Sep 19: Want A Brexit Deal? -Tell Your MP

CommonSense

Standard Member
I’ve watched the Brexit debate seriously for about a year, mainly through BBC2 News and I’m concerned not only about Brexit but also about our Parliamentary democracy which seems to be degenerating around Brexit. I raised my concerns by sending Emails to the BBC with my considered views. Not one of them to my knowledge has ever been aired. Many `experts’ and pundits are given air to their views but the public are lucky to get a `sound bite’. Many of these views are controversial and the sound bites meaningless. Why for example should an MP be allowed to say he/she is campaigning to remain in the EU when he/she has a mandate to leave it but no member of the public challenge him/her? The BBC like many media organisations pick and choose whose opinions and what opinions are aired (but this is NOT an attack or question against any of them). So I joined this forum for one reason only - to urge people to write or Email their MPs to urge them to support and vote FOR the Withdrawal Agreement. It is your right to do so whatever your MP thinks. My reasons are as follows:

1. Currently (28/09/19) we are heading to crash out of the EU on 31/10/19 so urgent action is required to avoid this if you want a deal. We are waiting to see the results of Boris Johnson’s re-negotiation efforts around mid October, but in my opinion ( as per point 2 following), there is unlikely to be any significant change.

2. Since the Government and EU drew up the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), the EU has never changed its stance that it cannot be renegotiated. They have offered assurances about the Backstop, they have stated their willingness to consider viable alternatives. But they have also said that no real offer from the Government has materialized and that any requested extension to Article 50 should be supported by a viable reason. They have already given us 2 extensions. Therefore the chance of a further extension seems remote.

3. The policy driving Brexit comes from Government but the progress is under Parliament’s control. The authority to negotiate with the EU was and still is vested in the PM AND GOVERNMENT AND NO ONE ELSE. During 3 years and more since the referendum there has been a general election and neither the political shade of the Government nor its aim or policy has changed despite the barrage of criticism of Government from opposition MPs (by opposition MPs I mean those from Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP etc and Conservative `rebels’). So, that opposition has FAILED: failed in its calls for elections and referenda, failed in its acrimony. If the Government changed right now to a different shade (Labour for example), they would have the same tools available to them (negotiating for example) as the Government now and they would throw away their old `opposition hymn sheet’ and use the `Government hymn sheet’ -the one that the present Government is already using. They would also have the same EU to negotiate with. Therefore we would be in exactly the same position -facing the offer of the Withdrawal Agreement and needing to decide Deal or No Deal. All MPs needs to recognize that compromise is already embodied in the WA and that what is required is to SUPPORT the Government in its efforts to make progress with Brexit by unequivocally voting for the WA (but No Deal is a valid option….). Then the Government could get on with the real job rather than Parliament remain in an obstructive, self-destructive mode that is affecting the whole nation.

4. The democratic decision of the people’s referendum to leave the EU can not be nullified on any basis. The facts of Brexit are buried in complication, so deeply that even now there appears to be no consensus even among MPs and experts what constitutes good alternative trade arrangements. The only consensus seems to be that No Deal is undesirable. But here’s the folly. Some MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement (ie they voted No Deal) then not only complain about getting what they voted for but want it ‘taken off the table’. You can’t have up without down, you can’t have right without wrong, you can’t have yes without no. You can’t have Deal without No Deal. Some MPs even openly state their opposition to leaving the EU. These MPs are not fit for the office in my opinion.

5. Parliament wanted and got a `meaningful vote’ on any negotiated arrangement with the EU but many MPs used it tactically, hence the reason why the 3 votes so far are meaningless (the tactics are useless) and have brought about stagnation. Parliament’s only real options are:

A - for MPs to vote again on the Withdrawal Agreement but this time only vote No Deal if they genuinely want No Deal and accept the responsibility if No Deal results ( I would think from what has been said that the result should be overwhelmingly Deal, ie WA accepted) OR

B - ask the EU for a further extension. If an extension is granted it will change nothing and will prolong and compound the situation making it even worse. If the EU refuses an extension the decision may be made for us -No Deal.

6. MPs have speculated, made guesses about possible trade arrangements in disorganized fashion in Parliament and only see No Deal where there is an alternative -Deal. If they opened their eyes and took a good look at the WA, they would see it has positive aspects, with outright advantages over No Deal, for example, rights for EU and UK expatriate citizens, agreements on fisheries, continued co-operation between various agencies. These agreements would come into effect immediately the WA is accepted. The WA is NOT a trade agreement but provides for an implementation (or transition) period with business as usual, during which real trade arrangements can be actually negotiated.

