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

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
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.
You misunderstood. Trust has nothing to do with anything when there are agreements involved. The agreement take precedence over any kind of trust that may or may not be there. It’s an irrelevance.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
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 Yes, the Withdrawal Agreement was rejected 3 times but the EU hasn't withdrawn the offer.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.
Any deal, if it is still ‘live’ , has to be something both parties can work on. We can’t because it has been rejected by Parliament. So it’s dead.
I, hope that the paperwork of the old deal can be resurrected and it can be changed so that it is a good deal for both sides. But I just don’t think Labour, the SNP, or the LibDems would want to agree any deal that the Government gets, no matter how good. Do you?

Make no mistake, no deal is bad news for the EU and the UK. But both sides might see sense, and a deal that is win win might come out of it.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
Any deal, if it is still ‘live’ , has to be something both parties can work on. We can’t because it has been rejected by Parliament. So it’s dead.
I, hope that the paperwork of the old deal can be resurrected and it can be changed so that it is a good deal for both sides. But I just don’t think Labour, the SNP, or the LibDems would want to agree any deal that the Government gets, no matter how good. Do you?

Make no mistake, no deal is bad news for the EU and the UK. But both sides might see sense, and a deal that is win win might come out of it.
I think we have different views about whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is dead and I won't say anymore on that.
I think your statement about Labour, SNP and LibDems is a bit generalised - I don't think they all have the exact same approach. However it is true that very many of them have voted tactically for No Deal and those tactics have failed and they are taking a big risk with our future. From what I have seen and heard the LibDems are openly campaigning to remain in the EU and this is outright defiance of the people's democratic mandate to leave the EU. I haven't heard much about Labour recently but I understand that they are campaigning for a referendum after a general election, though Jeremy Corbyn said he won't actively campaign one way or the other in such a referendum. This in my opinion shows he's weakening. As for the SNP, while the Government is trying to keep the country united (ie keep Northern Ireland 100% with the Mainland), the SNP is still banging on about Scottish independence so they can have their own way with EU membership. It's all pie in the sky which can not be achieved by 31/10/19. All the noise they are all making is just clutching at straws or downright self-interestedness and the Government is not fooled at all (though some Conservative rebels might be).
I hear today that Boris Johnson is formulating a new plan for the Irish Border and that he will give the EU an ultimatum deadline before 31/10/19. I support Boris Johnson if he's being genuine but I can't help thinking that his approach is flawed and I don't think this latest attempt has much chance. I think everyone has to see sense in this matter, but most of all Parliament. The future of our country rests with just approximately 650 MPs coming to their senses.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
You misunderstood. Trust has nothing to do with anything when there are agreements involved. The agreement take precedence over any kind of trust that may or may not be there. It’s an irrelevance.
But there is no agreement, is there? There is a proposal but it doesn't become an agreement until ratified by both sides. The trust required is that the proposed agreement is fair. If the Withdrawal Agreement was ratified and either said then breaks it then there should be redress through an international court.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
But there is no agreement, is there? There is a proposal but it doesn't become an agreement until ratified by both sides. The trust required is that the proposed agreement is fair. If the Withdrawal Agreement was ratified and either said then breaks it then there should be redress through an international court.
Well, there is no agreement that is agreeable ;) It was voted down 3 times. And the point I highlighted plays a big part in that. Don't get why you keep on going on about trust, trust has no meaning in this context.
 

CommonSense

Standard Member
Well, there is no agreement that is agreeable ;) It was voted down 3 times. And the point I highlighted plays a big part in that. Don't get why you keep on going on about trust, trust has no meaning in this context.
Your previous comment 'Trust has nothing to do with anything when there are agreements involved. The agreement take precedence over any kind of trust that may or may not be there. It’s an irrelevance.' plus your latest comment above implies that a proposal can be made which is 100% agreeable to both parties and that ratifying it would be no problem to either of them. If that is the case, where is this ` dead-cert, no-strings-attached, no-trust-required' proposal? It doesn't so far exist and I am sure that if anyone can come up with one before 31/10/19 they will be hailed a hero.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
Your previous comment 'Trust has nothing to do with anything when there are agreements involved. The agreement take precedence over any kind of trust that may or may not be there. It’s an irrelevance.' plus your latest comment above implies that a proposal can be made which is 100% agreeable to both parties and that ratifying it would be no problem to either of them. If that is the case, where is this ` dead-cert, no-strings-attached, no-trust-required' proposal? It doesn't so far exist and I am sure that if anyone can come up with one before 31/10/19 they will be hailed a hero.
Flipping heck you are hard work. That is because the draft withdrawal agreement that was put forward contained clauses that aren’t agreeable. No point signing something that is not agreeable and just trust that it will never be used.
Have you ever contracted for something? This really isn’t rocket science.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom