Member Info for kenj

Filtertips,
Parliament have voted to block a No Deal on at least two occasions, and Theresa May is now also taking this stance. I concede that Parliament cannot agree on any solution, but the deal offered was so bad that Remainers and Brexiteers alike hated it, and that is Mrs May's fault.

In today's newspapers it was reported that "DUP leader Arlene Foster, whose party props up the Tories at Westminster, savaged Mrs May's handling of Brexit, saying:
"The Prime Minister should recognise that the decision to leave the EU is not the problem, but rather the ham-fisted manner in which the negotiations have taken place."

We are asking the EU for a deal to leave smoothly and remain on good terms with them. If we can only leave with a deal, the EU will go out of it's way to make that deal as unpalatable as possible, which is what they have done.

PS: Don't take my word for it.
This is what their chief negotiator said before talks had even begun:
"I shall have succeeded in my task if the final deal is so hard on the British that in the end they'll prefer staying in the EU." Michael Barnier 2016

Mrs May said: " I want the UK to leave the EU in an orderly way as soon as possible and that means leaving in a way that does not disrupt peoples lives"
What she is saying is that she will do all in her power to stop us leaving with no deal.

I do not recall the referendum asking if we should stay in, or leave only if we got a good deal. She has repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal". Surely anyone with half a brain can see that her deal is a bad one. It has been voted down by Parliament three times and the EU have continually refused to amend it. So what does she do? Go back and ask for yet another extension, for further negotiations.

Without the option to walk away with no deal, the UK has no bargaining position. The EU know this and are twisting the knot tighter at every turn. We are being bullied by this undemocratic and failing institution, and our country has become a laughing stock.

Mrs May has never supported BREXIT, and hid behind the sofa when the referendum was taking place, refusing to take sides in case it harmed her chances of getting the big job. And now she has gone back on her word - no deal is now to be avoided at all costs.

Perhaps she is saying this to keep the Irish on side and retain her party's small majority. Whatever the reason she has lied to the voters and almost certainly failed to deliver the BREXIT that the people voted for. I do not remember Anthony Eden, but to paraphrase Ann Widdecombe: Mrs May is the worst prime minister in living memory.

Had to laugh at this news article.

https://www.rt.com/uk/454443-brexit-nuclear-bunker-doomsday
"A team of highly-trained British military personnel, located in no less than a “nuclear-proof bunker” under the UK Ministry of Defence, have been “activated” to prepare for a doomsday no-deal Brexit …
Who said leaving the EU would be easy?
Operation Redfold, as it has been dubbed, will see 3,500 military personnel put on standby as Her Majesty’s Government prepares to enter “very high readiness mode” for the dreaded no-deal scenario, Sky News has revealed."

I didn't think that the EU were going to bomb us if we left without a deal. I have clearly underestimated how determined they are to keep us in their club.

Doze,
I do not see how Parliament can pass the agreement and get an extension. Without significant changes, Theresa's deal will not be put to the vote. As I see it there are only 3 possible options:
1. No deal
2. Seek an extension from the EU
3. Retract Article 50 and remain in the EU

In reality there is little real difference between options 2 and 3, both mean we are stuck in the EU, 1000 days after voting to leave.

If so little progress has been accomplished after such a long time, is there any point in extending the negotiations with the EU?

To quote Albert Einstein: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Doze, I share your dislike of the Speaker John Bercow. However, I believe that he was absolutely right to ban a third vote on Theresa's Brexit deal. What he has said is that there must be substantial change for a third vote to proceed. Her plan (with minimal modifications) has been heavily defeated twice by MP's. We are in danger of emulating the undemocratic EU if we keep asking people to vote until they get the answer right.

The irony is that Bercow may have shot himself in the foot. He is clearly a Remainer, but his actions may inadvertently have pushed a No Deal Brexit closer. Unless Theresa can get meaningful concessions from Barnier and Tusk (highly unlikely), then the House faces two choices, no deal or a lengthy extension. The motion to remove No Deal from the table was narrowly carried by just two votes, and is not legally binding anyway. So the next House of Commons vote may be for a hard (No Deal) Brexit, or for a long extension to the March 29th deadline. Removing Mrs May's Brexit fudge from the equation may not quite tip MP's towards voting for a No Deal, but it has surely given it a better chance.

"Mrs May said that if her deal were rejected for a second time, then MPs would be offered a vote on March 13 on leaving without a deal and then a vote on March 14 on whether to delay Brexit."
"She insisted that she would do everything she could to prevent a delay.
"Let me be clear: I do not want to see Article 50 extended," she said.
"Our absolute focus should be on working to get a deal and leaving on 29 March."
She added that "an extension cannot take 'no deal' off the table."
Https://www.businessinsider.com/warroom?r=US&IR=T

The Common's will vote today on whether to block a No Deal, which by all accounts will be passed comfortably. Then tomorrow, they will vote to extend the March 29th deadline, which is also likely to be passed.
How can Mrs May say "an extension cannot take 'no deal' off the table" when politicians are voting today to do just this? This is a complete farce, and today's vote is likely to remove any last bargaining tools we had. The will of the people is being ignored by parliament.

