I will admit I really do not care one way or the other about this Brexit debate its been going on now for 2 yrs as you seem to know a awful lot HAYSIE, which I do not can you explain to me what the Lisbon treaty will entail for the UK if the UK ends up remaining in the EU .. I have asked my local MP to explain but as all good politicians, would not give me a clear answer only that no deal would be bad and I mean really bad but ive read on other forums that this Lisbon treaty if we stay in the EU will be even worse than leaving as I said this is only what I have read and my local MP which is Amber Rudd is not very clear on the implications who do I believe .. hopefully you have some sort of understanding and can explain
Tom put a post on here from another site on this topic. Mostly nonsense. It was answered by Essexphil who is a solicitor. I bow to his superior knowledge. Its on page 96.
Can someone explain why Theresa May thinks she can go back to the EU and start renegotiating when the EU have stated time and time again that there is no renegotiation.
Can someone explain why Theresa May thinks she can go back to the EU and start renegotiating when the EU have stated time and time again that there is no renegotiation.
She doesn't really , its just a political move to keep the party together and delay the whole process further imo
14 Labour MPs voted against the Cooper amendment, which is why it failed.
I will admit I really do not care one way or the other about this Brexit debate its been going on now for 2 yrs as you seem to know a awful lot HAYSIE, which I do not can you explain to me what the Lisbon treaty will entail for the UK if the UK ends up remaining in the EU .. I have asked my local MP to explain but as all good politicians, would not give me a clear answer only that no deal would be bad and I mean really bad but ive read on other forums that this Lisbon treaty if we stay in the EU will be even worse than leaving as I said this is only what I have read and my local MP which is Amber Rudd is not very clear on the implications who do I believe .. hopefully you have some sort of understanding and can explain
Tom put a post on here from another site on this topic. Mostly nonsense. It was answered by Essexphil who is a solicitor. I bow to his superior knowledge. Its on page 96.
We are Blue Peter fans on this thread, have a look at the one we made earlier.
I will admit I really do not care one way or the other about this Brexit debate its been going on now for 2 yrs as you seem to know a awful lot HAYSIE, which I do not can you explain to me what the Lisbon treaty will entail for the UK if the UK ends up remaining in the EU .. I have asked my local MP to explain but as all good politicians, would not give me a clear answer only that no deal would be bad and I mean really bad but ive read on other forums that this Lisbon treaty if we stay in the EU will be even worse than leaving as I said this is only what I have read and my local MP which is Amber Rudd is not very clear on the implications who do I believe .. hopefully you have some sort of understanding and can explain
Tom put a post on here from another site on this topic. Mostly nonsense. It was answered by Essexphil who is a solicitor. I bow to his superior knowledge. Its on page 96.
ty HAYSIE for taking the time to answer my ? as I said I'm past caring now after 2 yrs but feel after reading ESSEXPHILS response to my query about this Lisbon treaty thing that I can now still feel remain is still the best option .. lets hope common sense prevails
I will admit I really do not care one way or the other about this Brexit debate its been going on now for 2 yrs as you seem to know a awful lot HAYSIE, which I do not can you explain to me what the Lisbon treaty will entail for the UK if the UK ends up remaining in the EU .. I have asked my local MP to explain but as all good politicians, would not give me a clear answer only that no deal would be bad and I mean really bad but ive read on other forums that this Lisbon treaty if we stay in the EU will be even worse than leaving as I said this is only what I have read and my local MP which is Amber Rudd is not very clear on the implications who do I believe .. hopefully you have some sort of understanding and can explain
Tom put a post on here from another site on this topic. Mostly nonsense. It was answered by Essexphil who is a solicitor. I bow to his superior knowledge. Its on page 96.
ty HAYSIE for taking the time to answer my ? as I said I'm past caring now after 2 yrs but feel after reading ESSEXPHILS response to my query about this Lisbon treaty thing that I can now still feel remain is still the best option .. lets hope common sense prevails
Theresa May was heading for another defeat, but she ended up with an unconventional win - a win nonetheless.
The Tory Party that was visibly split in two a fortnight ago is giving the impression of being largely united, even if that is temporary.
Yet the prime minister only won because she gave into Brexiteer and DUP demands, by making a promise that she can't be sure she can keep - one the EU says at the moment is impossible. Parliament made it clear that it does not want to leave the EU without a deal. Right now, that's not something No 10 is willing to promise.