7. It has already been emphasized that the Backstop is a last resort insurance if negotiations fail – a sensible policy designed, respecting the Good Friday Agreement, to maintain the Irish Border situation much as it is now. It is not a devious trick. It has been emphasized that if the Backstop was actually invoked it would not be a permanent lock and that the EU’s own rules prevent this. The idea that the EU is a tyrannical monster which wants to hold us permanently against our will is borne of sheer, ill distrust.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
When my brother rang me up to urge me to do something regarding Brexit I put the phone down on him :D.
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
The last thing I want on TV is more views from individual members of the general public. (That applies to pretty much any subject - not just Brexit.) Primarily this is because any such statements from individuals are entirely unrepresentative of anyone other than the individuals themselves.

However, I am interested in seeing the views of the public as a whole. For example, survey results that say that X% of people do or don't support a No Deal Brexit.
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
When my brother rang me up to urge me to do something regarding Brexit I put the phone down on him :D.
Is your real name Jo Johnson?
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
I’ve watched the Brexit debate seriously for about a year, mainly through BBC2 News and I’m concerned not only about Brexit but also about our Parliamentary democracy which seems to be degenerating around Brexit. I raised my concerns by sending Emails to the BBC with my considered views. Not one of them to my knowledge has ever been aired. Many `experts’ and pundits are given air to their views but the public are lucky to get a `sound bite’. Many of these views are controversial and the sound bites meaningless. Why for example should an MP be allowed to say he/she is campaigning to remain in the EU when he/she has a mandate to leave it but no member of the public challenge him/her? The BBC like many media organisations pick and choose whose opinions and what opinions are aired (but this is NOT an attack or question against any of them). So I joined this forum for one reason only - to urge people to write or Email their MPs to urge them to support and vote FOR the Withdrawal Agreement. It is your right to do so whatever your MP thinks. My reasons are as follows:

1. Currently (28/09/19) we are heading to crash out of the EU on 31/10/19 so urgent action is required to avoid this if you want a deal. We are waiting to see the results of Boris Johnson’s re-negotiation efforts around mid October, but in my opinion ( as per point 2 following), there is unlikely to be any significant change.

2. Since the Government and EU drew up the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), the EU has never changed its stance that it cannot be renegotiated. They have offered assurances about the Backstop, they have stated their willingness to consider viable alternatives. But they have also said that no real offer from the Government has materialized and that any requested extension to Article 50 should be supported by a viable reason. They have already given us 2 extensions. Therefore the chance of a further extension seems remote.

3. The policy driving Brexit comes from Government but the progress is under Parliament’s control. The authority to negotiate with the EU was and still is vested in the PM AND GOVERNMENT AND NO ONE ELSE. During 3 years and more since the referendum there has been a general election and neither the political shade of the Government nor its aim or policy has changed despite the barrage of criticism of Government from opposition MPs (by opposition MPs I mean those from Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP etc and Conservative `rebels’). So, that opposition has FAILED: failed in its calls for elections and referenda, failed in its acrimony. If the Government changed right now to a different shade (Labour for example), they would have the same tools available to them (negotiating for example) as the Government now and they would throw away their old `opposition hymn sheet’ and use the `Government hymn sheet’ -the one that the present Government is already using. They would also have the same EU to negotiate with. Therefore we would be in exactly the same position -facing the offer of the Withdrawal Agreement and needing to decide Deal or No Deal. All MPs needs to recognize that compromise is already embodied in the WA and that what is required is to SUPPORT the Government in its efforts to make progress with Brexit by unequivocally voting for the WA (but No Deal is a valid option….). Then the Government could get on with the real job rather than Parliament remain in an obstructive, self-destructive mode that is affecting the whole nation.

4. The democratic decision of the people’s referendum to leave the EU can not be nullified on any basis. The facts of Brexit are buried in complication, so deeply that even now there appears to be no consensus even among MPs and experts what constitutes good alternative trade arrangements. The only consensus seems to be that No Deal is undesirable. But here’s the folly. Some MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement (ie they voted No Deal) then not only complain about getting what they voted for but want it ‘taken off the table’. You can’t have up without down, you can’t have right without wrong, you can’t have yes without no. You can’t have Deal without No Deal. Some MPs even openly state their opposition to leaving the EU. These MPs are not fit for the office in my opinion.

