotland?

Ian Stewart Forrester
Born in 1945; Diplomas of the University of Glasgow (MA 1965, LLB 1967) (History and English Literature, Law); Diploma in Civil Law at Tulane University, Louisiana (MCL 1969); Admitted to the Bar of Scotland (1972) and New York (1977); Queen's Counsel (1988); Admitted to the Bar of England and Wales (1996) and to the Brussels Bar (1999); Lawyer practice in Edinburgh, Brussels, London and New York; Visiting Professor (1991) and Honorary Doctorate (2009) from the University of Glasgow; Bencher of Middle Temple (2012); Arbitrator of the International Chamber of Commerce (CCI), the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the International Court of Justice (TAS); Author of numerous publications; Judge at the court since October 7, 2015.

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

That is what I said

 

 

Time to start heeding your own advice on obfuscation, facts and truths.

 

Despite your howls of protest. A parliamentary vote, which voted 4-1 in favour of invoking Article 50 was the reason A50 was triggered. Theresa May was only the conduit to give the EU the good news.

 

Para 3, A50, The Lisbon Treaty

 

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

 

Now go and report this post

What's the point. You clearly are not inclined to accept referendum fact when presented to you. Neither May nor parliament was obliged to trigger Article 50 as a result of the referendum vote. All the vote provided for was a mandate for the UK to leave the EU at some future point. 

 

That they decided to do so, earlier rather than later without any meaningful consideration of the consequences, and with May drawing red lines at the outset, meant she had no manoeuvering freedom when it came to negotiations. and still doesn't.

 

Leaving the single market and customs union was NOT what the voters voted for. That's factual. And what, IMO, eventually be the undoing of the UK's economy.

 

Please don't bother to reply, you've said your piece. I'll credit you are smart enough to understand the consequences of so doing.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

[aright]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

OK I've never understood the irrational hatred for the ECJ - I have personally benefited from it's decisions.

 

Can people explain  it to me ?  

I certainly wouldn't call it an irrational hatred and there are many reasons for shedding it but the most obvious one is the ECJ has "European" in its title. Our independence and separation from the EU and our distinct history are not widely known in Europe. Why do you not understand  that many Brits would preferred to be judged and have laws made by the British Supreme Court 

Common law and civil law cannot ever mix. The British are born free (by God rights, if you like) and have restrictions placed on certain activities. ‘You are free naturally but you shall not…’

Europeans are not born free and are given their rights via their elected leaders.. ‘You are allowed to have freedom’….They are given permission for everything in codes, written by their superiors.

They are complete opposites from each other. The Brits do not like to be told they can do something by a person, when they are naturally born to be able to do it by right!

Don't you think it is logical that, as the UK wants to exit the EU, it wants to escape its rules, as well as the oversight of the courts that implement those rules.

[The Renegade]

5 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Neither May nor parliament was obliged to trigger Article 50 as a result of the referendum vote. All the vote provided for was a mandate for the UK to leave the EU at some future point. 

Actually, I think you will find that it was a remainer going to Court ( Gina Miller ) that opened the door to a Parliamentary vote on triggering A50.

 

The irony ??

 

7 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Leaving the single market and customs union was NOT what the voters voted for.

They did not vote to leave the SM or the CU as it was not on the ballot paper 

 

What dictates leaving the SM and CU is actually Para 3, Article 50 of The Lisbon Treaty

 

Quote

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

 

Can you read that ?

 

All Treaties cease to apply.

 

It does not say

 

Some Treaties cease to apply.

 

And contrary to the beliefs of many remainers, remaining in the SM does not constitute leaving the EU

[billd766]

31 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Bill'd. You've probably been swamped with similar concerns, which themselves are understandable as businesses etc. need to be able to prepare for Brexit. It's no good hanging around to wait and see but to be proactive to ensure damage if any is limited.

 

What should concern you more, is the 'swamp' of concerns that is expanding daily plus an ineffective and disjointed government who are blindly trusting it will be alright on the night.