But MPs could have made that demand more convincingly.
Parliament had the option to vote to take control of the Brexit process if the government failed to get it sorted by the end of next month, and it did not.
Again, former Remainers failed to coalesce around a single plan.
And again, Theresa May has had to budge to keep Brexiteers on board.
But that buys her a little more time, and a little more political momentum.
This process has for a long time been about No 10 stumbling, often seriously, then getting up again to try to take another step.
There is a valid question - to what end?
Neither time nor momentum provides a solution on their own.
Theresa May was heading for another defeat, but she ended up with an unconventional win - a win nonetheless.
The Tory Party that was visibly split in two a fortnight ago is giving the impression of being largely united, even if that is temporary.
Yet the prime minister only won because she gave into Brexiteer and DUP demands, by making a promise that she can't be sure she can keep - one the EU says at the moment is impossible. Parliament made it clear that it does not want to leave the EU without a deal. Right now, that's not something No 10 is willing to promise.
But MPs could have made that demand more convincingly.
Parliament had the option to vote to take control of the Brexit process if the government failed to get it sorted by the end of next month, and it did not.
Again, former Remainers failed to coalesce around a single plan.
And again, Theresa May has had to budge to keep Brexiteers on board.
But that buys her a little more time, and a little more political momentum.
This process has for a long time been about No 10 stumbling, often seriously, then getting up again to try to take another step.
There is a valid question - to what end?
Neither time nor momentum provides a solution on their own.
Fourteen of them disobeyed the whip and voted against the Cooper amendment, which foiled the attempt to stop no deal.
Seven of them voted with The Government on the Brady amendment. Had they voted against, the majority would have been reduced to two. Such a small majority would probably prevented The PM from even attempting further negotiations with The EU.
The Government is at fault, but Labour aren't helping.
The Backstop was The PMs invention, and was agreed over a year ago.
It was only the other day that this was the only deal on the table.
She now says it isn't.
Both The EU, and the Irish seem adamant that they are not moving.
We are making no headway, the ticking of the clock is getting louder, as we get ever closer to no deal.
If a miracle happened and The Withdrawal Agreement got through, we would go into The Transition Period, and start negotiating a trade deal.
Presumably we could end up back where we are today, at the end of The Transition Period. As, if the trade deal couldn't get through Parliament we could be back to leaving with no deal.
So conspiracy theorists may think that this is a cunning plan by The Brexiteers,
End up with no deal, by helping to get The Withdrawal Agreement through, but never vote in favour of a trade deal.
Doing this would ensure that Brexit happens, but still have a chance of no deal.
Theresa May was heading for another defeat, but she ended up with an unconventional win - a win nonetheless.
The Tory Party that was visibly split in two a fortnight ago is giving the impression of being largely united, even if that is temporary.
Yet the prime minister only won because she gave into Brexiteer and DUP demands, by making a promise that she can't be sure she can keep - one the EU says at the moment is impossible. Parliament made it clear that it does not want to leave the EU without a deal. Right now, that's not something No 10 is willing to promise.
But MPs could have made that demand more convincingly.
Parliament had the option to vote to take control of the Brexit process if the government failed to get it sorted by the end of next month, and it did not.
Again, former Remainers failed to coalesce around a single plan.
And again, Theresa May has had to budge to keep Brexiteers on board.
But that buys her a little more time, and a little more political momentum.
This process has for a long time been about No 10 stumbling, often seriously, then getting up again to try to take another step.
There is a valid question - to what end?
Neither time nor momentum provides a solution on their own.
In addition to the 14 Labour rebels, on the Cooper amendment, a further 11 of them abstained.
The fact that 25 Labour MPs would not support the means to avoid a disaster, is mind boggling.
