Brexit deal

[Bentley Bullet]

Of course I would! More to the point, would you condemn people rioting to remain?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thank you. That could have been cleared up 6 hours ago.

Me? Of course I would.

[Bentley Bullet]

So you've waited 6 hours to find out whether I'm a potential rioter or not!

[SydneyRover]

No, we've waited 3 years for you to confirm you're as contrary as ever.'

[BillyStubbsTears]

No BB.

I nobody ever raised the question of you rioting.

It was about whether you would unequivocally condemn people who advocated or committed violence if Brexit doesn't happen. You strongly said  that some Leave supporters would dole out "consequences" in those circumstances and you've spent three years telling us that your sympathies are with the Leave voters. So I'm sure you can see where the potential for misunderstanding comes in.

Glad we've cleared it up. We can move on.

[Bentley Bullet]

I do sympathise with the Leave voters, that's why I'd become one if we had another vote. That doesn't mean to say I think that all Leave voters are wonderful level headed citizens though. I also sympathise with you for having people like SydneyRover on your side, but I wouldn't hold you personally responsible for it.

[DonnyOsmond]

Thomas Cook blaming Brexit for them going bust.

[IDM]

If you find my view unclear it says more about you than it does me.

Time and time and time again I've explained my view. I'll explain it one last time.

I voted to remain.
Leave won, so as far as I was concerned we were all leavers.
Some of the remain voters kicked up such a stink about losing that they became known as Remoaners.
I no longer wanted to be part of that lot and vowed to vote Leave if we were forced to have another referendum.

To me, democracy is majority rule. If the majority rules on a vote, that vote should be carried out. if that vote is overruled before it has been implemented, it is not democracy.

Surely you would vote on your perception of the issues behind the choices being offered, rather than any disassociation with subsets of voter groups.?

Also, surely in a democracy there is, or at least should be, a democratic method for a review, or changing your mind, or looking again at something which isn’t working.?

We get that with our general elections.  Or do you believe that since the Tories/DUP won a small majority last time, that they should stay in government forever.?

Note again, for the severalth time, that I am not necessarily saying that this would give Remain a way out, more that the whole electorate can re-think things.

It had been too long since the referendum - the government at the time should have invoked article 50 immediately after the vote, and spent the two years getting a suitable deal instead of party politicking and infighting.

[Bentley Bullet]

It would be great to leave with a good deal, although without a no-deal option I doubt we would get one as good. Either way, we should leave, and remain shouldn't even be an option because we voted against remaining.

[IDM]

Nor should no deal..

A couple of questions left unanswered too..

[Glyn_Wigley]

Isn't it ever so democratic when you want to refuse to let voters have the opportunity to change their mind!

[Bentley Bullet]

I'm not aware of any rules forbidding a future referendum should we deem it necessary following a reasonable length of time out of the EU. By reasonable I mean enough time to prove to leave voters that they were wrong, and enough to change their minds in another democratic referendum.

I don't think doom-mongering now to force the the 2016 referendum to be cancelled before we have actually left yet is quite the same thing!

[SydneyRover]

The best leave deal we could possibly get is retaining everything we have now, except for this loony self centred government.

[wilts rover]

It would be great to leave with a good deal, although without a no-deal option I doubt we would get one as good. Either way, we should leave, and remain shouldn't even be an option because we voted against remaining.

There are three issues to be sorted in the withdrawal agreement:
1 financial obligations of the UK
2 rights of EU citizens in the UK & UK citizens in the EU
3 how to avoid north/south checks across the Irish border thus breaching the Good Friday Peace Agreement

In you view what would be a good deal to decide those issues?
How would threatening to leave with no-deal help that - given that all these three issues have to be decided at some point?

[Bentley Bullet]

I assume we would leave with no financial obligations if there was no agreement, and the EU would insist on a hard border. I doubt the EU would want either of those things to happen.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you're going to be any use whatsoever in negotiations, it's imperative that you understand the mentality of the other side. I do appreciate that the Brexit supporters don't very often seem to consider that people over the Channel count in this process, and have certain red lines of their own, but they do.

Let's have a think.

If we left with no deal, refused to pay tens of billions of pounds for agreements that we had already contracted to pay for, and seriously damaged the economy (and social stability) of a particular EU member, how do you think the EU would respond?

Do you think they'd shrug their shoulders and then start talking to us about a trade deal with favourable terms for us? Or do you think they would pull up the drawbridge and tell us to f**k off, and trade with them (47% of all our international trade) on terms that would be highly detrimental to us?

Anyone who thinks it's the first really needs an adult with them to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

The reality is that we would suffer a massive economic hit, and forego any possibility of having any friendly relationship with the EU for the foreseeable future. Look at it this way: if another country had entered into contractual agreements with us which required them to pay us £40bn, and they told us to b*llocks and implemented a policy that caused economic carnage and social unrest in Yorkshire, would you expect the UK Govt to extend the hand of friendship to them? Wars have started over less.

For all those reasons, and despite the puffed up opinions of the Little Englanders, threatening to leave with No Deal has NEVER been realistic. It is an insult to everyone's intelligence to think that a negotiating stance that says, "Give us what we want or we'll self-harm and you'll have a mess to clean up" is in any way credible. But it has just struck me. Those who advocate that approach do increasingly sound like the sort of spoilt and petulant teenagers who would argue like that.