How to negotiate with the EU.
1) Tell them that as they have offered us such a crap deal (even remainers rejected it) that we will start again.
2) Remove the £39Bn agreed payment and replace it with what we are probably legally obliged to pay. £9Bn should cover it.
3) Now recommence talks from where we left off, telling them that any increase on the £9Bn is dependent on how good the terms we are offered, are.
4) Inform them that negotiations must be completed within the original time frame, as we are leaving on March 29th, with or without a deal.

Simple! Why we did not start talks with that approach amazes me.
Instead we started by agreeing to their suggested £18Bn leaving fee, which was rapidly recalculated by the EU to £39Bn. After some huffing and puffing we meekly agreed to pay the new demand.

Only a complete cretin agrees a price, before the terms of a deal have been agreed. Negotiating from such a position of weakness made it a near certainty that we would get screwed by the EU.

Ring your broker and ask to sell the shares via a telephone trade. He will quote the transaction share price to you for your confirmation. It will cost more than an online computer trade, but you will have certainty. Record the conversation if you want to be doubly safe.

This may seem obvious, but check that the number of shares has not changed. Sometimes companies do a share consolidation ie: 1 new share for every 6 old shares. The share then appears six times more valuable, but it is not as you now own six times fewer shares.

Theresa is wasting her time going back to Brussels for any concessions to the deal that Parliament so heavily rejected last week. It has been obvious for a long while that the EU's tactics are to punish the UK and so deter any other nation from doing the same.

What I was unaware of until yesterday, is that their chief negotiator had actually stated this before negotiations had even started.

"I shall have succeeded in my task if the final deal is so hard on the British that in the end they'll prefer staying in the EU." Michael Barnier 2016

I'm glad that you liked the letter Camkite.
I do not have a link to it, but it was published in the Daily Mail letters page on Boxing Day.
Poor form, I forgot to credit the author: S. Wilson, Brough, E. Yorks.

Well Parliament has just told Theresa exactly what it thinks of her deal.
202 votes for and 432 votes against, and that after a 3 week delay to rally her troops.

I am not in the least surprised by the result (although the margin is bigger than most of us expected). The truth is that the deal was shite! It was disliked by remainers as much as Brexiteers. Then of course there was the political voting by opposition parties trying to force a general election, abetted by some ambitious Tories trying to force a change of leadership.

So while the motives of some of the members who voted against are suspect, the result is as clear as can be. Mrs May has completely failed to deliver Brexit, and needs to be removed from the process immediately. A vote of no confidence has been issued against her, and even if she wins it, I doubt that she can survive.

Michael Barnier had a face like a smacked rrse as he tried to avoid the reporter on News at Ten tonight. He looked genuinely shocked that Britain had rejected this offer that he had bullied Theresa into agreeing to. Game on!

Camkite,
I thought you might find this letter (published in your favourite newspaper) fitting.

RULED BY MY BETTERS
"As a life long pleb bought up in a council house, who went to a secondary modern, worked in a factory and supported Leave in the referendum, I now realise I had no right to vote."

"I should have left this important decision to a bunch of childish, public school-educated, expenses-fiddling, sexist, bullying, self-important, undemocratic pygmies"

The UK electorate voted to remain in the EEC (then known as the Common Market) in 1975. They never voted to be part of the EU, formed after the Masstricht Treaty was passed in 1992, or the more integrated and powerful organisation that emerged after the passing of the Lisbon Treaty. In fact Ireland was the only country that allowed the people to vote on what was a major constitutional change. They rejected it the first time, just as French and Dutch voters had rejected the earlier proposed European Constitution.

David Cameron and Theresa May have both engaged in long and tedious discussions with the EU. Neither has been offered anything near what they asked for. We are told that this is the best deal we can get from the EU. I am sure that this is indeed true. The EU is worried about losing our major contribution to its budget. It is also scared that if we exit smoothly and painlessly, that other dissatisfied nations may also choose to jump ship. Hence, they intend this to be as painful as possible.

We are not going to be offered a better deal, so I can see no point in any further dialogue. The deal we have been offered will not free us from Europe and keeps as a vassal state, until they say so. Signing this would be a complete humiliation and climb down, especially when you consider the $39bn we are to pay for them being so nice as to let us leave.

