48 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

guys, you that know everything - help me out

 

some sort of deal seems to surface shortly

it must be presented to and given the hand by high level EU meeting, heads of state or pm like

 

likewise, it will be presented to the UK national assembly - seeking approval

 

now,

parliament voting yes - I understand what government will do

parliament voting no  - what then? what to do? brexit no deal - ask for prolongation of the a50 period or whatever?

 

Nobody knows: uncharted territory.

 

In most likely order:

1. PM resigns.

2. Public vote on the deal.

3. General election.

4. Application for extension of Article 50.

5. No Deal Brexit.

6. Quit Brexit.

5

 

 

The longer this goes on, the more opposition there will be to Brexit.  

 

Is there a time limit to the Brexit mandate?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-eu-tory-vote-remain-leave-poll-final-say-a8630626.html

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Nobody knows: uncharted territory.

 

In most likely order:

1. PM resigns.

2. Public vote on the deal.

3. General election.

4. Application for extension of Article 50.

5. No Deal Brexit.

6. Quit Brexit.

5

 

 

7...You can stop worrying about your dosh....????

It used to be that when the people voted for something, it got pushed through.

Now, when when the people vote for something, if the ruling class doesn’t like it they sabotage it and hold the proponents up as fools and blame them for not getting it done.

6 hours ago, soleddy said:

Good sense from Mr Abbott:

 

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

I don't agree with Abbott on most things from climate change to homophobia to aboriginal indifference. You have to understand where he is coming from. All Australia's trading partners with which it has a positive trade balance are in Asia. They run negative trade balances with the first world.

 

Interesting read but ultimately poorly informed

20 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Nobody knows: uncharted territory.

 

In most likely order:

1. PM resigns.

2. Public vote on the deal.

3. General election.

4. Application for extension of Article 50.

5. No Deal Brexit.

6. Quit Brexit.

5

 

 

right, so this has not been figured out

 

1 and 3 - OK - no harm - doesn't really change anything

2 - ok, if people vote yes - fine, if people vote no then same problem  - what to do

 

so; left with 4 and 5 and 6

 

maybe its time to make some plans for the future

 

6 hours ago, vogie said:

MB, Corbyn recently stated that brexit cannot be stopped now, which appears to be Labours Party policy, however Keir Starmer said that brexit can be stopped. The guy is obviously intelligent, but I am not too sure if he knows how to act like a politician. Why is he acting againgst his leader and the Labour Party, is he a lone wolf.

Because the leader is a Trotskyist throwback who should have been dumped and ignored years ago. Couldn't the silly old fool afford a decent coat for his outing to the Centaph?

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Oh, it’s in Wiki, it must be a fact.

Still waiting...

 

The fact is that I was trying to explain the matter to you in terms you would understand

 

The Wiki post was an after thought

 

All you need to know is that the National Socialists had damn all to do with socialism.

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-white-supremacists-history-twitter-mikestuchbery-7900001

 

Read this and then apologise!

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Quite, national referendums may well be confined to the history books. Another one now could be more of a problem than its worth, possibly another contentious result which would have to go before parliament.

They could very well short circuit the system and have a secret ballot in parliament. Decisions take on a different perspective when you do not have to explain yourself.

Good idea! Is a secret ballot possible?

37 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Because the leader is a Trotskyist throwback who should have been dumped and ignored years ago. Couldn't the silly old fool afford a decent coat for his outing to the Centaph?

Do you honestly think Corbyn wanted to be there, did he wear a poppy, if he did isn't this a new image he is politically trying to portray. I'm sure he would be more comfortable paying homage to Martin McGuiness than to fallen who gave their lives for our country.

I don't agree with Abbott on most things from climate change to homophobia to aboriginal indifference. You have to understand where he is coming from.

Yes, rather than address what is said, attack the speaker and change the subject.

Typical

The fact is that I was trying to explain the matter to you in terms you would understand
 
The Wiki post was an after thought
 
All you need to know is that the National Socialists had damn all to do with socialism.
 
https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-white-supremacists-history-twitter-mikestuchbery-7900001
 
Read this and then apologise!

I didn’t say the left does not claim he wasn’t a socialist, I’ll concede that.

The way you guys condescend cracks me up.

6 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Yes, a deal that satisfies no one- not Brexiteers, not Remainers, not the UK, not Ireland, not the EU, and everyone worse off.  It's absurd, isn't it?

 

Do you want this deal? 

 

Does anyone on this forum?

Does anyone that voted in The UK give a damm about what The Republic or Ireland wants or doesn't want Simple answer is NO

I bet you though Macron’s Armistice speech was great, yes?

46 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Because the leader is a Trotskyist throwback who should have been dumped and ignored years ago. Couldn't the silly old fool afford a decent coat for his outing to the Centaph?

Or the leader or the Labour Party is aware of the 5.1 million labour voters that voted for Leave

Corbyn: We can't stop it. The referendum took place. Article 50 has been triggered. What we can do is recognize the reasons why people voted Leave.

DER SPIEGEL: And they are?

Corbyn: I think a lot of people have been totally angered by the way in which their communities have been left behind. We had high Leave votes in the most left-behind areas of the country. In a lot of deprived areas, working conditions have deteriorated over the decades, protected by European legislation. Indeed, we would enhance workers' rights, where the Conservative Party wants to go in another direction of a largely deregulated economy.