How Labour rebels saved May's Brexit: The 14 MPs who defied Corbyn's demands and put the country before their party to allow PM to push EU for better deal Theresa May is on a collision course with EU leaders who say they will refuse to renegotiate Irish backstop MPs, who inflicted a historic defeat on PM earlier this month, last night voted by 317 to 301 to give backing 14 Labour MPs voted against a Jeremy Corbyn-backed proposal to delay Brexit and hand win to Mrs May Backbench rebels including Dennis Skinner joined the Tories to reject the plan to hold up Brexit by 3 months Seven Labour defectors backed the Brady amendment to renegotiate deal and gface deselection calls
A humiliated Jeremy Corbyn said he would now agree to hold Brexit talks with Mrs May without preconditions. A Labour-backed bid by Yvette Cooper to seize control of parliament and force the Government to delay Brexit until the end of the year was comfortably defeated, with a string of Labour Mps rebelling against their leader. French President Emmanuel Macron said the Brexit deal was 'not renegotiable' and warned EU leaders to prepare for the possibility of no-deal. The Irish government also ruled out renegotiating the Withdrawal Agreement German MEP Manfred Weber, a close ally of Angela Merkel, said reopening the Brexit deal could see the UK asked to increase the £39 billion divorce payment or even surrender control of Gibraltar. Pro-Remain Tory ministers dropped their threat to quit after Mrs May pledged Parliament would get another chance to debate and vote Brexit strategy on February 14. Former cabinet minister Sir Oliver Letwin warned that Labour could be in power for generations if the Tories oversaw a chaotic no-deal Brexit, adding: 'We will not be forgiven for many years.' And former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke warned of growing public 'contempt' at parliament's failure to resolve Brexit, adding: 'if this shambles goes on much longer I hate to think where populism and extremism will take us next in this democracy.'
The official Twitter account of "GiveBloodNHS" tweeted this yesterday;
We have taken the decision to cancel blood donation sessions in Dover and Folkestone for a 2 week period before and a 6 week period after Britain’s exit from the EU. This is because in the event of issues in Calais and other freight ports, this could lead to significant traffic in Kent and may prevent donation teams from reaching or leaving venues in the area.
The official Twitter account of "GiveBloodNHS" tweeted this yesterday;
We have taken the decision to cancel blood donation sessions in Dover and Folkestone for a 2 week period before and a 6 week period after Britain’s exit from the EU. This is because in the event of issues in Calais and other freight ports, this could lead to significant traffic in Kent and may prevent donation teams from reaching or leaving venues in the area.
Matt Hancock has since knocked this on the head. Probably more concerned about how it looks rather than any logistics.
Matt Hancock slaps down NHS attempt to cancel blood donations in Kent in the event of a no-deal Brexit
T he Government has stopped the National Health Service from cancelling blood donations in Kent because of fears of traffic jams in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The NHS said this afternoon that six planned donations in Dover and Folkestone will not take place, blaming expected traffic build-up. The sessions would have stopped two weeks prior to March 29, and will only resume six weeks after the UK leaves the EU. However, just two hours after the NHS’s announcement, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, stepped in to reverse the decision. A department spokesman said: “This proposal was not cleared through the department. “We are stopping it right now. Blood donation sessions will continue as usual.”...
The official Twitter account of "GiveBloodNHS" tweeted this yesterday;
We have taken the decision to cancel blood donation sessions in Dover and Folkestone for a 2 week period before and a 6 week period after Britain’s exit from the EU. This is because in the event of issues in Calais and other freight ports, this could lead to significant traffic in Kent and may prevent donation teams from reaching or leaving venues in the area.
Matt Hancock has since knocked this on the head. Probably more concerned about how it looks rather than any logistics.
Matt Hancock slaps down NHS attempt to cancel blood donations in Kent in the event of a no-deal Brexit
T he Government has stopped the National Health Service from cancelling blood donations in Kent because of fears of traffic jams in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The NHS said this afternoon that six planned donations in Dover and Folkestone will not take place, blaming expected traffic build-up. The sessions would have stopped two weeks prior to March 29, and will only resume six weeks after the UK leaves the EU. However, just two hours after the NHS’s announcement, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, stepped in to reverse the decision. A department spokesman said: “This proposal was not cleared through the department. “We are stopping it right now. Blood donation sessions will continue as usual.”...
Seriously-£multi-billion employer (1 of the largest in the world) needs to ask permission from the Government to stop blood donation for 6 weeks in 2 mid-size Kent towns?
Right there is the main problem with the NHS. Its ability to make decisions about best use of resources (regardless of whether they are right or wrong) is overridden by a politician. For political reasons. Bah.