5. Parliament wanted and got a `meaningful vote’ on any negotiated arrangement with the EU but many MPs used it tactically, hence the reason why the 3 votes so far are meaningless (the tactics are useless) and have brought about stagnation. Parliament’s only real options are:

A - for MPs to vote again on the Withdrawal Agreement but this time only vote No Deal if they genuinely want No Deal and accept the responsibility if No Deal results ( I would think from what has been said that the result should be overwhelmingly Deal, ie WA accepted) OR

B - ask the EU for a further extension. If an extension is granted it will change nothing and will prolong and compound the situation making it even worse. If the EU refuses an extension the decision may be made for us -No Deal.

6. MPs have speculated, made guesses about possible trade arrangements in disorganized fashion in Parliament and only see No Deal where there is an alternative -Deal. If they opened their eyes and took a good look at the WA, they would see it has positive aspects, with outright advantages over No Deal, for example, rights for EU and UK expatriate citizens, agreements on fisheries, continued co-operation between various agencies. These agreements would come into effect immediately the WA is accepted. The WA is NOT a trade agreement but provides for an implementation (or transition) period with business as usual, during which real trade arrangements can be actually negotiated.

7. It has already been emphasized that the Backstop is a last resort insurance if negotiations fail – a sensible policy designed, respecting the Good Friday Agreement, to maintain the Irish Border situation much as it is now. It is not a devious trick. It has been emphasized that if the Backstop was actually invoked it would not be a permanent lock and that the EU’s own rules prevent this. The idea that the EU is a tyrannical monster which wants to hold us permanently against our will is borne of sheer, ill distrust.
The use of language is very biased in that post, but hey fair enough if you feel that way.
I would kindly propose you check your facts though, as for example on point 7 you are way out. It’s nothing to do with distrust, it’s the legal construct. I ask you to think yourself, why would anyone in any situation have a clause in a contract which is not in your favour and sign it? Purely on the say-so of the other party that they never intend to use it? Well if that is the case then rewrite that part; or set it to not used. That is common sense. Easy and we can move on.
 
Last edited:

CommonSense

Standard Member
The last thing I want on TV is more views from individual members of the general public. (That applies to pretty much any subject - not just Brexit.) Primarily this is because any such statements from individuals are entirely unrepresentative of anyone other than the individuals themselves.

However, I am interested in seeing the views of the public as a whole. For example, survey results that say that X% of people do or don't support a No Deal Brexit.
Thanks for your reply. I agree entirely with your first comment where those public views are not complete: `Many of these views are controversial and the sound bites meaningless'. But this often applies to so-called experts as well but they get far more air time than the public, certainly more than me! My view as stated I consider 99% complete and clear.

On your second comment I would ask first do you accept that we are leaving the EU, because THAT was the result of a public survey? Secondly the example you suggested doesn't give the opportunity of the public giving a complete decision because you aren't asking them fully what they DO support. They might say I don't support a No Deal Brexit but this doesn't say what they DO support. Just supposing that everyone in the country wrote to their MP saying either `I want the Deal' OR 'I want No Deal.' What would you have? You'd have a referendum on Deal or No Deal.
 

rampant

Well-known Member
The EU doesnt want us to leave.... the MP's who we voted for dont want us to leave.. The BBC doesn't want us to leave. Everything is always negative. It was one of my major factors to leave the UK given the sh*t-mess our politicians have made of the whole affair.