 

6 hours ago, Orac said:

 

Not sure how relevant Corbyn's statement is since the ECJ will now be deciding this before UK parliament get a meaningful vote as UK court has blocked UK govt appeal regarding this.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-article50/british-government-cannot-stop-brexit-case-going-to-ecj-scottish-court-says-idUSKCN1ND1RX

There are many cases of European countries ignoring ECJ rulings

Germany 'ignoring' ECJ ruling on refugee reunification

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-ignoring-ecj-ruling-on-refugee-reunification/a-46015558

Polish deputy PM: Warsaw will ‘ignore’ ECJ ruling on justice reform

https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-warsaw-ignore-ecj-ruling-on-justice-reform/

Germany now 'biggest breaker of EU rules', according to official figures

Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-merkel-germany-breaks-more-eu-rules-worst-bottom-class-a8198271.html

4 hours ago, vogie said:

When you say referendums may well be confined to the history books, does that include a referendum on Scottish Independence?

 

BTW, I did not say I ignore your posts as you stated, I said I take no notice of them.

It really is time you got the facts right, since when was the Scottish referendum a national referendum?

6 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It really is time you got the facts right, since when was the Scottish referendum a national referendum?

Do you need a hand moving those goal posts Sandy, many would agree that Scotland is a nation and has a National party to boot.

59 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Good idea! Is a secret ballot possible?

I do not see why not, there is precedent, it has been used to elect the speaker but a proposal in 2015 was denied.

I would very much doubt it would be allowed, the party hierarchy always need to know what the minions are up to.

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

Do you need a hand moving those goal posts Sandy, many would agree that Scotland is a nation and has a National party to boot.

Good try, there has only ever been 3 national referendums and Scotland wasn't one of them.

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Good try, there has only ever been 3 national referendums and Scotland wasn't one of them.

I am not trying anything, Scotland is a Nation, is it not? 

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I don't agree with Abbott on most things from climate change to homophobia to aboriginal indifference. You have to understand where he is coming from. All Australia's trading partners with which it has a positive trade balance are in Asia. They run negative trade balances with the first world.

 

Interesting read but ultimately poorly informed

Pathetic comment 

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I don't agree with Abbott on most things from climate change to homophobia to aboriginal indifference. You have to understand where he is coming from. All Australia's trading partners with which it has a positive trade balance are in Asia. They run negative trade balances with the first world.

 

Interesting read but ultimately poorly informed

I agree with you Grouse, the guy is poorly informed. Hasn’t a clue about the functioning of the EU. 

Indeed baffling to describe the UK as ‘the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world’

And as for trade and the suggested unilateral introduction of zero tariffs for EU-goods: doesn’t he realise that under the WTO rules that he obviously favours, the UK would have to apply these zero tariffs to all WTO Member States if there is no reciprocal Free Trade Agreement in force between the UK and the EU? No need for negotiations, he says, just do it.............

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, damascase said:

And as for trade and the suggested unilateral introduction of zero tariffs for EU-goods: doesn’t he realise that under the WTO rules that he obviously favours, the UK would have to apply these zero tariffs to all WTO Member States if there is no reciprocal Free Trade Agreement in force between the UK and the EU? No need for negotiations, he says, just do it.............

I'm sure Abbot realises that, why would you think he doesn't? 

 

This approach has already been suggested by several British politicians since the referendum, it's not new. It may seem radical to some people, but it's entirely feasible. It can be applied to selected goods, and the tariffs can be modified later as trade agreements are established.

 

If we end up in a no deal exit I would be extremely surprised if zero tariffs were not applied to selected goods.

 

People proclaim that goods pass between EU nations with zero tariffs, but what they often fail to consider is that the production of many of these goods is very very heavily subsidised. After we've left we won't be paying those subsidies any more.

8 hours ago, soleddy said:

Good sense from Mr Abbott:

An excellent contribution soleddy, thanks.

 

Some of Abbott's suggestions have already been made by British politicians, but he has joined the dots nicely on some of them. Zero tariffs on the type of goods that NI imports from Ireland , therefore no hard border! Neat.

 

The majority share of Ireland-NI trade is agriculture, so ANZ would benefit from zero tariffs too. People say this could damage British farming, but we could easily redirect some of the massive subsidies we currently pay to French farmers.

 

His idea of walking away is something that gets likelier by the week, as an acceptable deal becomes more and more unlikely. 

There are many cases of European countries ignoring ECJ rulings

Germany 'ignoring' ECJ ruling on refugee reunification

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-ignoring-ecj-ruling-on-refugee-reunification/a-46015558

Polish deputy PM: Warsaw will ‘ignore’ ECJ ruling on justice reform

https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-warsaw-ignore-ecj-ruling-on-justice-reform/
Germany now 'biggest breaker of EU rules', according to official figures
Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-merkel-germany-breaks-more-eu-rules-worst-bottom-class-a8198271.html

Not sure what your point is.

The ECJ will only rule if the UK can unilaterally reverse the Brexit decision. Should they decide we can’t then ignoring their ruling would be a tad difficult and, should they rule we can, the decision is still down to us so not exactly something that we can ‘ignore’ unless you are arguing they should tell us we cannot leave.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-historians-will-not-believe-sheer-ignorance-of-brexit-supporters-1.3695347?mode=amp#.W-qBdSX5fPI.twitter

1 hour ago, vogie said:

I am not trying anything, Scotland is a Nation, is it not? 

 

scotland nation? hardly

scots maybe

 

3 minutes ago, tebee said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-historians-will-not-believe-sheer-ignorance-of-brexit-supporters-1.3695347?mode=amp#.W-qBdSX5fPI.twitter

 

 

I imagine articles like that give you a hard-on.

 

You have little else to get excited about.

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-historians-will-not-believe-sheer-ignorance-of-brexit-supporters-1.3695347?mode=amp#.W-qBdSX5fPI.twitter

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6382623/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Joy-Brexit.html