Haysie-Remainer. Wants 2nd referendum to stop us leaving. Me. Remainer by inclination. However, feel that referendum means we have to leave, on the best possible terms Dobiesdraw. More difficult to pinpoint, but not an ardent remainer nor favouring a "no deal" Brexit. Initial abstainer.
We are missing one thing for a balanced debate. Someone who represents the majority at the last referendum. Someone who believes that we are better off out.
I genuinely want to know what advantages there are. Not "out means out" or similar generalised meaningless statements, but WHY?
Not "we can take control of our own laws"-WHAT laws should be changed?
Not "control of our own borders"-HOW can/should it be better?
I completely understand peoples' distrust of Europe. Why do Leavers think we will be better off? (Not limited to financially). In essence why should we trust UK politicians more than EU ones?
Haysie-Remainer. Wants 2nd referendum to stop us leaving. Me. Remainer by inclination. However, feel that referendum means we have to leave, on the best possible terms Dobiesdraw. More difficult to pinpoint, but not an ardent remainer nor favouring a "no deal" Brexit. Initial abstainer.
We are missing one thing for a balanced debate. Someone who represents the majority at the last referendum. Someone who believes that we are better off out.
I genuinely want to know what advantages there are. Not "out means out" or similar generalised meaningless statements, but WHY?
Not "we can take control of our own laws"-WHAT laws should be changed?
Not "control of our own borders"-HOW can/should it be better?
I completely understand peoples' distrust of Europe. Why do Leavers think we will be better off? (Not limited to financially). In essence why should we trust UK politicians more than EU ones?
Haysie-Remainer. Wants 2nd referendum to stop us leaving. Me. Remainer by inclination. However, feel that referendum means we have to leave, on the best possible terms Dobiesdraw. More difficult to pinpoint, but not an ardent remainer nor favouring a "no deal" Brexit. Initial abstainer.
We are missing one thing for a balanced debate. Someone who represents the majority at the last referendum. Someone who believes that we are better off out.
I genuinely want to know what advantages there are. Not "out means out" or similar generalised meaningless statements, but WHY?
Not "we can take control of our own laws"-WHAT laws should be changed?
Not "control of our own borders"-HOW can/should it be better?
I completely understand peoples' distrust of Europe. Why do Leavers think we will be better off? (Not limited to financially). In essence why should we trust UK politicians more than EU ones?
For me , pre referendum , I was leaning towards voting leave. I thought ( and still do to a degree) , that our economy has probably been stunted to a degree as a result of the EU membership , and exploring and forging new trade deals could be good for us . However the campaign from both sides , muddied the waters of rationale for me , so decided to abstain . If i had the chance to vote again , I would vote remain ...but that is entirely due to the shambles the current crop of politicians have created with dealing with Brexit and my complete lack of confidence in their ability to be able to negotiate beneficial trade deals with other countries ( in essence , better the devil you know ) . I think it would be more divisive than anyone can imagine to allow a 2nd referendum , I think no deal would be a disaster ..so no idea where we go from here , considering our future very much lies in the responses by the European Union regarding any possible amendments or concessions ( highly unlikely to be favourable).
@Essexphil agree with Tom , an excellent post . However , for a leaver to come on here and debate , they would have to feel like they weren't going to be talked down to , belittled and called stupid because they have differing opinions . Given the fact that the thread has been going for quite a while and we haven't had anyone from the leave camp really come on and make their case , it looks unlikely to happen.
@Essexphil agree with Tom , an excellent post . However , for a leaver to come on here and debate , they would have to feel like they weren't going to be talked down to , belittled and called stupid because they have differing opinions . Given the fact that the thread has been going for quite a while and we haven't had anyone from the leave camp really come on and make their case , it looks unlikely .
Completely agree.
I am genuinely trying to understand what we will gain. There are bound to be positives. I have family members who are ardent Leavers-the sort that believes everything that the Daily Mail says. They are not stupid-far from it.
As far as I am concerned, the battle over whether we are leaving is over. It is merely a question of when and how. I may well disagree with arguments put forward by people, but I don't want to talk down to anyone. I am trying to learn what motivates people to want to leave.
Haysie-Remainer. Wants 2nd referendum to stop us leaving. Me. Remainer by inclination. However, feel that referendum means we have to leave, on the best possible terms Dobiesdraw. More difficult to pinpoint, but not an ardent remainer nor favouring a "no deal" Brexit. Initial abstainer.