The opposition want the UK to negotiate in public, want all the details up front. This weakens the negotiating efforts.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Just supposing that everyone in the country wrote to their MP saying either `I want the Deal' OR 'I want No Deal.'
What if they were in a constituency that voted to Remain so more than half of them wrote to their MP saying "I want to remain"?
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
The use of language is very biased in that post, but hey fair enough if you feel that way.
I would kindly propose you check your facts though, as for example on point 7 you are way out. It’s nothing to do with distrust, it’s the legal construct. I ask you to think yourself, why would anyone in any situation have a clause in a contract which is not in your favour and sign it? Purely on the say-so of the other party that they never intend to use it? Well if that is the case then rewrite that part; or set it to not used. That is common sense. Easy and we can move on.
Thanks for your reply. Let me be precise here. Regarding your third sentence, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are implying that the Backstop is not in our favour. Yes, many contracts have been signed without reading them properly and that signee lived to regret it and of course there are rogues out there. I don't know the whole facts of the Backstop but I personally trust the EU and our Government on this. The Irish border issue is in my opinion even more intractable than Brexit -history shows that. I do know that the Backstop has been designed, respecting the Good Friday Agreement which was all about maintaining peace in Ireland, Northern Ireland in particular. In that sense the real issue here is not Brexit but the `Irish Problem' because I think that it is on the Backstop that the Brexit question pivots. I think that you are suggesting that if the Backstop was invoked that something would result eg a Customs Union, complete or partial, which means (to some people) that we wouldn't then be leaving the EU and (to other people) that we would be splitting the Country.
My opinion, based on what I have seen and heard, is that the Backstop must remain or be replaced with something that does the same job -so you can't win on that. But ask yourself what will happen if No Deal results? I think there will be a return to a troubled Ireland (which will also affect the Mainland) and we will be plunged into trade chaos. If we don't trust the EU then we won't have a good relationship with them under No Deal. But accepting the WA will show trust which I think would be a healthy trust. But this is all speculation. Only time will tell what will happen.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
What if they were in a constituency that voted to Remain so more than half of them wrote to their MP saying "I want to remain"?
Thanks for your reply.
First of all you haven't said what the less-then-half-of-them voted for. Let's assume they said Leave.
It doesn't matter and this is the whole point about the calls for further referenda. We already had one which decided Leave (I voted Remain but I accept the Leave result). You can't keep having referenda until you get the result which suits only SOME people. An MP has a duty to represent the interests of the whole country which comes BEFORE representing the interests of his/her constituency. I would suggest that the only Brexit case where the interest of constituencies matters about the same as the national interests is in Northern Ireland. There we have unionist MPs and we have republican MPs who have opposing views which we know from history led to violence. And as I just replied to another member, the Backstop is included in the WA to try to prevent a return to that situation. I also said that Brexit is hinging around the Backstop and therefore the `Irish Problem'. In my opinion it is up to the Irish to sort out their differences and this resulted in the Good Friday Agreement which the Backstop respects. On the Mainland MPs must decide which best represent the interests of EVERYONE: Deal or No Deal.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
First of all you haven't said what the less-then-half-of-them voted for. Let's assume they said Leave.
If they didn't vote Remain in the 2016 referendum what else could they have voted for? :D
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
Thanks for your reply. Let me be precise here. Regarding your third sentence, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are implying that the Backstop is not in our favour. Yes, many contracts have been signed without reading them properly and that signee lived to regret it and of course there are rogues out there. I don't know the whole facts of the Backstop but I personally trust the EU and our Government on this. The Irish border issue is in my opinion even more intractable than Brexit -history shows that. I do know that the Backstop has been designed, respecting the Good Friday Agreement which was all about maintaining peace in Ireland, Northern Ireland in particular. In that sense the real issue here is not Brexit but the `Irish Problem' because I think that it is on the Backstop that the Brexit question pivots. I think that you are suggesting that if the Backstop was invoked that something would result eg a Customs Union, complete or partial, which means (to some people) that we wouldn't then be leaving the EU and (to other people) that we would be splitting the Country.
My opinion, based on what I have seen and heard, is that the Backstop must remain or be replaced with something that does the same job -so you can't win on that. But ask yourself what will happen if No Deal results? I think there will be a return to a troubled Ireland (which will also affect the Mainland) and we will be plunged into trade chaos. If we don't trust the EU then we won't have a good relationship with them under No Deal. But accepting the WA will show trust which I think would be a healthy trust. But this is all speculation. Only time will tell what will happen.
The point is that it no longer remains the UKs choice to leave. A backstop situation and preparing for it is not necessarily a problem. Handing over the decision solely to the EU to determine when it is good to go is a problem. And contractually that is what we would be agreeing to, ergo it is no longer a choice of the UK.
 
Last edited:

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
I don't know the whole facts of the Backstop but I personally trust the EU and our Government on this.
The EU cannot be trusted on the backstop. It really is that simple.


This is one of their leaders saying publicly they will abuse the backstop. I'm sure many others will be less public about it, but will still seek to abuse the backstop to force non Irish border related concessions.

