# EU deal - Take Leave or Remain unconvinced - POLL



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

So now we have a draft agreement defining an EU deal for MPs to vote on. The cabinet agreed the deal but there have been several resignations. The ERG are moving to a leadership challenge but can't unite the party for no deal. The negotiations are frozen and about to be ratified by the EU on the 25th November with a parliamentary meaningful vote likely on 7th December. There's no chance of an extension for further negotiation only a referendum or a general election. Mrs May in her statement said, 'My deal, no deal, or no Brexit' - that's the first time a status quo option has been mentioned. A referendum has been confirmed as a possibility by aids.

There are several further hurdles for Mrs May's deal, not least getting MPs to vote for it and the EU 27. If it is approved we enter a transition period following EU rules, with no say in how they are made. This lasts for 21 months with different arrangements for Northern Ireland to protect the border until such time as we can leave with a permanent agreement which we have not started negotiating yet. At the end of two years we may remain in the transition arrangement if there is no further agreement and we can't leave it without EU approval or unless we agree to a border in the Irish Sea which has implications for the integrity of the UK.

This brief summary will be updated if things change.

What will happen is not clear. There may be no agreement in parliament, the government may fall, parliament may take charge - the question may be put back to the people. If this happens how would you vote if there is a People's Vote?

This anonymous rolling poll has no end date, you have a single vote but you can came back and change it at any time.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

I thought the people had voted and it was to leave. If you believe in democracy you have an obligation to leave. Having another vote will not change anything, only deligitimise democracy. Get on with it and make the UK great again. You have a lot to be proud of and the westminster system and your market based values are unsurpassed. Why subsidise less efficient systems that the EU protects. They need to change not you guys. You are facilitating change by leaving.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Get on with what? I don't think you fully appreciate the problem here.

In 1975 the people were given a vote on EU membership (the then. EEC) _after_ a signed treaty agreement and initial membership from 1973 so they knew exactly what remain meant and leaving was only going back to the recent past so that was known too.

In 2016 the people were given a vote on remaining or leaving the EU but there was no negotiated treaty to clarify what leave meant. It's the opposite way round to the 1975 referendum. There's been 45 years of integration with the EU so there is no possibility of going back to the situation of 1973 and there are a lot of supply chains, jobs and infrastructure at stake.

In 2018 we now have a negotiated treaty to vote on.

Don't you think it would have been sensible in 2016 to explain that a leave vote would would trigger negotiation and a deal and that would then be put back to people to check if it's acceptable?

The possibility of a vote on the deal is a way of correcting for the lack of forethought in 2016 of the possible consequences.

The deal we now have is unacceptable to all sides and is unlikely to get passed by parliament.

There is even less chance of leaving without a deal because it would be too damaging and would render the UK as a pariah state in breach of international treaty law.

So, given the stalemate in parliament - that there is no majority for the deal or no deal, what possible solution remains?

It's likely that the eventual solution is to put this back to the people as a democratic way of breaking the deadlock, now the people know what the consequences of the deal are. More democracy seems the only way to repair the damage done through lack of planning for the consequences.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

Thanks John for the detail which is appreciated. Surprised the remainers did not publicise the downside of leaving at the time of the 2016 vote with all the worst case scenarios.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Indeed.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

The EU are able to (and very likely to) impose conditions on the UK's continued membership (e.g give up the bits Cameron negotiated for pre referendum, bit more integration etc) in the event that the repeal bill is rescinded. So _Remain on present terms_ is about as possible as a hard Brexit without an Irish border.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

ashfinlayson said:


> The EU are able to (and very likely to) impose conditions on the UK's continued membership (e.g give up the bits Cameron negotiated for pre referendum, bit more integration etc) in the event that the repeal bill is rescinded. So _Remain on present terms_ is about as possible as a hard Brexit without an Irish border.