[SydneyRover]

Iceland eventually coughed up on monies owed.

''Britain has been fully reimbursed for Icesave bank collapse, Iceland says''

A final payment of £374m ends the legal and diplomatic saga sparked when the online savings banks collapsed and froze UK deposits worth billions

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/13/britain-has-been-fully-reimbursed-for-icesave-bank-collapse-iceland-says

[Bentley Bullet]

If only it was just a question of leaving with a deal or leaving with no deal it would probably have been settled one way or the other by now. But it isn't. Parliament, with the backing of some of the UK public, want neither. They want us to remain, even though the 2016 referendum voted not to remain.

[wilts rover]

Again that is not

If only it was just a question of leaving with a deal or leaving with no deal it would probably have been settled one way or the other by now. But it isn't. Parliament, with the backing of some of the UK public, want neither. They want us to remain, even though the 2016 referendum voted not to remain.

Again this has come up several times and it is not true.

The vast majority of MP's have voted to leave - they just can't agree what the terms of leaving would be. The vast majority of Tory MP's voted for May's deal at the third reading. The vast majority of Labour MP's voted for a Customs Union & the Common Market 2.0 (the SNP also voted for this) in the indicative votes.

It might not be your idea of 'leaving' but well over 500 MP's have voted to leave. To state otherwise is just plain wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

That is just factually wrong. Flat wrong. I cannot understand why you, an intelligent person, cannot see that.

If the ERG had voted for May's deal, it would have passed in March.

That's a fact.

The third meaningful vote on the May Deal was  defeated 286-344. So clearly there were 286 MPs who voted FOR a Brexit, and actually a Brexit that was far harder than anyone on the Leave side postulated in 2016.

But. Of the ones who voted against that deal, not all of them did so because they didn't want Brexit at all.

The 10 DUP members all want Brexit. They voted against that deal. And the following 28 Tory MPs voted against the deal, despite publicly and very vociferously being in favour of Brexit.

Afriye
Baker
Baron
Bone
Braverman
Bridgen
Cash
Chope
Duddridge
Francois
Fysh
Hollobone
Holloway
Jayawardena
Jones
Jenkin
Jenkyns
Lewis
Lopez
Mackinlay
Morris
Patel
Paterson
Redwood
Robertson
Rosindell
Rowley
Villiers



So, in that vote, there were actually 324 MPs who voted for May's deal OR who voted against it but are actually on record as being strongly pro-Brexit, against 306 others.

So the facts are unarguable. In March, there was a comfortable majority of MPs who supported Brexit.

That fact that Brexit didn't happen was due to the manoeuvring of 38 of the Far Right Brexit supporting MPs. Had those 38 voted for May's deal, we'd have left the EU on 29 March and there would have been nothing that any Remain-supporting or Ref 2-supporting MP could have done about it.

So now BB, you need to stop making that stupid, fatuous and factually incorrect claim that Remainers stopped Brexit.

[Bentley Bullet]

Official figures eh! It would be interesting, albeit impossible to find out how many of those 'leavers' were voting tactically when they voted against May's deal in order to stop Brexit.

Corbyn's promise of a new referendum, if he wins the election, won't help in the attempts to strike a deal either. Likewise the Lib Dems similar pledge. The EU only has to stall Brexit in the hope of this happening along with a resultant remain outcome to achieve their objective of us staying in the union.

Life-long leaver Corbyn will do anything to gain power, even if it means remaining!  If the country had unity and respect for the original referendum Corbyn and co would have no one to represent regarding remaining, and the EU would feel far less nonchalant in their approach to striking a deal.

[SydneyRover]

Wot's that u say bst, you mean it's not down to the remoaners?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

You're making a fool of yourself now.

Go and look up what those Tory MPs I listed, and the DUP MPs' stances are on Brexit.

You don't HAVE to argue against stone cold facts. You can choose to do, but you're going to look stupid if you do.

[Bentley Bullet]

You and your handful of supporters no doubt do think I'm a fool. Nay bother! I'm glad to hear it. I'd hate yo think I was on the same side as you.

[IDM]

I thought the Admin wanted you to stick to the issues.?

[SydneyRover]

Strange, wasn't that long ago when we would hear in the yellow press how we were disliked by citizens of some EU countries and they thought it would be better if we left the EU, now all we seem to hear is the EU is underhandedly trying to keep us in.

[Bentley Bullet]

I thought the Admin wanted you to stick to the issues.?

Being on the same side as BST would be an issue.

[IDM]

You can agree sometimes you know, you don’t always have to be contrary for the sake of it.. 

would you change your own beliefs and views just to avoid being seen to agree with BST, for example.?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I don't think anyone is a fool with them offering reason to think that.

I do worry though, about anyone who refuses to accept stone cold facts that contradict what they would like the world to be like.

I'm probably going to be accused of being condescending again, but I always find it better to start with established facts and draw your conclusions from them, than to start with conclusions and ignore any facts that don't support them.

[Bentley Bullet]

You can agree sometimes you know, you don’t always have to be contrary for the sake of it.. 

would you change your own beliefs and views just to avoid being seen to agree with BST, for example.?

I've agreed with BST a few times. Show me ONE example on any forum where he's agreed with me.