How can you possibly trust them when their bad faith is there in black and white?
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
The EU cannot be trusted on the backstop. It really is that simple.


This is one of their leaders saying publicly they will abuse the backstop. I'm sure many others will be less public about it, but will still seek to abuse the backstop to force non Irish border related concessions.

How can you possibly trust them when their bad faith is there in black and white?
Indeed, but even when you do. A contract is a contract, it is just plain daft to give away such level of control. It is our choice today, why would anyone want to give up on such a freedom?
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
Thanks for your reply. I agree entirely with your first comment where those public views are not complete: `Many of these views are controversial and the sound bites meaningless'. But this often applies to so-called experts as well but they get far more air time than the public, certainly more than me! My view as stated I consider 99% complete and clear.

On your second comment I would ask first do you accept that we are leaving the EU, because THAT was the result of a public survey? Secondly the example you suggested doesn't give the opportunity of the public giving a complete decision because you aren't asking them fully what they DO support. They might say I don't support a No Deal Brexit but this doesn't say what they DO support. Just supposing that everyone in the country wrote to their MP saying either `I want the Deal' OR 'I want No Deal.' What would you have? You'd have a referendum on Deal or No Deal.
To me it is not a question of whether an individual's opinion is logically complete or well thought through. If it is the opinion of a single individual and they cannot claim that they are speaking for anyone else then it is not worth reporting on national news.

Of course commentators and experts are individuals as well. However, they have at least gained a position that is worth at least listening too - because they have either shown expertise in the area in question or have some kind of public voice e.g. they started a campaign group that has a number of supporters or they write an editorial that is widely read. Whether you agree with their opinion is an entirely different matter.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
To me it is not a question of whether an individual's opinion is logically complete or well thought through. If it is the opinion of a single individual and they cannot claim that they are speaking for anyone else then it is not worth reporting on national news.

Of course commentators and experts are individuals as well. However, they have at least gained a position that is worth at least listening too - because they have either shown expertise in the area in question or have some kind of public voice e.g. they started a campaign group that has a number of supporters or they write an editorial that is widely read. Whether you agree with their opinion is an entirely different matter.
Some of your comments are valuable but let's try to keep the debate to specifics. Some real people, MPs for example, who have `gained positions' are openly declaring they oppose leaving the EU. That means they are going against the democratic will of the people and I don't think that's right for an MP. This is what I was pointing out in my original point 3. Continuing on the theme of MPs who say we should not be leaving the EU. Their logic is probably that the decision was made in haste, people didn't know enough about it, we were mislead etc. But people get the government they deserve and at the point of the Leave/Remain referendum we deserved to be there -ignorant of the facts for example- and I don't exclude myself from that. You cannot go back, you must proceed from where you are and we are leaving the EU 31/10/19. That is the democratic decision even if all those who said Leave were ignorant peasants and all those who said Remain were learned experts. I could understand a call for a new referendum provided it respects the circumstances. For example it might not be too late to have a referendum: Do you want to leave with the Deal (ie the WA) or with No Deal? If many people contacted their MP with their choice on this then we might establish a consensus.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
The EU cannot be trusted on the backstop. It really is that simple.


This is one of their leaders saying publicly they will abuse the backstop. I'm sure many others will be less public about it, but will still seek to abuse the backstop to force non Irish border related concessions.

How can you possibly trust them when their bad faith is there in black and white?
I'm sorry Squiffy but your last reply to me implied I hadn't read the information your link led to when I had before I gave a considered reply to the same comment above. Not only that you showed me an angry icon and I can't deal with people who get so emotional. I repeat what I said. President Macron is not the EU. The terms of the Withdrawal Agreement which represent 27 EU countries are written in black and white and I think I pointed you to the Explainer for The Withdrawal Agreement (EWA). One of the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement are that both sides will act in good faith. Below are two extracts from the EWA relating to fisheries which was one of the areas of the WA which I originally mentioned.

Fisheries (page 28)
121. Specific arrangements are also made in relation to fishing opportunities, to enable a smooth transition to the new relationship between the UK and the EU. During the implementation period the UK’s fisheries rules will be aligned with those of the EU and the UK’s share of catch cannot be reduced. During the last year of the implementation period, the UK will be able to negotiate its own fishing opportunities for the following year. The UK and the EU intend to conclude a new fisheries agreement in time to determine fishing opportunities for the first year after the Implementation Period, in preparation for which during the Implementation Period the UK can be invited to form part of the EU’s delegation in international negotiations.