That's not true regarding our present ratified treaty. The EU are only able to impose conditions during negotiations for a future treaty or if a future treaty removes our veto when it's in force. They can't impose conditions to our present treaty before we have left or the transition agreement treaty once it's in force apart from where the treaty allows. Treaties are legally binding when in force.

We have the option right now to reject the Prime Minister's transition draft treaty agreement and remain in the EU by rescinding article 50(2) notice.

We have also been told by the EU that they will agree to an A50(2) extension for a referendum or a general election - either of which could result in the continuation of our present treaty agreement in which case our veto and our say in the member decision making process continues.

The Cameron proposed changes are irrelevant to this.


----------



## badger64 (Feb 17, 2019)

where is the option to leave without a deal, on wto terms and save £36 billion?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

badger64 said:


> where is the option to leave without a deal, on wto terms and save £36 billion?


According to government estimates leaving without a deal would cost 10% of GDP. UK GDP is about £2.1 Trillion.

I'll let you do the maths and think about trade deals we won't have :wink:


----------



## badger64 (Feb 17, 2019)

ha ha. what a joke, you don't put the option of a no deal on your poll because you don't like it! are you sure you are not a politician?
that is just more project fear from a remainer parliament, just like they predicted armegeadon within weeks of a leave result for the referendum.
it seems your poll, although a very small response is a snapshot of opinion across the country. even with your pro EU propaganda people don't buy it and the majority still want to leave.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

John-H said:


> badger64 said:
> 
> 
> > where is the option to leave without a deal, on wto terms and save £36 billion?
> ...


Of course the UK government would say that as they don't want to leave more project fear 
My vote is to leave leave now with out a deal but you missed that option mate out so I'll give it a miss


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > badger64 said:
> ...


Are you addressing me Andy or the other chap? :lol: Not sure if somebody realises that leaving without a deal under WTO basic trade terms means we have to pay tariffs and all our car plants will go out of business.


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

We can afford it and who needs car plants

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

HOGG said:


> We can afford it and who needs car plants
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


 :lol: Yes, it's amazing isn't it - the way people say that as if they are gaining anything?

You might like this:

"I'm terribly pleased about Brexit -
Its going to be just like the war!"



https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ng-britain


----------



## Yashin (Sep 10, 2016)

Well the latest is the PM will hold talks with Jeremy Corbyn on a way forward from this mess. Apparently Ronald McDonald was considered first, but dropped because he was considered more sensible than Jeremy Corbyn and didn't fit into the Brexit theme of a complete joke, unlike Jeremy Corbyn who fit the bill perfectly.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

badger64 said:


> ha ha. what a joke, you don't put the option of a no deal on your poll because you don't like it! are you sure you are not a politician?
> that is just more project fear from a remainer parliament, just like they predicted armegeadon within weeks of a leave result for the referendum.
> it seems your poll, although a very small response is a snapshot of opinion across the country. even with your pro EU propaganda people don't buy it and the majority still want to leave.


On the contrary. There's no option for no deal because it wasn't a consideration when I posted. It was never discussed during the referendum but mainly now because it would be illegal under international law so would be an irresponsible option.

I'm quite heartened given the demographic of a car forum. If you want to see the national trend of YouGov polls since 2016 see this:


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

Let's vote again. And it would be a landslide for leave

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Let's do that


----------



## badger64 (Feb 17, 2019)

John-H said:


> badger64 said:
> 
> 
> > ha ha. what a joke, you don't put the option of a no deal on your poll because you don't like it! are you sure you are not a politician?
> ...


it seems opinion must be changing back then. majority want a no deal exit.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... eal-brexit


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

badger64 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > badger64 said:
> ...