 

But nobody knows if airlines, companies etc are or are not preparing for a worst case scenario . The swamp of concerns are mainly generated by remainers like you banging on about them.

 

If I had a UK company that was exporting to the EU right after the vote in 2016 I would have had my business looking at the worst case and coming up with a response and then looking at what happens if this, that or the other.

 

I agree with you that May and her "team"are ineffective and as much use as a chocolate teapot but the only people who can do anything about that are the dissatisfied Tory MPs. They have to decide to either sort it out and very quickly or go down with the sinking ship.

 

A question for you. If their is a general election very soon and the Tories lose power do you honestly think that Labour could do any better?

 

I see lots of sniping comments from Labour but I don't recall any definitive Brexit policy from any of them.

[stephenterry]

20 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Dream on.....

 

 

Just because it is not being handled well, doesn't mean it is not going to happen.

 

 

IT IS.........

 

Care for a wager if you believe strongly in your assertion ?

Probably what he means is that Brexit (as currently portrayed by May) is dead in the water. Doesn't matter if it is enacted or not, it's a dead duck to most reasonable persons.

 

And that is a loss for everyone. For Brexiteers, they had the winning mandate of leaving the EU and blew it by insisting on adding extra leaving requirements. As for the Remainers they had the consolation prize of the single market and customs union, but blew it by insisting the UK remain in the EU.  

 

As for May, I have no inclination of ever again trusting this woman to provide the best deal for the UK people. 

[Jip99]

3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

 

 

As for May, I have no inclination of ever again trusting this woman to provide the best deal for the UK people. 

 

 

I think we all probably knew that from the outset.

 

 

She is unconvincing in so many ways.

 

Whilst I blame Cameron for jumping ship  (it was a weak move IMO with no honour attached to stepping aside) surely to goodness the Tories could have come up with a better person to lead the UK out of the EU.......................

 

 

 

 

........ obviously not!

[aright]

5 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

Whilst I blame Cameron for jumping ship  (it was a weak move IMO with no honour attached to stepping aside) surely to goodness the Tories could have come up with a better person to lead the UK out of the EU.......................

 

It's not too late.

Let's bring on the Moggster!

[melvinmelvin]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

and how many people had access to that?

 

thousands (not ARPA/Internet in Europe, though, that was for a selected few)

 

[vogie]

34 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

So do I.
Maybe they do not like the ECJ because one Judge is from scotland?

Ian Stewart Forrester
Born in 1945; Diplomas of the University of Glasgow (MA 1965, LLB 1967) (History and English Literature, Law); Diploma in Civil Law at Tulane University, Louisiana (MCL 1969); Admitted to the Bar of Scotland (1972) and New York (1977); Queen's Counsel (1988); Admitted to the Bar of England and Wales (1996) and to the Brussels Bar (1999); Lawyer practice in Edinburgh, Brussels, London and New York; Visiting Professor (1991) and Honorary Doctorate (2009) from the University of Glasgow; Bencher of Middle Temple (2012); Arbitrator of the International Chamber of Commerce (CCI), the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the International Court of Justice (TAS); Author of numerous publications; Judge at the court since October 7, 2015.

"Maybe they do not like the ECJ because one Judge is from scotland?"

 

Who do you mean by "they" and if you mean the leavers, why would we not like the ECJ because one judge is from Scotland.

[stephenterry]

8 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Actually, I think you will find that it was a remainer going to Court ( Gina Miller ) that opened the door to a Parliamentary vote on triggering A50.

 

The irony ??

 

They did not vote to leave the SM or the CU as it was not on the ballot paper 

 

What dictates leaving the SM and CU is actually Para 3, Article 50 of The Lisbon Treaty

 

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

 

Can you read that ?

 

All Treaties cease to apply.

 

It does not say

 

Some Treaties cease to apply.

