Well that's why you should welcome greater transparency from the goverment, or do you trust them entirely, for all you know they could have been planning a fudge deal, where exit from the EU was mainly in name only and a lot of power could remain.


There is not point going over what if's, we can all do that with the referendum, it wasn't so we are in the position we are in now.

Just like believing in £350million a week for the NHS?

You know, you guys a going on about healing the nation post-Brexit and you can't even respect people of differing views now.

I've never said I don't respect people of differing views. I just don't always believe what people tell me.

I've read somewhere that Miller was devastated by the referendum result, and her son asked her what she was going to do about it, so she decided to bring a court case to try to muddy the waters. I doubt she was devastated because she voted leave.

Dos Santos didn't say anything about the way he voted until much later. He said he voted leave when he and Miller were getting some stick. He may, indeed have voted leave and have the purest of motives for the court case, but, to coin a phrase "He would say that, wouldn't he?"

I may be wrong. Or you may be wrong......

(What on earth has it got to do with any £350m? )

[quote=outof thepark;84826252]Well that's why you should welcome greater transparency from the goverment, or do you trust them entirely, for all you know they could have been planning a fudge deal, where exit from the EU was mainly in name only and a lot of power could remain.

I can understand why any negotiator wouldn't want to show their cards but I would expect them to play the cards to get the deal they promised.


There is not point going over what if's, we can all do that with the referendum, it wasn't so we are in the position we are in now.

Ah, as I suspected, you don't want to answer the question.

It would have been unbelievable if they hadn't as by the end of March it will be 9 months since the vote to leave.

Jeez, not that old chestnut, again. I never did believe that, largely because it wasn't what was said or inferred.

Did you vote in the referendum?

Somewhere along the line - perhaps next month - you are going to have to accept this is 'so last year'. I voted Brexit in a strong Brexit area. I don't know anyone who thought doing so automatically meant a set additional sum for the NHS.
Personally, if we do end up in credit financially, I'd like to see a national homes building scheme for all the young families living in shyte accommodation. But that will be up to the British people to decide through the manifestos of parties, just as we decided to leave the EU.

I don't think we will be in the customs union and people I speak to in business bodies are assuming the same. We have created a department of International Trade and we are pressing ahead negotiating trade deals with other countries ready for when we exit the EU.

Very true.

This goes to the heart of this issue. I am no supporter of the current Government, but you cannot expect it to say publicly which are its preferred options beforehand and which it has no leeway on. You cannot tie the negotiators' hands. If Clegg and co have their way and insist that the UK negotiators must achieve membership of the single market, for example, then the EU negotiators will simply say you must remain in the EU to have that. Of course that is what Clegg and the others want to happen. It wouldn't actually surprise me if he was working with the EU negotiators to achieve this.

If the Government is to outline a plan to Parliament it should should simply say that its intention is to negotiate a deal that ends free movement of people, that removes us from the jurisdiction of the European court, enables us to negotiate trade deals with other countries and creates free trade between the UK and the EU.

You are happy for EU to tell you what UK negotiating position is? That is what will happen. Government will be forced to respond to what they've said UK position is. It is putting UK on back foot with British people. Never mind Parliament.

Unless the government are happy to ruin about 80% of UK manufacturing we have to be in the CU. As I said - not being in it means every single box arriving in Europe from the UK must be opened and examined. Most likely this would apply vice-versa due to WTO stipulations.

And don't forget that Labour has made staying in the CU one of their 5 tests for May's plan. Failing one test means the agreement to the timetable is nullified.

The Department of International Trade would still be necessary as we would be allowed to make deals with any country that doesn't have one with the EEA.

The EU negotiators can tell me whatever they want. It will not necessarily be true; it may be part of brinkmanship during the negotiating process to put pressure on the UK negotiators. Of course, if the UK negotiators are forced to declare their hand before going into the talks, we will have done the EU negotiators' work for them

With an amendment.


Like I said it doesn't matter what plan or deals we want or what Parliament agrees to it being, it is meaningless, we might not get what they want and agree. It could be blown out of the water at the first negotiations.

We don't dictate terms we negotiate with people and countries.

Membership of the customs union requires you to impose the same external tariffs on non-EU trade.

Only if you're part of it under EEA regulations which is not being suggested. You're free to do your own free trade deals with any country that is not covered by an EEA trade deal and can charge them whatever you please.

So the UK taking part in the CU outside EEA regulations could not do a deal with Canada but could very much do so with the US (at the moment).

OK, so someone did a motion thinking they were being really really clever, not thinking it would be neutralised by adding "...not!" at the end, and which is not legally binding, and to which there are to be '5 tests' applied, which in the event of not scoring 5/5 would mean that the non-binding agreement to the enforcement of the as yet not-under-way timetable and in order to avoid this utmost catastrophic disaster the PM and/or Dept of Brexit will have the onerous task of sticking a post-it note on the doors of parliament that says '1. go speak to johnny foreigner, 2. speak louder and clearer next time 3. stop at duty free on the way back', oh noes...

Did I miss anything? And don't anyone say "the point" because this particular parliamentary exercise really didn't have one except trying to gain one of two at the opinion polls.

Lol I actually quite agree with you for once. There were a few more points to it though...

May managed to keep up appearances (Brexit press, hardline Brexiters, backbenchers) whilst continuing to delay things.

Going back to the original post, IDS says the vote ...

was “historic”, and gave the government what he called a “blank cheque” to press ahead on Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-duncan-smith

“I think this was a historic vote,” he said. “I don’t use that lightly. This is without doubt the first time that the House of Commons has overwhelmingly vote for a completely new departure which is, essentially, leaving the European Union.”

http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/europ...brexit-britain

There are a lot of wrong claims in your link. I wouldn't rely on a propaganda organisation which was heavily on the Remain side, just as I wouldn't rely on a speech by Farage or IDS.

Stating a preference option is not tying the negotiators' hands since it does not follow that the negotiators will be able to acheive the preference (the EU might refuse it point blank) or that it can be achieved at acceptable conditions (we get Single Market access but at a price that is astronomical).

Also, to point out the obvious, should we trigger art 50 then, if we want to acheive a particular option - let's say a post-Brexit Norwegian style arrangement for the UK - then we have to specifically request such an arrangement from the EU. The other member states aren't going to guess at what we might want and devote huge amounts of time & money to negotiate such an arrangement on the offchance that we might like it. If we don't request a specific arrangement the other member states will instead conclude we want no arrangements whatsoever and negotiate accordingly thus leaving us high and dry for a post-Brexit arrangement.


They certainly can do so if they so choose. In that case the Brexit negotiations are likely to be brutally short and the impact on U.K. business utterly traumatic as we exit.

So the ear plugs are going back in. It's not just EU negotiators it is 27 nation states who will know the details. This declaring their hand issue is a Theresa May con job. As was said many times yesterday within hours the details will be on the press wires. Government will be called for an emergency question. Our media will go into over drive.

No. Miller voted Remain. She is on record as talking to a "The Week" reporter that when she heard the result she "felt sick to the stomach" and that her son persuaded her to "do something about it" and that she isn't trying to thwart Brexit by the back door because "she doesn't do anything by the back door".

Dos Santos claimed to have voted remain back in July but has now apparently changed that statement to say he voted Leave. We will never know. Seems odd to me that someone would vote Leave and then try and get the Government who is capable of carrying out the leave verdict to be potentially blocked from doing what you voted for! I will take his "I voted leave" comments with a pinch of salt.

That was the said at Tory Conference and the pound crashed. It's crept back up in basis that UK isn't going for that deal. If it comes back the pound will be below 1.20 this time.