UK PM May makes no change to demands in talks with EU leaders - report

[Basil B]

She will deliver he plan "B" on Monday but we have to wait 8 days for a vote on the motion and its amendments.☹️

 

I can see the amendments certainly ripping plan "B" to shreds, probably one that withdraws Article 50 before March 29th if there is no extension of Article 50 or agreement, preventing a No Deal Brexit by default.

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

That has been the case for sometime, even the weasel Raab said that with May's deal we would be better off staying in.  Hence May's deal being rejected by leavers and remainers alike.

 

Given that May seems to be incapable of getting a more satisfactory deal.... where do we go from here?

Dunroaming, you have mentioned that D Raab is your MP before, so obviously you know him better than myself, why do you call him a weasel. He always comes across as a genuine and sincere chap to me, infact he would be one of my choices to replace Mrs May. Genuine question?

[7by7]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I tend to agree. It’s a pity; I wouldn’t have thought so some time ago. But the current state the U.K. is in, it is too much of a burden, a risk even, to have it as an EU member. Let them leave and think about what they actually want. The door will always be open; they can always become an EU member again if they want to. 

If the EU want us back!

 

But if we leave and then apply to rejoin, would we still enjoy the concessions we have now: the rebate, keeping the pound etc.?

 

Doubtful.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If the EU want us back!

 

But if we leave and then apply to rejoin, would we still enjoy the concessions we have now: the rebate, keeping the pound etc.?

 

Doubtful.

Actually, if they wouldn't let the UK keep the pound, rejoining wouldn't be worth it.

[dunroaming]

58 minutes ago, vogie said:

Dunroaming, you have mentioned that D Raab is your MP before, so obviously you know him better than myself, why do you call him a weasel. He always comes across as a genuine and sincere chap to me, infact he would be one of my choices to replace Mrs May. Genuine question?

Happy to respond.  80% of his constituents voted remain.  After the referendum at a meeting with constituents (I wasn't there but a good friend was) he was asked if he was comfortable going against his constituents wishes, in fact how he slept at night.  His answer was laughing and saying he slept fine at night. No attempt to defend his actions. Hard to find anyone who has anything positive to say about him but many feel he has done nothing for the community.  Apart from any of that, when I have been in the same room as him and heard him in conversation , I have found him to be arrogant and dismissive.  Not something you want from your MP, most of them usually try to look as if they give a sh*t, even when they don't.  This is a Tory heartland so he survives.  I sincerely hope he doesn't survive the next election though.

 

Lastly and frivolously, he often goes into our local Deli (owned by my friend Chris) for his breakfast and unlike everyone else, never, ever leaves a tip!  I did said it was frivolous.

[7by7]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Actually, if they wouldn't let the UK keep the pound, rejoining wouldn't be worth it.

 Quite.

 

All new members have to agree to adopt the Euro when the economic circumstances are right.

 

Some new members have yet to do so as their economic circumstances are too poor.

 

Would the UK economy get that bad before we went begging to be re-admitted? 

 

I still believe that leaving would be one of the biggest mistakes the UK ever makes.

 

I still believe that all the promises and forecasts of the Leave campaign are as worthless as the piece of paper Chamberlain had in his hand on his return from Munich.

 

Chamberlain was conned in 1938, 51% of the British electorate were conned in 2016. We should be given another chance now that the facts are out in the open and Leave's lies have been exposed.

 

If the British electorate still vote leave, knowing there would be no turning back, then so be it.

 

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Quite.

 

All new members have to agree to adopt the Euro when the economic circumstances are right.

 

Some new members have yet to do so as their economic circumstances are too poor.

 

Would the UK economy get that bad before we went begging to be re-admitted? 

 

I still believe that leaving would be one of the biggest mistakes the UK ever makes.

 

I still believe that all the promises and forecasts of the Leave campaign are as worthless as the piece of paper Chamberlain had in his hand on his return from Munich.

 

Chamberlain was conned in 1938, 51% of the British electorate were conned in 2016. We should be given another chance now that the facts are out in the open and Leave's lies have been exposed.

 

If the British electorate still vote leave, knowing there would be no turning back, then so be it.

 

The thing is, does the EU have the authority to force, say Poland, to adopt the Euro. Who gets to decide when the circumstances are right?

[melvinmelvin]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The thing is, does the EU have the authority to force, say Poland, to adopt the Euro. Who gets to decide when the circumstances are right?

its not a question of circumstances me thinks

a set of reasonably objective criteria re state finances must be met -- > euro

 

 

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

If the EU want us back!

 

But if we leave and then apply to rejoin, would we still enjoy the concessions we have now: the rebate, keeping the pound etc.?