 

And contrary to the beliefs of many remainers, remaining in the SM does not constitute leaving the EU

The single market is not the EU. Can you understand that?  Nor is the customs union. UK negotiations on withdrawing from the EU could request access to the single market if agreed. That's not a conflict, but a pragmatic and beneficial request for both sides, as would be a reciprocal request from the EU to the UK.   

 

It's really about time Brexiteers understood the word - compromise.

 

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Really? So did you have a vote in the 1975 general election?  

 

Norway did have ARPANET in 1971 as did the USA but it was of little use to the real world.

 

Lots of interesting information here.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

 

More information on the origins and public availability of the internet here.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

 

Commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) emerged in the late 1980s and early1990s. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. By 1995, the Internet was fully commercialized in the U.S. when the NSFNet was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.

 

Motorola was the company that first built a cellular phone system in 1973. Oddly enough I worked for Motorola cellular from 1988 until 1999 building cellular networks in the UK, Qatar, Kuwait, Chile, Venezuela, Indonesia twice, Brunei, Sri Lanka Thailand 4 times. I also worked in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand on mobile networks.

 

I do have a fair Idea of what I am talking about.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nokia#Mobile_radio_telephony

 

In 1979, the merger of Nokia and Salora resulted in the establishment of "Mobira Oy". Mobira developed mobile phones for the Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) network, called the "1G" and was the first fully automatic cellular phone system. It became commercially available in 1981.

 

 

1

you are still off,

I already said that ARPA/Internet was for a selected few in Europe in the 70s

 

There were mobile phones in Norway and Sweden long (YEARS) before NMT saw the light

I used some mysef

 

and social media in use by thousands  in Sweden and Norway

 

 

[The Renegade]

5 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The single market is not the EU. Can you understand that?

You try and understand this.

 

Staying in the SM does not equate to leaving the EU. It means being ruled by Brussels, under the control of the ECJ and paying £ Billions for the pleasure.

 

Now, think hard and come back with an answer as to why you ( and every other remainer ) think that staying in the SM is leaving the EU ?

[stephenterry]

11 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

You try and understand this.

 

Staying in the SM does not equate to leaving the EU. It means being ruled by Brussels, under the control of the ECJ and paying £ Billions for the pleasure.

 

Now, think hard and come back with an answer as to why you ( and every other remainer ) think that staying in the SM is leaving the EU ?

It works well enough for Norway and Switzerland.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I am sure that you have the link to prove this?

 

That would equally mean that EU flights could not be operated from the UK. However flights from the Middle East, Asia, China Australia, New Zealand etc would not be affected.

Yes Bill, I said earlier the problem would be reciprocal and should be avoided rather than an attempt to cherrypick.

 

"The UK is currently a member of an aviation agreement based on 35 shared pieces of EU legislation, a common regulator in EASA, and a court acting as a referee on the shared rules, the European court of justice."

"Beyond the impact on manufacturers, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, UK carriers would also lose all their flying rights under agreements with member states and third countries as they would no longer be considered EU airlines."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/18/aviation-industry-eu-blocks-talks-to-avert-no-deal-brexit-crisis

[melvinmelvin]

33 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I think we all probably knew that from the outset.

 

 

She is unconvincing in so many ways.

 

Whilst I blame Cameron for jumping ship  (it was a weak move IMO with no honour attached to stepping aside) surely to goodness the Tories could have come up with a better person to lead the UK out of the EU.......................

 

 

 

 

........ obviously not!

 

seems to me that the tories have challenges coming up with good persons at all

 

anyway,

 

In my view it was very good for UK that Cameron vanished rapidly (and good for Cameron as well), that is the way it should be done

no point in having him around after ballsing up with his EU/referndum strategy

 

[The Renegade]

3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

It works well enough for Norway and Switzerland.

What were you saying about obfuscation ?

 

I did not mention Norway or Switzerland, nor do I care about Norway or Switzerland.

 

I asked a direct question.

 

16 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Now, think hard and come back with an answer as to why you ( and every other remainer ) think that staying in the SM is leaving the EU ?

