Like I said, you seem very informed on all this. What would your preferred (non-easy) option be?

Given 2 years is not really that long to built some very large lorry parks / IT systems (for Dover and NI).

Every day is a learning day. The preconditions were set by May now 😉

You don’t need to make this up!!

With respect THM, that was just apple-pie-and-motherhood blether that leaves us no closer to a solution, no closer to even conceiving of what a solution might look like.

Of course we are no closer, that’s my point.

We don’t want WTO and none of the existing FTAs suit our needs. So assuming we that Brexshit is going to happen we need to focus on a deal that works for the UK. The EU deliberately wants to avoid this.

Until we start putting flesh on the bones we will have no progress. That is what the EU wants. Their risk is that we might just be stupid/brave (you decide) to walk away. Then the dynamic changes.....

The captain - thats because the is no possible solution that respects the GFA and will be accepted by one of the EU, the DUP and the tories

don't expect anything but bluster and blether from THM.

I'll eat my hat if he can come up with anything remotely plausible on NI

Until we start putting flesh on the bones we will have no progress. That is what the EU wants.

The solution most likely to be most acceptable to the two parties in the negotiation will be not to leave.

If they can’t sort that there will be tears on at least one side, probably both.

Just sayin and all.

IIRC the timetable is set by A50. It’s far too short obviously hence we are pushing for a sensible transition period - at least 5 years, probably more IMO

Can we go for 100 years extendable on request?

teamhurtmore - Member
Jubilee line WiFi

Brexshit means giving up membership. The means of access still have to be negotiated. That is if the Eu ever get round to that. They are trying to force existing “solutions” none of which suit Uk. We are trying (in vain at the moment) to negotiate a deal suited to uk interests. Odd that so many wish to oppose that.

I'm quite happy for there to be an utter shambles of a deal on the table at the end of the negotiations.

That deal needs to get through parliament.

THM what do you think happens if there is no compromise that satisfies both sides?

A transitional period that means delaying our exit for long enough to actually set up a "bespoke FTA" and put border measures in place, especially but not only in Ireland, is what the "grown ups" have suggested, but our politicans are scared stupid of a workable exit that would upset those who see a delayed exit as treason. One (unlikely) result of this, is that different politicans come along and push for our exit being cancelled completely. Unlikely given the timescales and the 'shut up, it's all settled' brigade. The 'write the exit date and time into law' nonsense is all about this.

It sometimes feels like everyone on 'our side', not least those who campaigned to Leave, are doing everything they can to prevent a well managed Brexit… which was always inevitable when we weren't ask to chose between two options, just whether to reject one. Still, let's blame the EU, again.

We have a lose:lose and ST chaos

Best of to avoid that and get on with some sensible discusssions

Mean while we have still not got a Free Yorkshire and its about time we did. There would be £350m a week going to Jimmy's in Leeds once we a re free of the UK.

Kelvin you ar confusing a minority of nutters with the gov’s official line. Not sure if that is deliberate or not

May has proposed delay until 2021 and basically accepting rules and payments during that period as per (IIRC) hence the nutters disquiet

No, she has state that we "must" leave in 2019. Her implementation period has us outside the EU during that time (as does everything Kier and co have suggested so far as well). No politican with clout on either front bench have suggested we delay our "exit the EU" date, despite it being the easiest way to maintain trade and human issues while new arrangements are not just arrived at, but voted on and implemented.

You may be confusing representative government as one form of democracy with democracy itself.

No, I'm saying that 'democracy' is not a single concept, and has many interpretations. And that direct goverment by the people is not a good idea.

THM - a direct question: What proportion of people do you think are sufficiently well-informed to make a rational objective decision on leaving the EU? By rational I mean weighing up the benefits and disadvantages and their likely implications?

May has proposed delay until 2021 and basically accepting rules and payments during that period as per (IIRC) hence the nutters disquiet

My understanding is the same as kelvin's.

Also, May said the transition period would only be put in place IF we have a final deal to transition to which needs to be in place several months before March 2019 so EU leaders can vote it?

But business said it needs to be agreed early next year otherwise they have to start implementing "no-deal plans" anyway?

To me, it looks like we leave with no-deal on March 2019.

I'm quite happy for there to be an utter shambles of a deal on the table at the end of the negotiations.