183. (page 43) The rules governing the single customs territory do not automatically apply in respect of fishery and aquaculture products. These products would be included when a UK-EU Fisheries Agreement has been reached that includes arrangements on access to waters and fishing opportunities. Nothing in this Protocol prescribes the content of that fisheries agreement, and the UK as a whole will not be part of the Common Fisheries Policy.
 
Last edited:

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
I'm sorry Squiffy but your last reply to me implied I hadn't read the information your link led to when I had before I gave a considered reply to the same comment above. Not only that you showed me an angry icon and I can't deal with people who get so emotional. I repeat what I said. President Macron is not the EU. The terms of the Withdrawal Agreement which represent 27 EU countries are written in black and white and I think I pointed you to the Explainer for The Withdrawal Agreement (EWA). One of the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement are that both sides will act in good faith.
Yes, the terms of the withdrawal agreement is that they will act in good faith.

Despite that, Macron said they would keep us in the backstop unless we give them fishing right concessions.

You say he isn't the EU. He is one of 27 members who can all make similar demands. Any future deal can be vetoed by any of them, so they all have the power to keep us in the backstop and to force concessions.

If Macron is making these statements publicly despite the good faith clause in the WA, what are they planning to extort behind closed doors?
 

IronGiant

Moderator
My apologies IronGiant. I was actually responding to another member and I took so long the system may have misbehaved. I'm still getting used to it.
The member may have removed it. I don't use the mobile phone version, but I gather it is or was easy to hit the angry button by mistake.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
Yes, the terms of the withdrawal agreement is that they will act in good faith.

Despite that, Macron said they would keep us in the backstop unless we give them fishing right concessions.

You say he isn't the EU. He is one of 27 members who can all make similar demands. Any future deal can be vetoed by any of them, so they all have the power to keep us in the backstop and to force concessions.

If Macron is making these statements publicly despite the good faith clause in the WA, what are they planning to extort behind closed doors?
OK, fair comments. There have been disputes around fishing with the French and Iceland in the past. Of course I don't know all the ins and outs of the WA or the Backstop, I'm just putting my trust in the Government and the EU. And there is still the question of what happens if we No Deal? That is still not going to be easy in all areas and the French/Icelanders won't be any easier on us with regard to fishing disputes, in fact they are likely to be tougher. This is my point about trust. If there's no trust between countries they won't have a good relationship, trading or otherwise. Cheers.
 

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
OK, fair comments. There have been disputes around fishing with the French and Iceland in the past. Of course I don't know all the ins and outs of the WA or the Backstop, I'm just putting my trust in the Government and the EU. And there is still the question of what happens if we No Deal? That is still not going to be easy in all areas and the French/Icelanders won't be any easier on us with regard to fishing disputes, in fact they are likely to be tougher. This is my point about trust. If there's no trust between countries they won't have a good relationship, trading or otherwise. Cheers.
How will the French and Icelanders be harder on us?

It's international law - we have exclusive rights to exploit the waters 200 miles from our coastline. (With it being the middle point for things like the channel where our 200 miles and that of France clash).

And as I'm repeat for the last time, there can be no trust when the French are threatening to abuse agreements that we would enter in good faith.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
OK, fair comments. There have been disputes around fishing with the French and Iceland in the past. Of course I don't know all the ins and outs of the WA or the Backstop, I'm just putting my trust in the Government and the EU. And there is still the question of what happens if we No Deal? That is still not going to be easy in all areas and the French/Icelanders won't be any easier on us with regard to fishing disputes, in fact they are likely to be tougher. This is my point about trust. If there's no trust between countries they won't have a good relationship, trading or otherwise. Cheers.
I don’t disagree about the trust elements. However when there is a contract that describes alternative arrangements than those will take precedent in the unfortunate event of a dispute. As such all parties involved should always be aware of such matters and protect themselves for such events. Hopefully it is never to be used, however if it is then the contract is the version of the truth. That is why I would have a problem with it.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
Of course I don't know all the ins and outs of the WA or the Backstop, I'm just putting my trust in the Government and the EU.
Why do you trust the EU and our government’s ‘Olly Robbins’ team? The EU want what is best for them. What we ended up with is a rather bad WA. It was rejected by all sides in Parliament- because it was not in the UK’s best interests. That deal, as it stands is dead. Put simply, the EU takes control over much of our destiny during the transition period. They could keep us in the EU...