We are missing one thing for a balanced debate. Someone who represents the majority at the last referendum. Someone who believes that we are better off out.
I genuinely want to know what advantages there are. Not "out means out" or similar generalised meaningless statements, but WHY?
Not "we can take control of our own laws"-WHAT laws should be changed?
Not "control of our own borders"-HOW can/should it be better?
I completely understand peoples' distrust of Europe. Why do Leavers think we will be better off? (Not limited to financially). In essence why should we trust UK politicians more than EU ones?
My view at the time of the referendum was that we were better off in, and have not changed my mind since.
I believe that no deal would be catastrophic.
I feel that even though a referendum may not be ideal in many peoples eyes, it would be a reasonable solution.
What are the likely alternatives?
I have been watching Sky News, over the last couple of weeks, and I feel that leave voters in general are unable to iterate any tangible advantages of leaving. They seem to just quote the leave campaign rhetoric, while being unable to put forward the actual gains they expect to make when we leave. They seem to endlessly spout, taking back control, sovereignty, unelected representatives, etc, etc, etc. This may be why we are short of leave voters with coherent arguments. It would be a very short and boring thread if the other sides only argument was taking back control.
The sad thing is that we may end up with a disaster, through a complete lack of leadership in both our main parties.
They are due to meet today, and it will be a case of the blind leading the blind.
I think that people are becoming more intrenched on both sides on the argument.
The leave side because they have somehow reached the conclusion that the remain side think they are stupid. Even though I have seen no evidence of this in the media. I think that many of them seem prepared to cut their noses off to spite their faces. Others put forward arguments that don't stand up, or aren't true.
There were many things to argue about in the Tim Martin pub debate, but there was a typical argument where the remain supporter pointed out that what Tim Martin was saying was untrue, and the leave supporter in the audience turns to him and shouts, Project Fear, a number of times. No facts, no argument, just project fear. This happens a lot, leave supporters dismissing anything they don't like sound of, with shouts of project fear.
I would welcome a few leave voters on this thread, putting forward genuine arguments for leaving.
The remain side will have similar feelings probably because nothing that has transpired since the referendum will have convinced them that their decision was wrong,
I have heard many ridiculous arguments against another referendum.
For me the point is, the full facts weren't known, lies were, and still are being told, some people might have changed their minds. Unless a significant number of people have changed their minds, we will get the same result.
It is not a huge inconvenience to have another vote. Surely getting the right result based on more people being informed, is surely more important than rushing into such a momentous decision.
When I say the right result what I mean is, an informed decision reached by an electorate who are aware of the facts. Rather than one that suits me.
I am aware that accepting another referendum will pose problems for some people, but this will not be as serious as making the wrong decision.
The official Twitter account of "GiveBloodNHS" tweeted this yesterday;
We have taken the decision to cancel blood donation sessions in Dover and Folkestone for a 2 week period before and a 6 week period after Britain’s exit from the EU. This is because in the event of issues in Calais and other freight ports, this could lead to significant traffic in Kent and may prevent donation teams from reaching or leaving venues in the area.
Matt Hancock has since knocked this on the head. Probably more concerned about how it looks rather than any logistics.
Matt Hancock slaps down NHS attempt to cancel blood donations in Kent in the event of a no-deal Brexit
T he Government has stopped the National Health Service from cancelling blood donations in Kent because of fears of traffic jams in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The NHS said this afternoon that six planned donations in Dover and Folkestone will not take place, blaming expected traffic build-up. The sessions would have stopped two weeks prior to March 29, and will only resume six weeks after the UK leaves the EU. However, just two hours after the NHS’s announcement, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, stepped in to reverse the decision. A department spokesman said: “This proposal was not cleared through the department. “We are stopping it right now. Blood donation sessions will continue as usual.”...
Seriously-£multi-billion employer (1 of the largest in the world) needs to ask permission from the Government to stop blood donation for 6 weeks in 2 mid-size Kent towns?
Right there is the main problem with the NHS. Its ability to make decisions about best use of resources (regardless of whether they are right or wrong) is overridden by a politician. For political reasons. Bah.
