UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s also impossible to say “the country” doesn’t want no deal.

---------- Post added at 07:06 ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 ----------



Sorry, you’ve always given the impression of an ardent remainer. Apologies if I have mis-read that. You agree with me then that Brexit must be delivered?

---------- Post added at 07:07 ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 ----------



Well if they say it, it must be true...........

---------- Post added at 07:09 ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 ----------

Looks like Boris’s new plan has been slapped down.

Time to buy in the popcorn. ( in bulk in case we leave with no deal)

This Google trend for searches referencing No Deal Brexit proves you wrong:



No Deal was not discussed or researched during the 2016 referendum and, as such, has no legitimacy being forced on the majority of the country that does not want it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s also impossible to say “the country” doesn’t want no deal.

Nobody asked them. Either in a GE or a referendum. Ministers of the Crown assured us we would get a deal, the easiest deal in history.

Re-hashing old arguments, which is not the point of this thread.

Move on, please, and discuss developments.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's impossible to say all 52% want no deal. Absolutely impossible.

... as impossible to say whether the 48% are still Remainers.

Anyway, seems like the EU is cutting some slack on the Boris plan. .

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... as impossible to say whether the 48% are still Remainers.

Anyway, seems like the EU is cutting some slack on the Boris plan. .

It's almost as if a second referendum is the answer!

Originally Posted by jfman

It's almost as if a second referendum is the answer!

Almost, but not quite. Once you acknowledge that one referendum is indecisive, all that follow it become indecisive. You call a second one, it delivers a contrary result, and where are you? A score draw, and the demands for a replay begin.

The political declarations made prior to the 2016 referendum stated that the Government would deliver on the result. I think - I hope - we are all politically mature enough to understand that delivering a simple majority on a binary question then leaves the government a great deal of latitude over exactly what constitutes ‘delivery’. I think we all understood that we were leaving the details to the government, and the demands for a second referendum simply don’t work as an appeal to a sort of Swiss political tradition of holding referendums on the minutiae of every question, no matter how earnestly they are dressed up as such. They are simply an attempt to win an argument already lost.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Almost, but not quite. Once you acknowledge that one referendum is indecisive, all that follow it become indecisive. You call a second one, it delivers a contrary result, and where are you? A score draw, and the demands for a replay begin.

The political declarations made prior to the 2016 referendum stated that the Government would deliver on the result. I think - I hope - we are all politically mature enough to understand that delivering a simple majority on a binary question then leaves the government a great deal of latitude over exactly what constitutes ‘delivery’. I think we all understood that we were leaving the details to the government, and the demands for a second referendum simply don’t work as an appeal to a sort of Swiss political tradition of holding referendums on the minutiae of every question, no matter how earnestly they are dressed up as such. They are simply an attempt to win an argument already lost.

An argument that has been done to death over the past three years,it's time to move on from this circular, dog chasing it's own tail argument.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

This Google trend for searches referencing No Deal Brexit proves you wrong:

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

No Deal was not discussed or researched during the 2016 referendum and, as such, has no legitimacy being forced on the majority of the country that does not want it.

Oh well, if google says so, argument over then. well done.

The official Vote Leave website also mentioned a deal and a free trade area

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Almost, but not quite. Once you acknowledge that one referendum is indecisive, all that follow it become indecisive. You call a second one, it delivers a contrary result, and where are you? A score draw, and the demands for a replay begin.

The political declarations made prior to the 2016 referendum stated that the Government would deliver on the result. I think - I hope - we are all politically mature enough to understand that delivering a simple majority on a binary question then leaves the government a great deal of latitude over exactly what constitutes ‘delivery’. I think we all understood that we were leaving the details to the government, and the demands for a second referendum simply don’t work as an appeal to a sort of Swiss political tradition of holding referendums on the minutiae of every question, no matter how earnestly they are dressed up as such. They are simply an attempt to win an argument already lost.

I am not sure if I am allowed to refute these points but here goes.