Your link says:



> Only 25% of people would consider a No Deal Brexit to be a positive outcome. Twice as many (50%) would see it as a negative, and 37% as a "very bad" outcome. Even among Leave voters, only half see a No Deal conclusion as positive.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

It looks like this poll is quite a reflection on how people still feel when it comes to the leave or remain decision. 
I've yet to find anyone that when this topic comes up, chooses remain. At work, down the pub, shopping etc. Ok, that may well be due to them all being in roughly the same location and similar demographic constituencies, but I frequent a fair few forums where the folk are spread far and wide around the nation and still, the _vast_ majority would prefer to leave. That's the vocal ones anyway. Saying that, the remainers tend to contribute more and shout the loudest.
I for one believe that even if it were to go to another vote, then leave would still be the choice of the masses. Not by a large margin, granted, but enough to prove the consensus. In fact I'd be glad for another vote as if the outcome were the same, it might well put to bed all the outcries, tantrums and doubts.
I can't see that happening now, which is a shame. It looks very much like they're trying to drag it out for as long as possible, making the whole thing even more shambolic than ever (a pretty hard thing to do but they've managed it brilliantly).
I think every body is getting a bit fed up by it all now. I know I am.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I keep saying to those who argue against another referendum, claiming that it's "against democracy" (ridiculous!) - and who claim that it would be an even more decisive leave vote anyway - that if they are so sure then they should agree to put it to a vote - what have they got to lose? If they don't want to take part then they can stay at home, or vote the same way again whatever. That's more democracy. I'm glad more people are accepting that another vote is a way to resolve this and find out what the "will of the people" actually is now in a democratic plebiscite (one where there is no cheating this time hopefully) now we know a lot more than we did then. They usually avoid agreeing to this. It's good to see more people agreeing it's the best way to resolve the situation


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

I'd vote again
Vote leave would win again by a long way

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

HOGG said:


> I'd vote again
> Vote leave would win again by a long way
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Another supporter for a People's Vote!


----------



## badger64 (Feb 17, 2019)

John-H said:


> I keep saying to those who argue against another referendum, claiming that it's "against democracy" (ridiculous!) - and who claim that it would be an even more decisive leave vote anyway - that if they are so sure then they should agree to put it to a vote - what have they got to lose? If they don't want to take part then they can stay at home, or vote the same way again whatever. That's more democracy. I'm glad more people are accepting that another vote is a way to resolve this and find out what the "will of the people" actually is now in a democratic plebiscite (one where there is no cheating this time hopefully) now we know a lot more than we did then. They usually avoid agreeing to this. It's good to see more people agreeing it's the best way to resolve the situation


why don't we have best of 3? yeah or best of 5 if the losers of the 1st democratic vote lose again. can't beat democracy. or can you?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

badger64 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I keep saying to those who argue against another referendum, claiming that it's "against democracy" (ridiculous!) - and who claim that it would be an even more decisive leave vote anyway - that if they are so sure then they should agree to put it to a vote - what have they got to lose? If they don't want to take part then they can stay at home, or vote the same way again whatever. That's more democracy. I'm glad more people are accepting that another vote is a way to resolve this and find out what the "will of the people" actually is now in a democratic plebiscite (one where there is no cheating this time hopefully) now we know a lot more than we did then. They usually avoid agreeing to this. It's good to see more people agreeing it's the best way to resolve the situation
> ...


We know a lot more now after three years since the 2016 referendum and we have a treaty deal to vote on now which we didn't then. That's why there's now a need for a new referendum. There will be no need for further referenda because the new information is now out. Any further revelations seem only likely to re-enforce our understanding, not reverse it.

As regards loosers and winners. Don't you realise this is not a game - we are all in the same boat. If you think you have won can you please explain the benefits for me because I don't see them.


----------



## badger64 (Feb 17, 2019)

John-H said:


> badger64 said:
> 
> 
> > John-H said:
> ...


its nothing to do with any potential benefits or hardships, its called democracy. a peoples vote, yes the original vote in which after the hysteria and untruths of project fear and the misinformation of the red bus, the population voted in a simple stay or leave question, to leave. nothing about potential deals, sweeteners just leave.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

badger64 said:


> its nothing to do with any potential benefits or hardships, its called democracy. a peoples vote, yes the original vote in which after the hysteria and untruths of project fear and the misinformation of the red bus, the population voted in a simple stay or leave question, to leave. nothing about potential deals, sweeteners just leave.


