Arion640 wrote:

You’re right. I would like a vote on if it can go ahead or not, but the alternative can not be staying in the European Union. If the Public rejects it, it’s back to negotiating until we can find acceptable terms

So by your version of democracy, if the conservatives lose a general election then they can not stand again as they have been rejected?

Rubbish, to deny staying in The EU in any further vote especially after the last two years of chaos would in itself be undemocratic.

ElPistolero wrote:

Looks like some Leavers are getting unhinged. John Longworth, the Leave Means Leave/Vote Leave Business Council co-chair has put up a remarkable article on Brexit Central. Aside from the vitriol, he's conjured up this gem:

"By the 2040s, half of the population of the UK will be modern migrants or the children of migrants. The greatest invasion since Neolithic times. Then no doubt we will be forced to vote to return to the suzerainty of Project Europa, with an automatic majority in favour."

https://brexitcentral.com/i-fear-govern ... uperstate/

I guess the mask has finally slipped. The Leave Means Leave/Vote Lave Business co-chair believes that the British-born and -raised children of immigrants aren't really ...errr....British - they're invaders!

I wonder if he lumps the Home Secretary in that category. Or Priti Patel. Or, given the vitriol he directs towards Germany, Gisela Stuart? Invaders all?

Do you still wear a tinfoil hat to this or do you need to wear an Armadillo hat?

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

You’re right. I would like a vote on if it can go ahead or not, but the alternative can not be staying in the European Union. If the Public rejects it, it’s back to negotiating until we can find acceptable terms

So by your version of democracy, if the conservatives lose a general election then they can not stand again as they have been rejected?

Rubbish, to deny staying in The EU in any further vote especially after the last two years of chaos would in itself be undemocratic.

A few people have said upthread they disagree with the idea of a public ballot, do you agree with this?

So to deny a vote to stay in the EU is undemocratic, but the original vote to leave is also undemocratic. It’s amazing how democracy does not work when it doesn’t produce the result you wanted.

Arion640 wrote:

So to deny a vote to stay in the EU is undemocratic, but the original vote to leave is also undemocratic.

That already has been explained to you numerous time. The Brexit vote wasn't democratic, because only one choice was defined, a vote on the deal would be democratic, because both options would be defined. You can not express a will without knowing what you are saying yes or no to.

You claim to work in finance... how valid is a, let's say savings plan, if you can't demonstrate the customer knew what he signed, but also that you explained to him what that contract actually means, where the risks are and such. So,

It’s amazing how democracy does not work when it doesn’t produce the result you wanted.

that is nonsense.

Best regards
Thomas

PanHAM wrote:

The end of Brexit, welcome back mates.

It will save the UK from a lot of troubles.

Hopefully not. The EU needs to decimate Britain. If we halt Brexit now, their romanticist nationalists will be let back into our parliament. The nationalists need the punishment of having an entire country despise them for the harm they did, it's the only way to prevent it from happening again.

tommy1808 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

So to deny a vote to stay in the EU is undemocratic, but the original vote to leave is also undemocratic.

That already has been explained to you numerous time. The Brexit vote wasn't democratic, because only one choice was defined, a vote on the deal would be democratic, because both options would be defined. You can not express a will without knowing what you are saying yes or no to.

You claim to work in finance... how valid is a, let's say savings plan, if you can't demonstrate the customer knew what he signed, but also that you explained to him what that contract actually means, where the risks are and such. So,

It’s amazing how democracy does not work when it doesn’t produce the result you wanted.

that is nonsense.

Best regards
Thomas

So if this is the result you wanted thomas, as you just said it’s nonsense, why are you worrying?

Arion640 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

You’re right. I would like a vote on if it can go ahead or not, but the alternative can not be staying in the European Union. If the Public rejects it, it’s back to negotiating until we can find acceptable terms

So by your version of democracy, if the conservatives lose a general election then they can not stand again as they have been rejected?

Rubbish, to deny staying in The EU in any further vote especially after the last two years of chaos would in itself be undemocratic.

A few people have said upthread they disagree with the idea of a public ballot, do you agree with this?

So to deny a vote to stay in the EU is undemocratic, but the original vote to leave is also undemocratic. It’s amazing how democracy does not work when it doesn’t produce the result you wanted.

The original referendum was not helpful, as the question and options were not concise - the leave side also of course mingled the benefits of both hard and soft Brexits together and sold something completely unworkable - hence we are where we are today.