The EU by numbers:
1. 1973 UK joins the Common Market / EEC (European Economic Community).
2. 1975 UK votes to ratify the decision to join the EEC.
3. 1992 The Masstricht Treaty is signed, creating the European Union.
4. 2001 proposes first Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
5. 2004 Gordon Brown rejects UK joining the EURO currency.
6. 2005 Constitution for Europe abandoned after French and Dutch voters reject it.
7. 2007 New (minimally changed) Lisbon Treaty replaces the rejected Constitution for Europe.
8. 2008 European governments ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a public vote.
9. 2008 Only Ireland holds a referendum, and the voters reject the Lisbon Treaty.
10. 2009 Ireland votes again (after a few financial inducements) and approves Lisbon Treaty.
11. 2015 David Cameron seeks a new deal for the UK, and promises a referendum on the result.
12. 2016 Cameron is offered very little, and UK voters choose to leave the EU.
13. 2017 UK invokes Article 50 - notice to leave the EU.
14. 2018 MP's vote on Theresa's deal to leave is postponed after prediction of a heavy defeat.

" A no deal will involve us more widely and trade could be more subject to disruption"

Yes, but we will at least be able to sign trade deals with our Commonwealth partners and the rest of the world. Theresa's deal keeps us shackled to the EU, and restricts our ability do make our own trade deals, laws etc.

" I feel it would be sensible to remain but still open to persuasion!"

Talk of revoking Article 50, and revisiting Brexit at some time later are ludicrous. If we throw the towel in this time because the EU are deliberately making it difficult for us, their bargaining stance next time will be even harder. We have been given almost nothing this time. Next time even that will be snatched away from us.

Staying in is not an option imo, because it betrays the voice of the people who voted OUT.
So we are really only left with two choices:
1. Mrs May's neither in nor out fudge.
2. To leave without a deal.

Talk of fine tuning the deal are naive. Look how long it has taken to get this naff deal. There is not time to restart this process, and with the EU unwilling to concede anything, no point either.

"if you have an agreement based on a framework that changes than the agreement changes, it may only be for a short period but none the less it changes & negotiating needs to take place."
You do not negotiate with the EU, you wait for them to tell you what you are allowed to do.

I do not like to be rude or offensive on these boards,but you said earlier that you hoped that you did not come over as "an arrogant little prick". I am sorry to say that you have completely failed in that wish.

"British-based airlines would no longer be allowed to fly to EU destinations because British authorization of those airlines would no longer be recognised by the EU."
That is absolute alarmist tosh, Camkite.
It is just one of the childish petty threats that Brussels has raised to scare us. PS you forgot to mention that we would not be allowed access to European flight control data.

"very few bar the far right want a no deal exit"
Completely wrong! 17.4 million ordinary people voted to leave at the referendum. Theresa's deal does not deliver that, so the only alternative currently available is to walk away with no deal.

"staying in is the best possible outcome, perhaps biding our time for a better deal in the future."
You are having a laugh Camkite! We have been negotiating (if that is the correct word) with them for 3 years and have achieved bugger all. By staying in we will have weakened our bargaining hand, and have absolutely no chance of getting a better deal. If we don't leave now, we never will, and Parliament will have failed to deliver what the people voted for.

It would seem from the links below that our fishermen and the Minister responsible for Fisheries disagrees with your doom laden scenario for fishing, Camkite.

"But campaign group Fishing for Leave said: If there is such a high level of exports then prime British seafood is obviously in demand and that demand from the consumers will remain whether we are signed up to a political project or not."
"Many fishing businesses campaigned for Brexit because they were against the increasingly strict controls on fishing quotas. They also wanted the UK to be given the right under international law to control who fishes within its waters."

"With Brexit, the UK will exit the the much-criticised Common Fisheries Policy and gain those rights."
"The report said this was an opportunity for the UK to develop regulations tailored to its own needs, but warned the industry should not discard elements of the CFP which have helped maintain stocks and prevent over-fishing."
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4043758/EU-trade-key-success-UK-fish-industry-75-home-caught-fish-exported-majority-fish-eaten-Britons-imported.html

The link below says that fishermen have nothing to fear from Brexit, and is written by the Minister for DEFRA on 5th Sept 2018.

https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2018/09/05/UK-fisheries-have-nothing-to-fear-from-no-deal-Brexit?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright

Theresa has allocated £2bn towards planning for a no deal Brexit.
With a no deal we cannot be expected to pay the £39bn soft exit price.
So let's throw the EU, say £7bn towards any pension / wages expenses we may be liable for. That leaves £30bn more for the UK - RESULT!

That works out at around £500 per man, woman and child in the UK. Alternatively the government could try to balance its books for the first time in many years, and reduce the enormous debt pile building up for our children to pay at some time in the future.

"Just wanted to say I don't mean to come across like a right arrogant prick."

Your words not mine Camkite!
However, if that is indeed your intention, it would be best not to question the intelligence of people who disagree with you. Comments like "many of whom don't really grasp what they are voting on with very simplistic views" shows a dismissive contempt for Remainers.