Tell me, if it's not anything to do with potential benefits or hardships - what was the point of the vote?

You seem to present a perfect example of the argument being more important than the solution or even recognising what the problem was.

Winning is everything? So what have we all won?

I'd love to know but nobody seems able to present anything concrete. Funny that. One day the penny will drop: - We've all been played.

Who stands to gain? Follow the money:

http://www.brexitshambles.com/brexit-sc ... on-street/

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/11/18/mat ... sts-Brexit

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

Popular wisdom I think would say that the birthplace of democracy was Athens. Anyway, that's got nothing to do with the point I'd like to make, which is to stress that we don't live in a democracy, never have done and most probably never will do.
Democracy literally means rule of the people but we, 'the people' do not rule. Instead we vote for a rabble of self-centered **** heads to rule on our behalf, so we refer to that as a representative democracy. However, a representative democracy is not a democracy. In its present form, I think that we actually live in a plutocracy - that is government by the rich. As with anything, there are exceptions, but all MPs have a £70,000 basic salary and many are on a good deal more. And that's just money - never mind the power that held as an MP. Politics is much like any business whereby those motivated by good intentions will be devoured by those for whom a preoccupation with personal/material gain pays no heed to the protests of the conscience.
Once the amoral candidate succeeds in becoming an MP, I'm sure they find the salary and their influence quite to their liking. Therefore they should not like to lose it, either at a general election or, if they have a vested interest in a body such as the EU, by being separated from that. What moral MPs there are, meanwhile, are tied down by a professional responsibility to fall in line with the stance of their party. Remember that the official stance of the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and SNP at the time of the EU referendum was Remain. The high-ranking MPs, those who are the wealthiest and hold the most power, now have to balance retaining their EU interests with sustaining popular support that they might be re-elected. Luckily for them they have a controlling interest in the media, so they can use that as a tool to bring the electorate round to their way of thinking, or at least con them that whatever they did, there was 'no possible alternative' or 'it was for the general good'
Of course, none of this is anything new. We have had to endure a combination of corrupt, self-serving leaders and a gullible, self-serving public ever since leadership was first floated as a concept. I present the Old Testament as a useful resource for studying the concept of leadership in truly ancient times.
I'm not sure if I've really made my point as I intended, and a good deal of my long-winded diatribe doesn't really shed any new light on the subject, it just repeats warnings made (and ignored) countless times throughout history and quite obviously in Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the main, I was primarily concerned with saying the following:
1) We do not live in a democracy. Understanding this will give us a better understanding of the political system and, I hope, encourage people to attack it from a different angle.
2) Just because an idea has the support of the majority, that does not make it right. I will gladly oppose popular opinion when it goes against that which I hold to be right, because I value being right, or being good (subjective as it sometimes may be), over being popular. MPs may say the same thing, but of course it may well be a thinly-veiled lie to disguise expedient intentions. "The majority says..." isn't really worth much against a person or persons who regards the majority as wrong.
3) Whatever we think of the people in power, it is the public herd that gives them power.

On this occasion, of course, leaving the EU is the right thing to do from a moral standpoint, as well as being in accordance with the majority view.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