Looking back, this is such a complex area that deciding these things through elected representatives rather than a referendum would have been the correct way- after all, what did Mr & Mrs Miggins know about Customs Unions,Country of Orign, Tariffs, Quota's, four pillars, EEA, EFTA, Galileo, EMA? - and most of them still know little on these matters today.

But we are where we are, and a new referendum is one of the few legitimate ways out of this mess, either to get confirmation that a Hard Brexit is actually what the people want (and no selling soft brexit benefits this time) or stay in the EU.

The leavers also voted for one thing and that was to leave the EU. Which is clear enough. BRINO was not on their agenda.

Arion640 wrote:

So if this is the result you wanted thomas, as you just said it’s nonsense, why are you worrying?

ok, so you are only trolling and have no interest in any discourse. You know the vote back then wasn´t valid, since only "remain" knew what they voted for, you keep ignoring that.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

The leavers also voted for one thing and that was to leave the EU. Which is clear enough. BRINO was not on their agenda.

you mean aside of being promised nothing would change with regards to the common market.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The leavers also voted for one thing and that was to leave the EU. Which is clear enough. BRINO was not on their agenda.

you mean aside of being promised nothing would change with regards to the common market.

best regards
Thomas

The question was simple enough:

a) Remain a member of the European Union
b) Leave the European Union

b won and there are no ifs and buts but a clear vote to leave the complete EU.

Arion640 wrote:

You’re right. I would like a vote on if it can go ahead or not, but the alternative can not be staying in the European Union. If the Public rejects it, it’s back to negotiating until we can find acceptable terms.

Except it is now way too late for that. We should have known what the options were before the referendum.

Arion640 wrote:

Ahh right, so your logic is it’s not democratic to have a referendum? 2 years after the vote has passed and still there’s so many sour grapes.

I’m sure if it was a remain vote and I was complaining leave had lost you would be one of the first to point out it was democracy, will of the people etc, hypocrisy at it’s best.

You're talking nonsense, frankly.

You claimed someone didn't believe in democracy because of a non-binding referendum. I simply pointed out that we don't have a referendum on everything, but we still consider ourselves democratic. Not sure how that makes me a hypocrite.

tommy1808 wrote:

The Brexit vote wasn't democratic, because only one choice was defined, a vote on the deal would be democratic, because both options would be defined. You can not express a will without knowing what you are saying yes or no to.

A pedant would also point out that it was not legally binding.

Richard28 wrote:

Dont forget the big red bus and those savings which will never materialise!

Come on Richard, we're getting blue passports back.

#SoMuchBrexitWinning

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The leavers also voted for one thing and that was to leave the EU. Which is clear enough. BRINO was not on their agenda.

you mean aside of being promised nothing would change with regards to the common market.

best regards
Thomas

Dont forget the big red bus and those savings which will never materialise!

The leave campaign believed that the EU would want to negotiate in good faith and would be willing to find a solution beneficial to both sides, but in reality the EU just wants to punish the UK for seeking freedom. So the leave campaign might have had a too positive outlook, but the fault lies solely with the EU and the questions in the ballot was clear enough. Remain or Leave. And leave won with a majority in hundreds of thousand votes.

seahawk wrote:

The leave campaign believed that the EU would want to negotiate in good faith and would be willing to find a solution beneficial to both sides, but in reality the EU just wants to punish the UK for seeking freedom. So the leave campaign might have had a too positive outlook, but the fault lies solely with the EU and the questions in the ballot was clear enough. Remain or Leave. And leave won with a majority in hundreds of thousand votes.

Last I checked the EU negotiators made the setup clear from day 1. The UK is the one wanting to leave and the 4 freedoms are indivisible. The fact the UK has no idea what it wants beyond having cake and eating it are not the fault of the EU negotiators.

scbriml wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Dont forget the big red bus and those savings which will never materialise!

Come on Richard, we're getting blue passports back.

#SoMuchBrexitWinning

silly me, drinking my vegetarian latte and not paying attention - sorry!

seahawk wrote:

Tbut the fault lies solely with the EU .

yup, because the rules the UK voted for make it impossible for the EU to treat the UK any other way.

best regards
Thomas

"Oh but people have changed their mind"

"Oh but those who wanted to leave are all dead now"



Hmmm

Anyway, despite me largely being happy with the Chequers proposals. Still a labour government looking for more likely. I'm looking forward to all these freebies, 'handing back' Las Malvinas (see I'm getting used to comrade speak already) and handing back Gibraltar, despite residents of both places overwhelmingly rejecting such lunacy.