 

Doubtful.

True...

 

After we voted out Tusk did say he hopped we would rejoin in few years, but there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then, I wonder if he would repeat that now?

 

But according to the ECJ we can withdraw Article 50 and remain on the same terms.

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

If the EU want us back!

 

But if we leave and then apply to rejoin, would we still enjoy the concessions we have now: the rebate, keeping the pound etc.?

 

Doubtful.

What sort of lunacy would advocate leaving with the thought of re-joining if it didn't work out well for us!  The disruption of leaving and all the exiting businesses that would go as well would be mightily damaging not to mention a pound falling more.  Even the main Brexiteers admit that there would be "short term pain".

 

To go through that misery and then go back and ask to re-join is ridiculous to even contemplate.  IMO.

[Grouse]

We already have a better deal than the 27. Madness to give that up.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

6 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes,

and then you subtract 10 from 325,

in my book you do not end up with 305 but you end up with 315

 

still PM

 

Andrew65 is assuming that the DUP would not just have abstained but actually voted for the "no confidence" vote.  Therefore then it would have been 316 against 315, a majority of one for the motion.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

The thing is, does the EU have the authority to force, say Poland, to adopt the Euro. 

Yes, the EU does have the authority as it is one of the conditions of joining.

 

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Who gets to decide when the circumstances are right?

 

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

its not a question of circumstances me thinks

a set of reasonably objective criteria re state finances must be met -- > euro

 

Convergence criteria for joining

Quote

Agreed in Maastricht by the EU Member States in 1991 as part of the preparations for introduction of the euro, the convergence criteria are formally defined as a set of macroeconomic indicators which measure:

• Price stability, to show inflation is controlled;
• Soundness and sustainability of public finances, through limits on government borrowing and national debt to avoid excessive deficit;
• Exchange-rate stability, through participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) for at least two years without strong deviations from the ERM II central rate;
• Long-term interest rates, to assess the durability of the convergence achieved by fulfilling the other criteria

 

 

[7by7]

42 minutes ago, Basil B said:

But according to the ECJ we can withdraw Article 50 and remain on the same terms

Yes; provided we do so before 29th March.

 

After that Article 50 cannot be withdrawn as we will be out; deal or no deal.

 

If we wish to extend Article 50 beyond that date we will need the unanimous agreement of the remaining 27 member states.

 

[7by7]

43 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

What sort of lunacy would advocate leaving with the thought of re-joining if it didn't work out well for us!

 Yet it is a lunacy advocated by many Brexiteers, both on this forum and elsewhere. 

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, the EU does have the authority as it is one of the conditions of joining.

Can you provide a link where I can see the exact wording?

Actually, they can't be forced to adopt the Euro. As in the case of Sweden:

"They should join as soon as they fulfill the convergence criteria, which include being part of ERM II for two years. Sweden, which joined the EU in 1995 after the Maastricht Treaty was signed, is required to join the eurozone. However, the Swedish people turned down euro adoption in a 2003 referendum and since then the country has intentionally avoided fulfilling the adoption requirements by not joining ERM II, which is voluntary.^[32][33]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone}

[elliss]

9 hours ago, jollyhangmon said:

  ...  Know what, just hand back all those awfully confusing governmental affairs to the Windsors, even fully soaked with top-shelf Port they couldn't have clusterducked it worse ... 555 ... 

      Duke , may have  had too much from the top shelf , when he overturned his motor. 

           Breath  test , i think not . Royal privileges ?,  which should be removed , as we are in the EU . 

            Her indoors,   was not impressed . 

[Basil B]

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes; provided we do so before 29th March.

 

After that Article 50 cannot be withdrawn as we will be out; deal or no deal.

 

If we wish to extend Article 50 beyond that date we will need the unanimous agreement of the remaining 27 member states.

 

 I refrained from quoting 29/3/19 as I am unsure what the situation would be if Article 50 was extended, but with May and the EU continue to play their game of chicken we could end up out NO DEAL by default.

 

Just thinking of the issues and problems this must be causing, 

 

on March 30th (or Monday 1st April):

• Will the passport Office be issuing Red EU or Blue British Passports?
• Will the DVLC be issuing Driving Licences with EU logo or not?
• Will passengers arriving from EU countries be using the Blue Customs channel or not?
• just how many cigarettes half dozen suitcases full or one carton of 200?

Many many more such issues to be sorted well before 29/3/19

and we have only 69 days and counting down.

 

 

[7by7]

35 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Can you provide a link where I can see the exact wording?

Who can join and when?

Quote

All EU Member States , except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.