The NHS is the worlds biggest purchaser of fax machines, and in case of a no deal Brexit, the worlds biggest purchaser of fridges.
Haysie-Remainer. Wants 2nd referendum to stop us leaving. Me. Remainer by inclination. However, feel that referendum means we have to leave, on the best possible terms Dobiesdraw. More difficult to pinpoint, but not an ardent remainer nor favouring a "no deal" Brexit. Initial abstainer.
We are missing one thing for a balanced debate. Someone who represents the majority at the last referendum. Someone who believes that we are better off out.
I genuinely want to know what advantages there are. Not "out means out" or similar generalised meaningless statements, but WHY?
Not "we can take control of our own laws"-WHAT laws should be changed?
Not "control of our own borders"-HOW can/should it be better?
I completely understand peoples' distrust of Europe. Why do Leavers think we will be better off? (Not limited to financially). In essence why should we trust UK politicians more than EU ones?
For me , pre referendum , I was leaning towards voting leave. I thought ( and still do to a degree) , that our economy has probably been stunted to a degree as a result of the EU membership , and exploring and forging new trade deals could be good for us . However the campaign from both sides , muddied the waters of rationale for me , so decided to abstain . If i had the chance to vote again , I would vote remain ...but that is entirely due to the shambles the current crop of politicians have created with dealing with Brexit and my complete lack of confidence in their ability to be able to negotiate beneficial trade deals with other countries ( in essence , better the devil you know ) . I think it would be more divisive than anyone can imagine to allow a 2nd referendum , I think no deal would be a disaster ..so no idea where we go from here , considering our future very much lies in the responses by the European Union regarding any possible amendments or concessions ( highly unlikely to be favourable).
Just on trade.
As EU members we have access to The Single Market, and trade deals with 65 countries that have already been negotiated by The EU.
We do not have the right to negotiate our own free trade deals as members. The EU negotiates all trade deals centrally. So as members we would have access to any trade deals negotiated by them in the future.
We are able to trade with other countries, without having a trade deal in place. So we currently trade with the likes of The USA and China even though we don't have trade deals with them.
So on the one hand we could as members, trade with The EU, 65 other countries, and the rest of the world.
We could improve the trade that we do with the rest of the world, while still being members, and also take advantage of future EU deals.
For example The UK and Germany, are both members, yet Germany do 6 times the trade we do with China.
Why is that?
Why couldn't we improve our trade with China?
Maybe Liam Fox should get better at it?
The leave side always present this as an either or argument. When it is not. They say that that we can either be members or trade with other countries. When it is clearly not the case.
The optimal position is clearly to remain members, access the EU deals, and improve our trade with other countries.
To be clear whilst being members, we cant do trade deals elsewhere, but are allowed to trade on WTO rules.
When we leave, we lose access to the deals with the 65 countries.
It takes years to complete a trade deal. So it will take years just to get back to where we are now.
Comments
The Tory Party that was visibly split in two a fortnight ago is giving the impression of being largely united, even if that is temporary.
Yet the prime minister only won because she gave into Brexiteer and DUP demands, by making a promise that she can't be sure she can keep - one the EU says at the moment is impossible.
Parliament made it clear that it does not want to leave the EU without a deal. Right now, that's not something No 10 is willing to promise.
But MPs could have made that demand more convincingly.
Parliament had the option to vote to take control of the Brexit process if the government failed to get it sorted by the end of next month, and it did not.
Again, former Remainers failed to coalesce around a single plan.
And again, Theresa May has had to budge to keep Brexiteers on board.
But that buys her a little more time, and a little more political momentum.
This process has for a long time been about No 10 stumbling, often seriously, then getting up again to try to take another step.
There is a valid question - to what end?
Neither time nor momentum provides a solution on their own.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47050843
Fourteen of them disobeyed the whip and voted against the Cooper amendment, which foiled the attempt to stop no deal.
Seven of them voted with The Government on the Brady amendment. Had they voted against, the majority would have been reduced to two. Such a small majority would probably prevented The PM from even attempting further negotiations with The EU.
The Government is at fault, but Labour aren't helping.
The Backstop was The PMs invention, and was agreed over a year ago.
It was only the other day that this was the only deal on the table.
She now says it isn't.
Both The EU, and the Irish seem adamant that they are not moving.