How I'll miss being a monarchy, but at least Hildred will have a subsidised bus to her village post office to get her passion in cash. How quaint. Oh and I'm looking forward to deciding which of the 200+ genders I'll pick and wether I'll stick to that gender or just decide every morning what gender I am or should I identify as a six year old girl? Any things possible when you've got the loony left running the show, just ask Canada!

Oh and all of the new bank holidays too, one for St George too! How Nugee much be foaming and not to mention the English hating lefties will be raging.

Oh and for their brexit policy. What is their brexit policy at this time?

#solidarity

sevenair wrote:

"Oh but people have changed their mind"

"Oh but those who wanted to leave are all dead now"

Hmmm

I do have the feeling you "forgot" to include a link for a reason, since, as pretty much always when you post stuff, doesn´t say what you seem to imply:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -becoming/



"remins high" is not the same as increasing, And obviously being an Eurosceptic doesn´t mean you are in favor of Brexit.

best regards
Thomas

sevenair wrote:

"Oh but people have changed their mind"

"Oh but those who wanted to leave are all dead now"

That report refers to a British Social Attitudes survey and data only runs to 2017. I think we'd all agree that a lot has changed since then. Other key points the study shows:

- fewer people now believe EU membership undermines the UK's identity.
- More people now identify as European
- More people believe that leaving the EU will be bad for the UK's economy
- Support for leaving differs depending upon people's view on the impact to the economy and EU membership as a whole
- According to the survey, more people support remaining in the EU... which is at odds with reality (as it were in 2016)

seahawk wrote:

The question was simple enough:

a) Remain a member of the European Union
b) Leave the European Union

b won and there are no ifs and buts but a clear vote to leave the complete EU.

The question was indeed simple. Option A, that is remain, is indeed very simple. Option B, on the face of it also looks simple. But throughout the campaign, option B was never properly defined and mostly misrepresented. It took on many guises.

Overall, the message was that we would strike some fantastical deal with the EU where we would keep all the advantages but still, somehow, leave. Some Leavers said achieving this would be easy (that person has now resigned from the cabinet). Others explained how the EU would just role over and do as we said.

Most importantly, anyone who challenged the Leave campaign was accused of fear mongering. The issues were never really discussed. As a result, 2 years after the referendum result, no one can really agree on what option B means. The Government has had three tries at defining option B. The latest resulting in a bunch of cabinet resignations.

This was a stupid referendum. The question was flawed. The campaign was ridiculous. The execution of the result has been a shambles.

For what it matters - I believe option B means leave with no deal. If you try and strike a deal with the EU, you will get a bunch of other stuff come with it which will mean you never truly leave. Deep down, I think most politicians know this is damaging to the UK.

Kestrel333 wrote:

sevenair wrote:

"Oh but people have changed their mind"

"Oh but those who wanted to leave are all dead now"

That report refers to a British Social Attitudes survey and data only runs to 2017. I think we'd all agree that a lot has changed since then. Other key points the study shows:

- fewer people now believe EU membership undermines the UK's identity.
- More people now identify as European
- More people believe that leaving the EU will be bad for the UK's economy
- Support for leaving differs depending upon people's view on the impact to the economy and EU membership as a whole
- According to the survey, more people support remaining in the EU... which is at odds with reality (as it were in 2016)

But the survey carried out on 23rd June 2016 with over 36 million people participating paints a very different picture.

No social survey is going to overide the referendum result. The only thing that would, would be a second vote.

Quite amusing to watch you throw your toys out of the pram by the way kestrel. I think you must be the sorest loser on this thread just in front of my friend in British Canada.

Kestrel333 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The question was simple enough:

a) Remain a member of the European Union
b) Leave the European Union

b won and there are no ifs and buts but a clear vote to leave the complete EU.

The question was indeed simple. Option A, that is remain, is indeed very simple. Option B, on the face of it also looks simple. But throughout the campaign, option B was never properly defined and mostly misrepresented. It took on many guises.

Overall, the message was that we would strike some fantastical deal with the EU where we would keep all the advantages but still, somehow, leave. Some Leavers said achieving this would be easy (that person has now resigned from the cabinet). Others explained how the EU would just role over and do as we said.