That deal needs to get through parliament.

The ultimate ramification of the deal not going through parliament would be that we would leave the EU without a deal, parliament voted to leave the EU when it agreed to the triggering of Article 50.

a50 is reversible.

The transition CAN only be put in place if we have solved the 3 key conditions. No other negotiations are possible including those over a transition period until the 3 key issues are solved.

Of course any transition is also impossible due to Mays insistence that ECJ has no role to play.

Mays weakness and the ridiculous position she has found herself in due to the delusions of the hardliners mean NO deal is possible and NO transition is possible because the EUs absolute red lines and hers are irreconcilable

Parliament can vote to either ask for the exit date to be delayed, or cancel the whole exit process completely. It'll need a change of government for that though, unless something entirely unexpected happens. Parliament can also vote to change the government.

We either leave with no deal march 2019
Or we ask for an extension of the a50 period
OR enough tory politicians put the needs of the country before the needs of the party and we scrap the whole stupid idea

Edit - or we have a change of government that actually has some sense, negotiates in good faith and get a deal

these are the only possible options.

Mefty - one parliament cannot bind another. If there is a vote in parliament to halt bexit than thats what happens. If its a new government on a platfor that is differnt then thats what happens

And be clear - no deal means no deal. No cross channel planes, no passporting rights for banks, no healthcare rights for UK citizens in the EU,

a50 is reversible.

Not in the view of the Supreme Court, if it was then they wouldn't have forced Theresa May to have a vote on Article 50. Their reason for doing so was that it was irreversible and therefore parliament had to have a say in overturning its own Act. It is all very well saying Lord Kerr who wrote it disagrees, but whilst very eminent in his field, that field was not the law.

Mol

<3% in both sides. We even had the Mayor of London getting muddled up on Marr yesterday although he did manage the tag line “a jobs first Brexshit”

The supreme court aren't EU law makers.

LordKerr wrote it but according to you he doesn't understand it.

Can you link to the supreme court judgement that states it is irreversible?

And the decision the supreme court came up with wasn't about saying A50 was irreversible, was that just more about the governments right to act without the approval of parliament in matters of such consequence?

Where in their judgement do they say that?

Here it is here.

SUPREMECOURT.UK "https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf"

Not to add to the fact that parliament will get a vote on this once negotiations are finished, is that just a ceremonial vote, will every MP be compelled to vote through the A50 deal? I suspect not.

IANAL.. .but my understanding is that:

Law makers write law.

Courts interpret law.

It does not matter that the person who wrote might have meant something different. It is the interpretation that forms the law.

I think the reason is that the courts take the view that the public do not know the mind of the person who wrote the law, they can only read it and make an interpretation, so that's how the courts must act. The person who wrote the law might also change their mind and say "that's not what i meant" but obviously that can't mean the law changes.

So Lord Kerr COULD be wrong, even though he wrote the law. But he might not be. I don't know.

<3% in both sides.

So you acknowledge the referendum was a stupid idea? Why so keen to drop all resistance?

I can understand the economic uncertainty argument, but your posts on here sound like you're actually backing the idea, rather than being forced to implement it to limit the damage.

Mefty, I don't know what reasons you have for repeating the lie that the supreme court ruled tha A50 was irreversible, but lie it is.

Not a fan of referendums in general. But that’s bye the bye. We had one. The gov committed to honour the result. That is what is happening. Simple as...

Brexshit will be -ve but manageable. My concern now is the uncertainty over what form of access we will have. I would like that to be ended ASAP hence my criticism of the EU’s deliberate tactic to ensure that uncertainty stays as high as possible. They want to hurt us, I would prefer minimising the losses on both sides. Time is running out for that

But from a negotiating perspective - yes, I would like them to look Barnier squarely in the eye and say “we are prepared to go hard.” Only then will they be sensible and start negotiating

(Actually that’s not true because as always negotiations are happening behind the scenes obviously, but the public are not privy to that)

The gov committed to honour the result. That is what is happening. Simple as...

Time is running out for that.

This is also a nonsense too, given that A50 is reversible, if the will is there, which clearly it is on the EU side.

Then the A50 process can be cancelled at anytime.

If the British public, or even parliament then decides in the future to retrigger A50, it can.