I've also learned from another source that the EU is currently attempting to sneak a federal European government up on all the democracies of Europe, in the guise of reform of the eurozone. Macron's proposals early last year were for a single finance minister, coupled with a banking union and unified fiscal and social policies.
These proposals are backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, the latter claiming also that they have the support of the IMF, the OECD, the ECB, the European Parliament AND the European Commission. This is presumably on the basis that one currency = one economy = one government.
The Rome Declaration of March 2017, agreed by all member states, put forward the completion of economic and currency union as a stated aim. To this end seven more member states are due to join the euro, in accordance with Lisbon Treaty Article 3, as soon "as conditions are met". These are Sweden, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, leaving just Denmark in sole possession of its own currency, and no doubt under risk of imminent pressure to conform.
Meanwhile the European Army has progressed in the period since the referendum, which means that the EU is a completely different beast from the one that Remainers voted for in 2016, because the symbols of statehood, armed forces (Article 42), one currency, one economy and one government are all coming together, and that means that Schengen will surely follow, also in accordance with the Rome Declaration.
Applied to Britain, if we found ourselves back in, Schengen would mean the demolition of our border defences at Calais, with the result that we could expect untold millions of economic migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. however, that May's (in fact the EU's) proposed deal, (or as I prefer to call it, surrender document), is an abomination that no sovereign nation could or should possibly sign. And that leaves us with no deal - we take an economic blip now to save us from catastrophe, as a mere province of a federal Europe later.
Food for thought eh?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Stiff said:


> Popular wisdom I think would say that the birthplace of democracy was Athens. Anyway, that's got nothing to do with the point I'd like to make, which is to stress that we don't live in a democracy, never have done and most probably never will do.
> Democracy literally means rule of the people but we, 'the people' do not rule. Instead we vote for a rabble of self-centered **** heads to rule on our behalf, so we refer to that as a representative democracy. However, a representative democracy is not a democracy. In its present form, I think that we actually live in a plutocracy - that is government by the rich. As with anything, there are exceptions, but all MPs have a £70,000 basic salary and many are on a good deal more. And that's just money - never mind the power that held as an MP. Politics is much like any business whereby those motivated by good intentions will be devoured by those for whom a preoccupation with personal/material gain pays no heed to the protests of the conscience.
> Once the amoral candidate succeeds in becoming an MP, I'm sure they find the salary and their influence quite to their liking. Therefore they should not like to lose it, either at a general election or, if they have a vested interest in a body such as the EU, by being separated from that. What moral MPs there are, meanwhile, are tied down by a professional responsibility to fall in line with the stance of their party. Remember that the official stance of the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and SNP at the time of the EU referendum was Remain. The high-ranking MPs, those who are the wealthiest and hold the most power, now have to balance retaining their EU interests with sustaining popular support that they might be re-elected. Luckily for them they have a controlling interest in the media, so they can use that as a tool to bring the electorate round to their way of thinking, or at least con them that whatever they did, there was 'no possible alternative' or 'it was for the general good'
> Of course, none of this is anything new. We have had to endure a combination of corrupt, self-serving leaders and a gullible, self-serving public ever since leadership was first floated as a concept. I present the Old Testament as a useful resource for studying the concept of leadership in truly ancient times.
> ...


Heavens that's an outpouring. I think I agree with a lot of that but the final paragraph I can't see the reasoning.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Stiff said:


> I've also learned from another source that the EU is currently attempting to sneak a federal European government up on all the democracies of Europe, in the guise of reform of the eurozone. Macron's proposals early last year were for a single finance minister, coupled with a banking union and unified fiscal and social policies.
> These proposals are backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, the latter claiming also that they have the support of the IMF, the OECD, the ECB, the European Parliament AND the European Commission. This is presumably on the basis that one currency = one economy = one government.
> The Rome Declaration of March 2017, agreed by all member states, put forward the completion of economic and currency union as a stated aim. To this end seven more member states are due to join the euro, in accordance with Lisbon Treaty Article 3, as soon "as conditions are met". These are Sweden, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, leaving just Denmark in sole possession of its own currency, and no doubt under risk of imminent pressure to conform.
> Meanwhile the European Army has progressed in the period since the referendum, which means that the EU is a completely different beast from the one that Remainers voted for in 2016, because the symbols of statehood, armed forces (Article 42), one currency, one economy and one government are all coming together, and that means that Schengen will surely follow, also in accordance with the Rome Declaration.
> ...