Most importantly, anyone who challenged the Leave campaign was accused of fear mongering. The issues were never really discussed. As a result, 2 years after the referendum result, no one can really agree on what option B means. The Government has had three tries at defining option B. The latest resulting in a bunch of cabinet resignations.

This was a stupid referendum. The question was flawed. The campaign was ridiculous. The execution of the result has been a shambles.

For what it matters - I believe option B means leave with no deal. If you try and strike a deal with the EU, you will get a bunch of other stuff come with it which will mean you never truly leave. Deep down, I think most politicians know this is damaging to the UK.

Well, I understand it as a hard Brexit unless the EU is willing to really negotiate in good faith, but it must mean no EU control over the UK. So if the hard Brexit comes, it is the EU who is to blame. But there must be no going back on the Brexit and taking back control.

Meanwhile, Labour's position has become interesting too by insisting it will not be just be abstaining in any vote on the final Brexit deal, but will vote against it if it doesnt meet their 6 criteria, one of which is effectively CU membership.
Since the Conservatives most likely do not have the votes to pass any deal based on their Chequers (dis)agreement by themselves, let alone any likely further watered down version of it which will come out of any negotiations with the EU, we're nearing the moment where either Parliament -which can not just be sent home due to their fixed term- either dictates a clear and realistic proposal itself or puts it in the hand of the people though a second referendum.
Given how unlikely it is a referendum will show a clear majority for any single proposal from more than 2 options, I think it is high time for a government of national unity with a very limited programme: that of drafting a sensible Brexit position known to be acceptable to the EU as well as a wide majority in the UK and strike a deal with the EU over it which can then pass Parliament without a problem, after which new elections can be held in spring next year.
There's a very large majority for a certain type of Brexit in Parliament, it's just that it is devided over serveral parties, with the UK not having a history of coalition governments nor transpartisan deals like they are called in democracies where such dealing is actually fairly common because of their rather fragmented parliamentary landscape.

sabenapilot wrote:

Given how unlikely it is a referendum will show a clear majority for any single proposal from more than 2 options, I think it is high time for a government of national unity with a very limited programme: that of drafting a sensible Brexit position known to be acceptable to the EU as well as a wide majority in the UK and strike a deal with the EU over it which can then pass Parliament without a problem, after which new elections can be held in spring next year.

This is where I am lost in this whole debate.
1. The EU has the 4 pillars, full stop no negotiation.
2. Dating back to when the 4 pillars were fully implemented, the majority in the UK do not want all of them, hence the number of opt outs trying to work around.

What would be a sensible Brexit position that does not include the 4 pillars that would be acceptable to the EU?

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Given how unlikely it is a referendum will show a clear majority for any single proposal from more than 2 options, I think it is high time for a government of national unity with a very limited programme: that of drafting a sensible Brexit position known to be acceptable to the EU as well as a wide majority in the UK and strike a deal with the EU over it which can then pass Parliament without a problem, after which new elections can be held in spring next year.

This is where I am lost in this whole debate.
1. The EU has the 4 pillars, full stop no negotiation.
2. Dating back to when the 4 pillars were fully implemented, the majority in the UK do not want all of them, hence the number of opt outs trying to work around.

What would be a sensible Brexit position that does not include the 4 pillars that would be acceptable to the EU?

The UK didn't opt out to any of the 4 pillars.

They opted out of peripheral stuff like the euro, defence issues, etc. The Tories that today want out were enthusiastic about the 4 pillars when they were introduced. Actually they were one of the main driving forces in making the EU what it is today.

JJJ wrote:

The UK didn't opt out to any of the 4 pillars.

...as I said, the 4 pillars were fully implemented....

The only deals available, respecting the EU SM and the UK red lines are ceta or korean trade deals

LJ wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Which of her potential replacements is capable of winning the committees' support?

Which is irrelevant if you're pro-Brexit. As long as the chaos continues, they're fine.

The referendum was won by Brexit because it promised all the options into one : single market, no need to follow any EU rule, restrictions on immigration but free flow of services and goods and money.

Once it is clear that this was a lie, you might have as many Brexiters as before, but several flavors of such, with some agreeing to a deal while others would be up in arms, and the reverse.

As it is a no deal Brexit would satisfy some Brexiters, but a tiny minority only. They would be fine (or think they would be) but the vast majority of the British people wouldn't.

Arion640 wrote:

Quite amusing to watch you throw your toys out of the pram by the way kestrel. I think you must be the sorest loser on this thread just in front of my friend in British Canada.