Talk of deadlines are just a game of brinkmanship, they don't really mean much if you think about for 2 mninutes.

Rushing into this pretending there are no options is what is lunacy.

Labour are also committed to respecting the result. And they are led by a man of conviction

Are you expecting a miracle from the Lib Dem’s ???

I'd put money on corbyn doing a uturn when he thinks the time is right, he's a man that likes to play games imo.

we are prepared to go hard

About what? 80% of our trade with the EU is services, and a huge chunk of that is banking and insurance, it's no secret that France and Germany are campaigning (within the EU) to make sure that its as hard as it can be for the UK to maintain that primacy and why shouldn't they? We don't have a good enough hand to "play hard"

Our trade in goods is teeny by comparison, and in deficit to the other 27, who will happily continue to trade amongst themselves within the EU.

The gov committed to honour the result. That is what is happening. Simple as...

They could un-commit. If public opinion changes, the first party to do that will have an advantage. Hence the campaigning - its targetting public opinion.

My concern now is the uncertainty over what form of access we will have. I would like that to be ended ASAP hence my criticism of the EU’s deliberate tactic to ensure that uncertainty stays as high as possible.

What should the EU be doing? Giving concessions all over the place? They can't let the UK dictate, can they?

LordKerr wrote it but according to you he doesn't understand it.

Mefty, I don't know what reasons you have for repeating the lie that the supreme court ruled tha A50 was irreversible, but lie it is.

Neither of which I said, however the basic argument that the Gina Miller case made was that by triggering Article 50 the Government was taking away rights given by virtue of an Act of Parliament without giving Parliament a say. That is a gross oversimplification of a complex case, but a fundamental building block of the argument was that Article 50 was irreversible - see para 36 of the majority judgement:

The applicants’ case in that connection is that when Notice is given, the United Kingdom will have embarked on an irreversible course that will lead to much of EU law ceasing to have effect in the United Kingdom, whether or not Parliament repeals the 1972 Act. As Lord Pannick QC put it for Mrs Miller, when ministers
give Notice they will be “pulling … the trigger which causes the bullet to be fired,with the consequence that the bullet will hit the target and the Treaties will cease to apply”. In particular, he said, some of the legal rights which the applicants enjoy under EU law will come to an end. This, he submitted, means that the giving of Notice would pre-empt the decision of Parliament on the Great Repeal Bill. It would be tantamount to altering the law by ministerial action, or executive decision,without prior legislation, and that would not be in accordance with our law

This was then addressed in the majority decision among many other arguments, see para 104

We start by addressing the fact that the EU Treaties contained no provision entitling a member state to withdraw at the time of the 1972 Act, and that such a provision, article 50, was introduced by the TFEU in 2008. [u]Although its invocation will have the inevitable consequence which Lord Pannick described (as mentioned in para 36 above)[/u], article 50 operates only on the international plane, and is not therefore brought into UK law through section 2 of the 1972 Act, as explained in para 79 above.

So does this mean that the Supreme Court has decided that Article 50 is irreversible, no it doesn't, but it does strongly suggest it is their view, which is what I said. Does this mean Lord Kerr doesn't know what he is talking about, of course not, it simply means that what he drafted does not achieve what he intended in the view of the Supreme Court and their view is more important when it comes to matters of interpretation. This happens, if it didn't governments would never lose cases on interpretation of the law because what they intended would be decisive.

So can I ask the leavers on here what is the solution to NI?

Hard border breaches the GFA. soft or no border Breaches EU law.

What is the solution please? Anything that is actually practical? No unspecified IT solution that is unknown anywhere in the world please. specifics.

seosamh77 - Member
a50 is reversible.

mefty - Member
Not in the view of the Supreme Court,

mefty - Member
So does this mean that the Supreme Court has decided that Article 50 is irreversible, no it doesn't.

Glad we cleared that up.

I genuinely thought that THM and Jambalaya were one and the same person - is that not the case?