No, it's utter clap trap you've been given and it's not new.

The interpretation of the treaties and imagined motivation of the EU is often set in scare stories by those who wish to create an aversion.

If we remain in the EU Schengen doesn't apply to us because we have an opt-out and the European Army is subject to the veto of every member state should anyone including us object. As for the hoards of migrants that's just far right wing rhetoric from the Farage poster stable.

The classification of the economic effects of "no deal" as a "blip" when the government's own civil service estimates are for a 10% loss of GDP which would cause years of austerity worse than the banking crisis of 2008 which we are still suffering from now when it was only 8% GDP are somewhat understated. A "blip" they say? Well that gives an indication of trustworthiness of the information.

Luckily now, no deal isn't going to happen. May's deal is of course a sell out where we would become a rule taker with no say in the making of the rules and no veto of anything we don't like.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I never thought I'd say this but I recommend everyone to read this article by strong Brexiteer and Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opende ... zGq2KPmf8o


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

Read it. My opinion hasn't changed.

Not once did that article mention the reason I voted leave

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

HOGG said:


> Read it. My opinion hasn't changed.
> 
> Not once did that article mention the reason I voted leave
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


It was a brave article to admit to a change of mind but the reasoning is well explained.

If you had a different reason for leaving that underlines and serves as an example - many people had different reasons - and they are not all compatible together I find.

What was yours out of interest?


----------



## Back 2 TT (Nov 12, 2015)

Hi,

I don't like the term "No Deal". There isn't "No deal", they mean "No Treaty". Trade deals don't need Treaties - Canada didn't have to sign a Treaty to trade, so the question is why are the EU and our politicians so hell bent on a Treaty?

You don't need a Treaty to leave an organisation. To be honest I doubt many politicians even have a clue what is involved in the Surrender Bill. If we leave with no treaty we are still bound by WTO rules and the EU is also in the WTO. As long as we are in talks we don't get tariff's applied and we'd be £39 billion better off.

My question is why do we need a Treaty to leave? The EU ran rings round May or she was fully aware and agreed to it - you decide.
I call this Treaty and May's Treaty the Hokey Kokey Brexit as it's not quite in and not quite out or the worst of all worlds. It is taxation without representation and that is wrong.

Democracy means that we enact the first referendum result.

The MP's agreed to WTO when they voted for Article 50 - they just *didn't know that was what they were voting for*, it's pretty obvious now. Hoisted by their own petards.

If MP's knew what they were voting for they would have noted that a lot of things that people are discussing and fighting over were missing and should be included such as "What if the people don't vote the way we want them to?" "Is this legally binding or is it indicative?". The Government has the AG and his team, how did they miss all these things? Incompetence or design? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

My MP constantly says that our constituency result was a "very close vote". It wasn't, it was 52/48%

They gave the people the choice to make the decision now they regret it.

We are either a democracy or we aren't. Just as you can't be "a bit pregnant" we can't have a "some democracy" when it suits the House of Commons and a "representative democracy" when they don't agree with how the people voted. Utter hypocrisy.


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

John-H said:


> HOGG said:
> 
> 
> > Read it. My opinion hasn't changed.
> ...


My reasons have NEVER changed.

I voted leave because like I've always said. You can leave and if you don't like it, you back in.

If you had voted remain, you would have NEVER left and seen what leave was like

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

HOGG said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > HOGG said:
> ...


You just fancied a change? Or was there something specific you were persuaded by? What's your killer reason?



Back 2 TT said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't like the term "No Deal". There isn't "No deal", they mean "No Treaty".


Correct



Back 2 TT said:


> Trade deals don't need Treaties - Canada didn't have to sign a Treaty to trade, so the question is why are the EU and our politicians so hell bent on a Treaty?


They do. A treaty is an agreement between States, that creates rights and obligations under international law. An FTA (Free Trade Agreement) is an example of a treaty which creates rights such as lower or zero tariffs for goods and obligations to agree standards and arbitration etc. A good example is CETA - the FTA treaty between Canada and the EU.