Okay then... not too sure how you've worked that one out.

By the way, I don't see myself as losing here. As it stands, the course is set for perhaps the softest Brexit imaginable. If things carry on as they are, I think Remainers can be relatively happy, if not a little exasperated at the two years or so which will have been wasted. The other pity is that the UK will wave goodbye to it's rule making role within the EU, and will simply be a rule taker. But hey ho!

Aesma wrote:

As it is a no deal Brexit would satisfy some Brexiters, but a tiny minority only. They would be fine (or think they would be) but the vast majority of the British people wouldn't.

Indeed. I think it was Newsnight where this point was made. 48% of people wanted to remain in the EU. Even of the 53% of people who voted to leave, not all will have wanted a no deal, cliff edge Brexit. It is quite reasonable to suppose that more than 50% of people would prefer to remain in the EU were it a choice between that and a no deal exit (which arguably wasn't an option in the referendum given the lack of clarity on the part of team Leave).

I enjoyed that:

Michel Barnier says 80% of Brexit deal has been agreed
Bear in mind that human DNA is 97% identical to that of a chimpanzee.
That 3% makes one hell of a difference.

Olddog wrote:

The only deals available, respecting the EU SM and the UK red lines are ceta or korean trade deals

Correct, but of course ceta or Korean type deals do not respect the Good Friday Agreement which the UK has also signed up to.

As I've said before, the UK government is in a stalemate but wont admit this.

The next concessions will either have to remove red lines to reveal four pillars, or go back on the Good Friday Agreement - all of which would cause political strife - or heck, here's a third option, just stay in the EU dammit!

Kestrel333 wrote:

By the way, I don't see myself as losing here. As it stands, the course is set for perhaps the softest Brexit imaginable. If things carry on as they are, I think Remainers can be relatively happy, if not a little exasperated at the two years or so which will have been wasted. The other pity is that the UK will wave goodbye to it's rule making role within the EU, and will simply be a rule taker. But hey ho!

Its so ironic isn't it?

This Chequers proposal Brexit looks set to end up turning the UK into the very thing (an undemocratic rule taker) that Brexiters thought we were in the first place, which by the way will still cost us money!

Olddog wrote:

The only deals available, respecting the EU SM and the UK red lines are ceta or korean trade deals

I specifically did not mention any of the UK proposals Red Line or otherwise because as the EU itself has stated on numerous occasions, none of them are acceptable.
Or in a reverse form, what nations presently trade and are recognized by the EU while not having the 4 pillars?
Everything I see listed for the UK is 4 pillars, even the talk right now about revoking Article 50 has no legal weight, all I have seen is opinions, however, if it maintains the integrity of the EU I am sure the first filing of article 50 could have numerous omissions which would / could lead to its invalidation and recall once the bill is paid, the opt outs and concessions are removed and full adherence to the EU project is accepted.
One thing we know for sure, the EU and the UK relationship is not going back to what it was prior to the invocation of Article 50.

Fascinating read in the Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 40311.html

We know that the EU will reject the Chequers proposal (no cherry picking, 4 pillars etc), but should it get through somehow then Labour will be joined by Jacob Rees-Mogg and his crowd in also rejecting it.

In the event that Parliament cannot decide, Labour are now open to the idea of a second referendum.

The EU and Parliament will seemingly only accept a very soft Brexit, and in the case they can't it goes back to the people.

Is it me, or is this now looking inevitable?

The UK can always threaten to not leave the EU to get a better deal for leaving from the EU.. they are well practised in such ideas.

seahawk wrote:

The UK can always threaten to not leave the EU to get a better deal for leaving from the EU.. they are well practised in such ideas.

From what I've seen the generally accepted idea is that the UK can only uninvoke Article 50 with approval from the other EU nations. There is no process in Article 50 to uninvoke. Once invoked the timer starts.

So unless the UK convinces everyone they're really super sorry this thing is happening.

Another 2 resignations meaning another 2 signatures on the 22.

deleted

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The UK can always threaten to not leave the EU to get a better deal for leaving from the EU.. they are well practised in such ideas.

From what I've seen the generally accepted idea is that the UK can only uninvoke Article 50 with approval from the other EU nations. There is no process in Article 50 to uninvoke. Once invoked the timer starts.

So unless the UK convinces everyone they're really super sorry this thing is happening.

And we would have to re apply for EU membership, meaning Euro and Schengen. Never going to happen.