Good god man, no! Jamba is your regular red white and blue cliff edge no deal brexiteer (who has been bullied off this very thread by some very mean remoaners). Thm is a [i]reluctant[/i] brexiteer who is all grown up and senisible and a true democrat (as long as it only is once and we can ignore the democratic decision to join the common market in the first place but now have voted for leaving the EU so[i] that[/i] vote that doesn't count) Triumph of the Will (of the people!) alt-right libertarian white knight who has bravely stood up for his alt-right brethren bullied off this thread so cruelly by nasty, nasty remoaners (did I mention the dastardly remoaners bullying his pal?) and Jamby was so, so grateful that he [i]gifted[/i] thm a sub. So despite them being paid from the same bank account they are definitely different people oh yes.

But absolutely no way are they one and the same. And neither of them are chewky either. Just to be clear. Or ninfan (obviously).

Another misquote, that isn't the complete sentence, but hey just asserting is such a powerful argument.

😆

I think the reason is that the courts take the view that the public do not know the mind of the person who wrote the law, they can only read it and make an interpretation, so that's how the courts must act. The person who wrote the law might also change their mind and say "that's not what i meant" but obviously that can't mean the law changes.

That's not quite right - reference will and can be made to extrinsic sources to interpret legislation (Hansard for instance).

Is not the solution to the 'divorce bill' simply to ask a third party arbiter to determine the amount due - we're only being asked to honour commitments at this stage - and agree to be bound by that arbitration an then move onto the FTA.

Hello metalH - that’s very imaginative. Well done.

That's not quite right - reference will and can be made to extrinsic sources to interpret legislation (Hansard for instance).

That used to be limited to cases of ambiguity, don't know whether it has moved on. I seem to recall the decision of the House of Lords in Pepper v Hart was the case where the principle was first developed.

Dunno why you are still going on about the supreme court. If the UK government decided it wanted to stop A50, and the EU decided no you're going ahead with it(highly unlikely).

That case wouldn't be settled in the UK supreme court, it would be settled in the European courts, so the supreme courts opinion is largely irrelevant to whether the UK can or can't stop A50.

I'm aswell putting up a ruling from the supreme court of Zamunda saying A50 can be revoked as a counter for all it's worth.

My own (engineer’s) assessment of the Supreme Court’s view was well if the government claim it is irreversible (which they did) then the government need to have a vote because otherwise their position is not consistent. It does not require the SC to have an opinion on the reversible nature of A50.

That case wouldn't be settled in the UK supreme court, it would be settled in the European courts, so the supreme courts opinion is largely irrelevant to whether the UK can or can't stop A50.

Forget that - because they are the best judges who have expressed a view (and are likely to).

So can I ask the leavers on here what is the solution to NI?

Hard border breaches the GFA. soft or no border Breaches EU law.

What is the solution please? Anything that is actually practical? No unspecified IT solution that is unknown anywhere in the world please. specifics.

TJ - I asked the same question on the last page to deafening silence.

If the UK changes it's mind and gets kicked out regardless, that's not a question for national law, it's a question for the EU courts.

How exactly can the UK courts rule over an EU issue? What compels the EU courts to abide by the UK courts decision?

mefty - Member
That case wouldn't be settled in the UK supreme court, it would be settled in the European courts, so the supreme courts opinion is largely irrelevant to whether the UK can or can't stop A50.
Forget that - because they are the best judges who have expressed a view (and are likely to).

stealthy edits...

My question still stands.

If the UK changes it's mind and gets kicked out regardless, that's not a question for national law, it's a question for the EU courts.

How exactly can the UK courts rule over an EU issue? What compels the EU courts to abide by the UK courts decision?

stealthy edits...

So stealthy I said Forget that, it is an irrelevance to the point I am making, Supreme Court judges do not make comments willy nilly in their judgements. At present, no better source of opinion exists - or is likely to.

How exactly can the UK courts rule over an EU issue? What compels the EU courts to abide by the UK courts decision? (which by your own admission isn't that A50 is irreversible.)

So can I ask the leavers on here what is the solution to NI?

Hard border breaches the GFA. soft or no border Breaches EU law.

What is the solution please? Anything that is actually practical? No unspecified IT solution that is unknown anywhere in the world please. specifics.

It's going to be patrolled by cyborgs mounted on unicorns with Spitfires providing air cover.

And don't bother me with specifics - specifics are for experts and I've had enough of them.

We are Britain PLC and we can make anything we want happen simply by wishing hard enough.