We are making no headway, the ticking of the clock is getting louder, as we get ever closer to no deal.
If a miracle happened and The Withdrawal Agreement got through, we would go into The Transition Period, and start negotiating a trade deal.
Presumably we could end up back where we are today, at the end of The Transition Period. As, if the trade deal couldn't get through Parliament we could be back to leaving with no deal.
So conspiracy theorists may think that this is a cunning plan by The Brexiteers,
End up with no deal, by helping to get The Withdrawal Agreement through, but never vote in favour of a trade deal.
Doing this would ensure that Brexit happens, but still have a chance of no deal.
The fact that 25 Labour MPs would not support the means to avoid a disaster, is mind boggling.
How Labour rebels saved May's Brexit: The 14 MPs who defied Corbyn's demands and put the country before their party to allow PM to push EU for better deal
Theresa May is on a collision course with EU leaders who say they will refuse to renegotiate Irish backstop
MPs, who inflicted a historic defeat on PM earlier this month, last night voted by 317 to 301 to give backing
14 Labour MPs voted against a Jeremy Corbyn-backed proposal to delay Brexit and hand win to Mrs May
Backbench rebels including Dennis Skinner joined the Tories to reject the plan to hold up Brexit by 3 months
Seven Labour defectors backed the Brady amendment to renegotiate deal and gface deselection calls
A humiliated Jeremy Corbyn said he would now agree to hold Brexit talks with Mrs May without preconditions.
A Labour-backed bid by Yvette Cooper to seize control of parliament and force the Government to delay Brexit until the end of the year was comfortably defeated, with a string of Labour Mps rebelling against their leader.
French President Emmanuel Macron said the Brexit deal was 'not renegotiable' and warned EU leaders to prepare for the possibility of no-deal.
The Irish government also ruled out renegotiating the Withdrawal Agreement
German MEP Manfred Weber, a close ally of Angela Merkel, said reopening the Brexit deal could see the UK asked to increase the £39 billion divorce payment or even surrender control of Gibraltar.
Pro-Remain Tory ministers dropped their threat to quit after Mrs May pledged Parliament would get another chance to debate and vote Brexit strategy on February 14.
Former cabinet minister Sir Oliver Letwin warned that Labour could be in power for generations if the Tories oversaw a chaotic no-deal Brexit, adding: 'We will not be forgiven for many years.'
And former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke warned of growing public 'contempt' at parliament's failure to resolve Brexit, adding: 'if this shambles goes on much longer I hate to think where populism and extremism will take us next in this democracy.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6646791/How-Labour-rebels-saved-Mays-Brexit-14-MPs-defied-Corbyns-demands.html
The official Twitter account of "GiveBloodNHS" tweeted this yesterday;
We have taken the decision to cancel blood donation sessions in Dover and Folkestone for a 2 week period before and a 6 week period after Britain’s exit from the EU. This is because in the event of issues in Calais and other freight ports, this could lead to significant traffic in Kent and may prevent donation teams from reaching or leaving venues in the area.
Matt Hancock slaps down NHS attempt to cancel blood donations in Kent in the event of a no-deal Brexit
T
he Government has stopped the National Health Service from cancelling blood donations in Kent because of fears of traffic jams in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The NHS said this afternoon that six planned donations in Dover and Folkestone will not take place, blaming expected traffic build-up. The sessions would have stopped two weeks prior to March 29, and will only resume six weeks after the UK leaves the EU.
However, just two hours after the NHS’s announcement, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, stepped in to reverse the decision.
A department spokesman said: “This proposal was not cleared through the department.
“We are stopping it right now. Blood donation sessions will continue as usual.”...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/29/matt-hancock-steps-stop-nhs-cancelling-blood-donations-kent/
Seriously-£multi-billion employer (1 of the largest in the world) needs to ask permission from the Government to stop blood donation for 6 weeks in 2 mid-size Kent towns?
Right there is the main problem with the NHS. Its ability to make decisions about best use of resources (regardless of whether they are right or wrong) is overridden by a politician. For political reasons. Bah.
Three posters have made their feelings known.
Haysie-Remainer. Wants 2nd referendum to stop us leaving.
Me. Remainer by inclination. However, feel that referendum means we have to leave, on the best possible terms
Dobiesdraw. More difficult to pinpoint, but not an ardent remainer nor favouring a "no deal" Brexit. Initial abstainer.