Richard28 wrote:

In the event that Parliament cannot decide, Labour are now open to the idea of a second referendum.

I will have to read up on that, I thought they said they were open to a referendum on whatever deal the government came up with, not a second referendum on EU membership...and they are not one and the same...the snap election was not to undo the initial vote...

Richard28 wrote:

The EU and Parliament will seemingly only accept a very soft Brexit, and in the case they can't it goes back to the people.

...which is what exactly, will try not to say what others think but ask the question, what is Soft Brexit that is acceptable to the EU?

Arion640 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The UK can always threaten to not leave the EU to get a better deal for leaving from the EU.. they are well practised in such ideas.

From what I've seen the generally accepted idea is that the UK can only uninvoke Article 50 with approval from the other EU nations. There is no process in Article 50 to uninvoke. Once invoked the timer starts.

So unless the UK convinces everyone they're really super sorry this thing is happening.

And we would have to re apply for EU membership, meaning Euro and Schengen. Never going to happen.

No need to re-apply, just ask nicely if you can revoke your article 50 letter. Chances are that indeed the remaining EU-members will ask for something in return, so some of those exemptions will be gone for sure.

Dutchy wrote:

No need to re-apply, just ask nicely if you can revoke your article 50 letter. Chances are that indeed the remaining EU-members will ask for something in return, so some of those exemptions will be gone for sure.

So far I have not seen any legal opinions on revocation, we do know that the articles do allow extensions if approved by all 20+ members.
So the UK leaves the EU but applies for extension while they negotiate on an annual basis, say two meetings per year, each to be discussed and approved by parliament before going to the next meeting, how many years that will take can be based on how long it took Canada to complete their deal.
In the interim, the UK will pay its bill, continue to abide by all EU rules and regs, but they will be out of the EU and Brexit will have been delivered.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

No need to re-apply, just ask nicely if you can revoke your article 50 letter. Chances are that indeed the remaining EU-members will ask for something in return, so some of those exemptions will be gone for sure.

So far I have not seen any legal opinions on revocation, we do know that the articles do allow extensions if approved by all 20+ members.
So the UK leaves the EU but applies for extension while they negotiate on an annual basis, say two meetings per year, each to be discussed and approved by parliament before going to the next meeting, how many years that will take can be based on how long it took Canada to complete their deal.
In the interim, the UK will pay its bill, continue to abide by all EU rules and regs, but they will be out of the EU and Brexit will have been delivered.

It was in the news in the Netherlands that that was the procedure, article 50 letter can only be revoked with the approval of the remaining 27. But that might not be the case and if Brittain would make such a decision they would need to re-apply. In the end it will mean the same thing: the deal Brittain got pre-Brexit will be less.

Dutchy wrote:

In the end it will mean the same thing: the deal Brittain got pre-Brexit will be less.

...which is hidden behind the so called Tory civil war, the red bus, NHS, the "left" labour movement, the power grabbers, remainers, leavers, hard / soft brexit, does make you wonder about whether the EU really wants so many millions of of misinformed folks as members...

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In the end it will mean the same thing: the deal Brittain got pre-Brexit will be less.

...which is hidden behind the so called Tory civil war, the red bus, NHS, the "left" labour movement, the power grabbers, remainers, leavers, hard / soft brexit, does make you wonder about whether the EU really wants so many millions of of misinformed folks as members...

Of course they do, the money grabbing EU wants british money.

Arion640 wrote:

Another 2 resignations meaning another 2 signatures on the 22.

ERG has 60 members. Only 48 letters are required. What's the hold-up?

Arion640 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In the end it will mean the same thing: the deal Brittain got pre-Brexit will be less.

...which is hidden behind the so called Tory civil war, the red bus, NHS, the "left" labour movement, the power grabbers, remainers, leavers, hard / soft brexit, does make you wonder about whether the EU really wants so many millions of of misinformed folks as members...

Of course they do, the money grabbing EU wants british money.

Just go way with this kind of rubbish.

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

par13del wrote:

...which is hidden behind the so called Tory civil war, the red bus, NHS, the "left" labour movement, the power grabbers, remainers, leavers, hard / soft brexit, does make you wonder about whether the EU really wants so many millions of of misinformed folks as members...

Of course they do, the money grabbing EU wants british money.

Just go way with this kind of rubbish.

True I’m afraid. You don’t want your second biggest contributor to walk away.