Its funny how when you ask a question of the levers thats a bit tricky and asks for specifics you get no answer

Its almost as if they have no answer

Its almost as if they have no answer

Even the most rabid of the swivel-eyed loons are starting to realise that a 'Britain Can Make It' attitude is not the only thing required in these 'negotiations'.

P.S. You do realise that asking awkward questions about specifics that affect a massive number of people is unpatriotic, don't you?

John Redwood letting everyone know what he really thinks of Brexit Britain today. Get your money out apparently.

dannyh - Member

P.S. You do realise that asking awkward questions about specifics that affect a massive number of people is unpatriotic, don't you?

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. 😉

So that's how to make a success of brexit. Who knew?

[img] [/img]

NI 2019.

Love the idea that you abuse people off the forum and the expect them to come back with answers. 😯

The leavers are long gone.

I haven't abused anyone to that extent.

Or was the 'you' plural.

Anyway, do you think the Spitfires might frighten the unicorns?

Plural

teamhurtmore - Member

Love the idea that you abuse people off the forum and the expect them to come back with answers.

The leavers are long gone.

Posted 6 minutes ago #

Links/quotes demonstrating 'abuse', please.

And that is [u]abuse[/u] not calling out of BS.

Brexit as a symptom of a wider malaise.

Decent article here by Bonnie Greer.

[url= http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/bonnie-greer-luddites-acceleration-1-5274333 ]Acceleration[/url]

People called out BS, which is fair, but they did it in an abusive way, which isn't.

but they did it in an abusive way, which isn't

Didn"t THM tell someone to STFU only a few pages ago?

Probably doesn't count as abuse, but it's the only recent example I can think of… most of the rest (in both directions) has just been the frustration of opposing ideas not always being grounded in the reality (as one or other side sees it) of the problems we really face as a country.

Good article Mr Woppit.

People called out BS, which is fair, but they did it in an abusive way, which isn't.

TBh what do you call someone who repeatedly says things that are not true ? it is impolite but the problem is it is also factually accurate.

Links/quotes demonstrating 'abuse', please.

Most of the "abuse" has been a Leaver popping their heads up (good for them) stating a view (good for them), and then asked for examples…they supply examples… then being shown that their examples have nothing to do with EU membership… and then them scurrying away… followed by a third party complaining about abuse. This mirrors the rest of the UK very closely I feel… not really a STW forum problem specifically.

Junkyard - lazarus

[b]D[/b]epends how long and to what extent the BS was and is

When you repeat factual errors often enough fo[b]l[/b]k will start to question your charac[b]t[/b]er not just your intel[b]l[/b]ect[b],[/b] see [b]T[/b]rump for example

You are correct kelvin.- I did snap after a page of zokes’ BS. I have spent a huge amount of time over past month and a bit ensuring that two members of staff are ok with residency so his BS about not caring really grated. Stupidly I did say STFU which was poor.

I should have ignored him like the chief troll who even abused Remembrance Day with his usual crap. But he’s been easy to ignore for years despite the daily goading.

But you are correct to remind me. It was an error. My bad.

I though leavers left because that’s what leavers do.

Less facetiously, the leavers has to quit threads like this because their narrative claims Brexit is all over and done with. To still be discussing it, worse still discussing it with facts, would run counter to that narrative.

So you see, bullied or not, with anything to say or not, they had no choice but to leave.

I did snap after a page of zokes’ BS.

Have i understood this correctly?

If i were to say for example "sorry I snapped because of his BS" - I assume this apology would be acceptable then you would STFU - your fault I said that BTW obvs?

IF it will then I will happily apologise for his BS making me do it

This is just to weird even for me Laters all

Not sure it does IGM. One of the leavers who I do read regularly is Roger Bootle albeit in the Torygraph. But did read his book too to see why they won and we lost.

Judging by his column today, he clearly does not think that’s it’s over and down with. Far from it.

So, we've reached the conclusion that many people have over-stepped the line a bit on these topics but that hardly any of it has been really nasty and/or personal. In the odd case that constantly calling people out over their posts has become heated, it is probably six of one and half a dozen of the other. I think telling someone to STFU is not really a personal attack or bullying and is more indicative of the 'attacker' losing their rag.

So..............

Given all the above - what about the NI border question that was being asked about half a page ago?