I await a factual, non obfuscation answer.

[stephenterry]

42 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

But nobody knows if airlines, companies etc are or are not preparing for a worst case scenario . The swamp of concerns are mainly generated by remainers like you banging on about them.

 

If I had a UK company that was exporting to the EU right after the vote in 2016 I would have had my business looking at the worst case and coming up with a response and then looking at what happens if this, that or the other.

 

I agree with you that May and her "team"are ineffective and as much use as a chocolate teapot but the only people who can do anything about that are the dissatisfied Tory MPs. They have to decide to either sort it out and very quickly or go down with the sinking ship.

 

A question for you. If their is a general election very soon and the Tories lose power do you honestly think that Labour could do any better?

 

I see lots of sniping comments from Labour but I don't recall any definitive Brexit policy from any of them.

 

Labour would resolve the Brexit impasse, by honouring the voters mandate but staying in the single market and customs union and probably would agree a deal on ECJ jurisdiction and Euratom. 

 

This is Labour's preferred option.

 

As to the economy, a stable situation would strengthen the pound and resolve any conflicts at ports, airfields in the UK or in Europe. It would be similar to a Norway or Switzerland agreement and cost a lot less than currently. Of course the UK would lose any participation in EU affairs if they chose to be bloody-minded about it, but that's what the UK voted for.

 

In the long term - Labour has a history of ruining the economy by overspending - who knows?

 

 

 

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

The British easyJet could then no longer operate between France and Italy or within Spain, 

Easyjet has already established a European subsidiary to over come that problem.

[alfieconn]

39 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The single market is not the EU. Can you understand that?  Nor is the customs union. UK negotiations on withdrawing from the EU could request access to the single market if agreed. That's not a conflict, but a pragmatic and beneficial request for both sides, as would be a reciprocal request from the EU to the UK.   

 

It's really about time Brexiteers understood the word - compromise.

 

They don't need to understand the meaning of the word Compromise as that word was not on the Ballot paper, the only words they needed to understand was In or Out ! Incidentally, if the Remainers had won would you still be saying that there should be a compromise ?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Motorola was the company that first built a cellular phone system in 1973. Oddly enough I worked for Motorola cellular from 1988 until 1999 building cellular networks in the UK, Qatar, Kuwait, Chile, Venezuela, Indonesia twice, Brunei, Sri Lanka Thailand 4 times. I also worked in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand on mobile networks.

 

I do have a fair Idea of what I am talking about.

I know, fully off-topic, but I just wanted to say I'm taking my old, weathered, Nokia hat off for really old timer in the industry ?

 

 

 

[alfieconn]

9 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

 

Labour would resolve the Brexit impasse, by honouring the voters mandate but staying in the single market and customs union and probably would agree a deal on ECJ jurisdiction and Euratom. 

 

This is Labour's preferred option.

 

As to the economy, a stable situation would strengthen the pound and resolve any conflicts at ports, airfields in the UK or in Europe. It would be similar to a Norway or Switzerland agreement and cost a lot less than currently. Of course the UK would lose any participation in EU affairs if they chose to be bloody-minded about it, but that's what the UK voted for.

 

In the long term - Labour has a history of ruining the economy by overspending - who knows?

 

 

 

? ?

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, alfieconn said:

They don't need to understand the meaning of the word Compromise as that word was not on the Ballot paper, the only words they needed to understand was In or Out ! Incidentally, if the Remainers has won would you still be saying that there should be a compromise ?

In or out of the EU, question mark to correct your grammar. That's factual. No mandate for any other leaving aspects (as part of the withdrawal negotiations).  But compromise is nothing to do with the people - it's the government who should be doing that instead of heading for a no deal situation by refusing to soften May's red lines.

 

As to your question, what's to compromise? Stay in the EU and lump the consequences. Which is, pay the piper and be able to sit at the top table with a degree of inflated influence and blocking powers.

 

Next.