As for Sweden; your Wikipedia quote says it all

 

38 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

the country has intentionally avoided fulfilling the adoption requirements

 

That the EU allows Sweden, and others, to use this delaying tactic indefinitely rather gives the lie to the Brexiteer claims about a dictatorial EU commission bending sovereign nations to it's will!

[7by7]

18 minutes ago, elliss said:

      Duke , may have  had too much from the top shelf , when he overturned his motor. 

           Breath  test , i think not . Royal privileges ?,  which should be removed , as we are in the EU . 

            Her indoors,   was not impressed . 

 Whilst it has nothing to do with this topic, the EU nor Brexit; the Duke was breath tested after his recent collision; as was the other driver. It's standard procedure at any RTC where the police are called.

 

Both drivers passed.

 

BTW, as well as the UK, six other EU members are monarchies: Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Andrew65 is assuming that the DUP would not just have abstained but actually voted for the "no confidence" vote.  Therefore then it would have been 316 against 315, a majority of one for the motion.

I fully understand that

but as I said in another post

we were discussing DUP not supporting PM,

we were not discussing DUP killing PM

 

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Who can join and when?

As for Sweden; your Wikipedia quote says it all

 

 

That the EU allows Sweden, and others, to use this delaying tactic indefinitely rather gives the lie to the Brexiteer claims about a dictatorial EU commission bending sovereign nations to it's will!

I quite agree with you about this. What we didn't agree about was whether adopting the Euro was mandatory. In effect, it's not.

[7by7]

Just now, bristolboy said:

I quite agree with you about this. What we didn't agree about was whether adopting the Euro was mandatory. In effect, it's not.

I think we will have to agree to agree to disagree on that.

 

Everything I have read from EU and other sources tells me that, apart from the UK and Denmark who each obtained opt outs back in 1992, that adopting the Euro is mandatory for all EU members once they have satisfied all the criteria and applicants for membership must make a commitment to joining once all criteria are met.

 

How long they take to satisfy those criteria is up to each individual member; which I suppose, as the case of Sweden shows, that whilst in theory it's mandatory, in practice it isn't!

 

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, 7by7 said:

I think we will have to agree to agree to disagree on that.

 

Everything I have read from EU and other sources tells me that, apart from the UK and Denmark who each obtained opt outs back in 1992, that adopting the Euro is mandatory for all EU members once they have satisfied all the criteria and applicants for membership must make a commitment to joining once all criteria are met.

 

How long they take to satisfy those criteria is up to each individual member; which I suppose, as the case of Sweden shows, that whilst in theory it's mandatory, in practice it isn't!

 

 

Actually, I think we agree. In theory it's mandatory. But since it's optional to join that preliminary group, in fact, it's optional.

And you're right, It does show how limited the powers of coercion are in the EU. You see a lot of blaming Germany for throwing around its power. But actually, what it does is use the same power of obstruction that any member is entitled to use. So while it's true that Germany screwed over Greece, it wasn't because it's so powerful. But rather because it's so easy for a single member to obstruct change. If there is a problem with the EU, it's that it gives individual members too much power to obstruct. Which is one of the reason why Brexiters complaints about the tyrannical power of the Germans is so bizarre.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Yes; provided we do so before 29th March.

 

After that Article 50 cannot be withdrawn as we will be out; deal or no deal.

 

If we wish to extend Article 50 beyond that date we will need the unanimous agreement of the remaining 27 member states.

 

If there was an extension then the ability to revoke Art 50 remains in place. This opens the door to the possibility of a referendum with remain as an option.

[7by7]

26 minutes ago, sandyf said:

If there was an extension then the ability to revoke Art 50 remains in place. This opens the door to the possibility of a referendum with remain as an option.

Indeed; provided the other 27 agree to an extension.

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Basil B said:

She will deliver he plan "B" on Monday but we have to wait 8 days for a vote on the motion and its amendments.☹️

 

I can see the amendments certainly ripping plan "B" to shreds, probably one that withdraws Article 50 before March 29th if there is no extension of Article 50 or agreement, preventing a No Deal Brexit by default.

 

Don't you think that might cause a bit of a stir?

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

If the EU want us back!

 

But if we leave and then apply to rejoin, would we still enjoy the concessions we have now: the rebate, keeping the pound etc.?

 

Doubtful.

Very!

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Yet it is a lunacy advocated by many Brexiteers, both on this forum and elsewhere. 

No its not. We don't want to rejoin the EU. We just want to leave.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

If there was an extension then the ability to revoke Art 50 remains in place. This opens the door to the possibility of a referendum with remain as an option.

On and on and on.....................