Your first sentence implies these two events are similar and comparable. The first was based on aspiration and misinformation, the second would be be based on fact-based, real world conclusions. Actual solutions in the real world with real, information-based consequences.

Your second point is breathtaking in its contradiction. In the context of a decision that changes 40+ years of macro structural & social policy, the words "politically mature" would never coexist with the term "simple majority on a binary question". Granted, this is the outcome you prefer but please don't try and wrap it up in pretence of legitimacy.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

The official Vote Leave website also mentioned a deal and a free trade area

It is irrelevant. The vote was to leave and if an acceptable deal is not available, we leave without one. End of.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Anyway, seems like the EU is cutting some slack on the Boris plan. .

Reuters disagrees with you:

UK's Brexit proposal rebuffed in Brussels as 'no basis' for a deal

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is irrelevant. The vote was to leave and if an acceptable deal is not available, we leave without one. End of.

Not if the democratically elected, sovereign UK Parliament has anything to do with it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am not sure if I am allowed to refute these points but here goes.

Your first sentence implies these two events are similar and comparable. The first was based on aspiration and misinformation, the second would be be based on fact-based, real world conclusions. Actual solutions in the real world with real, information-based consequences.

Your second point is breathtaking in its contradiction. In the context of a decision that changes 40+ years of macro structural & social policy, the words "politically mature" would never coexist with the term "simple majority on a binary question". Granted, this is the outcome you prefer but please don't try and wrap it up in pretence of legitimacy.

Would you be happy to have a 2nd referendum, with the exact same question as 2016. Accepting that in the knowledge if Leave won, a "no deal" Brexit would be a legitimate course of action?

There won't be a 2nd referendum, but if there was, any referendum that didn't ask the exact same question would illegitimate, IMO.

If as Labour would want to negotiate a deal, and then campaign against it, in referendum that gave you the choice of Remain or Leave in a deal that would be BRINO in the highest order (because that is all they would get). That's not a real choice to give the people, and hello Brexit party.

Remain or Leave (regardless) is the only real choice you can offer, and then if Leave won that would be the end of it and if Remain won, well the Brexit party potentially becomes the 2nd biggest party in the UK and it carries on.

I think the point Chris was making is, if we don't leave, properly and decisively now. Things will just get worse over time.

The political future could end up being Brexit Party v Libdems.

[nomadking]

The "deal" on offer from the EU is only meant to be an interim one. It's about the phase between leaving the EU and any ongoing future deal. It is totally irrelevant to discuss what people voting leave or remain wanted. The only pertinent aspects of past voting intent, are anything that would be ongoing. The Leave side would almost certainly have been against the backstop, and possibly some of those that voted Remain.

Again the Leave side would almost certainly have been against aspects of the Political Declaration that goes with the Withdrawal Agreement, and possibly some of those that voted Remain.
Eg

79. The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relationship.

Would Labour be happy with the EU limiting UK State Aid?

It means whatever measures the EU applies that hamper business(well they don't seem to have any designed to help or reduce costs), we would have to apply them as well. Is that acceptable, especially considering we wouldn't have a say on them in the first place. Does anybody seriously think that "open and fair competition" isn't whatever that is set out by the EU, and NOT a 2 way process where the UK could pass a law that reduced or even increased business costs and the EU has to follow suit? It's one-way traffic.

Any proposed 2nd referendum about the "deal" could only be about the Withdrawal Agreement, and that ends Dec 31st 2020. So what would be the point of that? A vote for the "deal" is still essentially a vote to Leave at the end of next year. So what would those on the Remain side vote for? You'd have to have a THIRD referendum to vote on any proposed post-2020 deal. Just gets even more silly than it is already.

[jfman]

Theresa May's backstop was an equally interim measure. All they've done is moved the gun to point the other way. Holding the Single Market hostage. Indeed, by people who believe the Earth was formed 3000 years ago, and don't like Catholics. What does Europe have plenty of?