We are missing one thing for a balanced debate. Someone who represents the majority at the last referendum. Someone who believes that we are better off out.
I genuinely want to know what advantages there are. Not "out means out" or similar generalised meaningless statements, but WHY?
Not "we can take control of our own laws"-WHAT laws should be changed?
Not "control of our own borders"-HOW can/should it be better?
I completely understand peoples' distrust of Europe. Why do Leavers think we will be better off? (Not limited to financially). In essence why should we trust UK politicians more than EU ones?
I am genuinely trying to understand what we will gain. There are bound to be positives.
I have family members who are ardent Leavers-the sort that believes everything that the Daily Mail says. They are not stupid-far from it.
As far as I am concerned, the battle over whether we are leaving is over. It is merely a question of when and how. I may well disagree with arguments put forward by people, but I don't want to talk down to anyone. I am trying to learn what motivates people to want to leave.
I believe that no deal would be catastrophic.
I feel that even though a referendum may not be ideal in many peoples eyes, it would be a reasonable solution.
What are the likely alternatives?
I have been watching Sky News, over the last couple of weeks, and I feel that leave voters in general are unable to iterate any tangible advantages of leaving. They seem to just quote the leave campaign rhetoric, while being unable to put forward the actual gains they expect to make when we leave. They seem to endlessly spout, taking back control, sovereignty, unelected representatives, etc, etc, etc. This may be why we are short of leave voters with coherent arguments. It would be a very short and boring thread if the other sides only argument was taking back control.
The sad thing is that we may end up with a disaster, through a complete lack of leadership in both our main parties.
They are due to meet today, and it will be a case of the blind leading the blind.
I think that people are becoming more intrenched on both sides on the argument.
The leave side because they have somehow reached the conclusion that the remain side think they are stupid. Even though I have seen no evidence of this in the media. I think that many of them seem prepared to cut their noses off to spite their faces. Others put forward arguments that don't stand up, or aren't true.
There were many things to argue about in the Tim Martin pub debate, but there was a typical argument where the remain supporter pointed out that what Tim Martin was saying was untrue, and the leave supporter in the audience turns to him and shouts, Project Fear, a number of times. No facts, no argument, just project fear. This happens a lot, leave supporters dismissing anything they don't like sound of, with shouts of project fear.
I would welcome a few leave voters on this thread, putting forward genuine arguments for leaving.
The remain side will have similar feelings probably because nothing that has transpired since the referendum will have convinced them that their decision was wrong,
I have heard many ridiculous arguments against another referendum.
For me the point is, the full facts weren't known, lies were, and still are being told, some people might have changed their minds. Unless a significant number of people have changed their minds, we will get the same result.
It is not a huge inconvenience to have another vote.
Surely getting the right result based on more people being informed, is surely more important than rushing into such a momentous decision.
When I say the right result what I mean is, an informed decision reached by an electorate who are aware of the facts. Rather than one that suits me.
I am aware that accepting another referendum will pose problems for some people, but this will not be as serious as making the wrong decision.
Just on trade.
As EU members we have access to The Single Market, and trade deals with 65 countries that have already been negotiated by The EU.
We do not have the right to negotiate our own free trade deals as members. The EU negotiates all trade deals centrally. So as members we would have access to any trade deals negotiated by them in the future.
We are able to trade with other countries, without having a trade deal in place. So we currently trade with the likes of The USA and China even though we don't have trade deals with them.
So on the one hand we could as members, trade with The EU, 65 other countries, and the rest of the world.
We could improve the trade that we do with the rest of the world, while still being members, and also take advantage of future EU deals.
For example The UK and Germany, are both members, yet Germany do 6 times the trade we do with China.
Why is that?
Why couldn't we improve our trade with China?
Maybe Liam Fox should get better at it?
The leave side always present this as an either or argument. When it is not. They say that that we can either be members or trade with other countries. When it is clearly not the case.
The optimal position is clearly to remain members, access the EU deals, and improve our trade with other countries.
To be clear whilst being members, we cant do trade deals elsewhere, but are allowed to trade on WTO rules.
When we leave, we lose access to the deals with the 65 countries.
It takes years to complete a trade deal. So it will take years just to get back to where we are now.