If we submitted to the WA, and the EU realised they had us over a barrel, would you expect them to give us a favourable trade deal? What about the single market and open borders? What would the EU demand from us? No, May’s deal as it stands should be dropped.

A new approach is necessary. And I am afraid to say, trusting the EU to give us a nice deal is just a fantasy. They are playing hardball and we need to up our game.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
The trouble is, our current parliament won’t let us play hardball, having no deal off the table and knowing we have to ask for an extension, why would the EU offer us anything?
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
How will the French and Icelanders be harder on us?

It's international law - we have exclusive rights to exploit the waters 200 miles from our coastline. (With it being the middle point for things like the channel where our 200 miles and that of France clash).

And as I'm repeat for the last time, there can be no trust when the French are threatening to abuse agreements that we would enter in good faith.
I really don't know how we stand with the rights you stated above so I can't comment on that point. When I said the French/Icelanders would likely be tougher on us if No Deal results (rather than if we accepted the Deal), I mean that it would be a natural consequence of our most extreme response to the offer the EU is making. Compromise (Deal) attracts compromise, whereas No Deal is a more extreme response which would attract a more extreme reaction from EU members eg the French.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
I don’t disagree about the trust elements. However when there is a contract that describes alternative arrangements than those will take precedent in the unfortunate event of a dispute. As such all parties involved should always be aware of such matters and protect themselves for such events. Hopefully it is never to be used, however if it is then the contract is the version of the truth. That is why I would have a problem with it.
You say in your first sentence you understand my point about trust. But the rest isn't so plain but I think you are basically saying you don't trust the EU on the Withdrawal Agreement. That's ok, it's entirely your prerogative. All I'm saying about this Brexit situation is that whatever happens in Government and in Parliament, it will always come down to the decision Deal or No Deal. MPs who want no deal `taken off the table' are deluded and they are risking the very result they say Parliament won't allow to happen. Their tactical voting could backfire -the EU could unilaterally refuse a further extension of Article 50. Where would those MPs be then? If they really wanted a deal then they should vote FOR the Withdrawal Agreement -apart from No Deal there isn't another valid option. Individuals must seriously think about Deal or No Deal and choose what they want. And as far as I can see so far, your MP is the only point of expression where your voice might count.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
Why do you trust the EU and our government’s ‘Olly Robbins’ team? The EU want what is best for them. What we ended up with is a rather bad WA. It was rejected by all sides in Parliament- because it was not in the UK’s best interests. That deal, as it stands is dead. Put simply, the EU takes control over much of our destiny during the transition period. They could keep us in the EU...

If we submitted to the WA, and the EU realised they had us over a barrel, would you expect them to give us a favourable trade deal? What about the single market and open borders? What would the EU demand from us? No, May’s deal as it stands should be dropped.

A new approach is necessary. And I am afraid to say, trusting the EU to give us a nice deal is just a fantasy. They are playing hardball and we need to up our game.
Your statement `That deal, as it stands is dead' is plainly wrong. Yes, the Withdrawal Agreement was rejected 3 times but the EU hasn't withdrawn the offer.

You made several debateable statements and asked several questions which I can't answer, at least not right now, if ever. I might do some further reading of the Explainer for The Withdrawal Agreement and perhaps if you were to direct me to specific paragraphs in it that would help.
You also said: 'A new approach is necessary; They are playing hardball and we need to up our game.' So presumably your new approach is to play hardball. I suggest the hardest ball we have is No Deal and the idea of it being thrown at the EU, whilst they have said they wouldn't like it, hasn't changed their stance. If you play the bluff game you must be prepared for your opponent to call your bluff. I'm afraid that the EU has already called our bluff a long time ago and we have done nothing in response.
 

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
I'm afraid that the EU has already called our bluff a long time ago and we have done nothing in response.
They have.

Originally they were unwilling to reopen the withdrawal deal.

Now they are.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest news

Netflix reveals how viewing metrics determines a show's success
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Discovery launches dplay AVOD service in UK and Ireland
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cyrus announces ONE Cast Smart Audio System
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Chord Electronics debuts ULTIMA 3 power amp at UK Hi-Fi Show Live
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Virgin Media unleashes Gig1 home broadband in Manchester
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Latest threads

Top Bottom