Back 2 TT said:


> You don't need a Treaty to leave an organisation. To be honest I doubt many politicians even have a clue what is involved in the Surrender Bill. If we leave with no treaty we are still bound by WTO rules and the EU is also in the WTO. As long as we are in talks we don't get tariff's applied and we'd be £39 billion better off.
> 
> My question is why do we need a Treaty to leave?


We need a treaty in order to avoid tariffs or their effects being applied between the UK and EU which create barriers to trade and increase our costs far more than the cost of membership. We need a treaty for data access for security, for shipment of medicine and nuclear isotopes, finance, insurance etc etc.

It's a myth that we could carry on with present arrangements if we crash out. Article 24 of GATT which I think you are alluding to under the WTO only applies if there's an agreement but there won't be one.

You have to apply to the WTO for a proposed "interim agreement" to qualify under Article 24 and that can be objected to by other member states. There have been no such interim agreements since 1995 for this reason and member states instead work towards FTA treaty ratification and membership of trading blocks like the EU. See here for more information: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/br ... explained/



Back 2 TT said:


> The EU ran rings round May or she was fully aware and agreed to it - you decide.
> I call this Treaty and May's Treaty the Hokey Kokey Brexit as it's not quite in and not quite out or the worst of all worlds. It is taxation without representation and that is wrong.


May's deal was to some extent a recognition of the difficulty we were in which is partly to do with leaving a system built up over 45 years, partly due to the red lines she created and or legal commitments to the GFA (Good Friday Agreement - another international treaty). Because of the need to comply with the GFA and keep the UK union together she had to agree to the Northern Ireland backstop applying UK wide - keeping us in affect continuing the transition period in a customs union infinitely until some magical technical solution was found to the Northern Ireland border (which doesn't exist).

Boris Johnson's plan on the other hand, contrary to his claims of getting rid of the backstop actually implements the original backstop provision that that was on May's deal immediately and puts a regulatory and additional customs barrier up the Irish Sea, which threatens the union as there's likely to be a Northern Ireland border poll as a result with Scotland following. Unionists are furious. Johnson's aim is two fold - it frees the rest of the UK to divert further from EU standards allowing the UK to sign up to a US trade deal and because the Northern Ireland border to the South is protected by respecting the GFA the threat of the US Congress blocking any US/UK trade deal which threatened the Northern Ireland peace process has been avoided. So a US trade deal is back on for the ERG at the expense of Northern Ireland.



Back 2 TT said:


> Democracy means that we enact the first referendum result.


Democracy is a continuing process. It didn't end three and a half years ago in June 2016. The "deal" and the information presumed has changed out of all recognition. The "will of the people" according to polling over 300 polls since 2016 has changed. It changed to a remain stance within a year and has shown a concrete remain lead ever since. Another referendum to officially test this would be democratic. Denying the people a further vote would be autocratic.



Back 2 TT said:


> The MP's agreed to WTO when they voted for Article 50 - they just *didn't know that was what they were voting for*, it's pretty obvious now. Hoisted by their own petards.


But we are the ones being hoisted if that's true.

Vote Leave said (and you can still find this on their website) that we would fully negotiate the deal before any legal steps were taken to leave.



Back 2 TT said:


> If MP's knew what they were voting for they would have noted that a lot of things that people are discussing and fighting over were missing and should be included such as "What if the people don't vote the way we want them to?" "Is this legally binding or is it indicative?". The Government has the AG and his team, how did they miss all these things? Incompetence or design? Makes you wonder doesn't it?


I don't disagree that it was incompetent. Part of the problem is that it was an advisory referendum so the legal safeguards don't apply. There was a lot of cheating that went on during the referendum campaign with a 10% overspend by Vote Leave which would have voided a legally binding referendum. Legally it was Theresa May's decision to trigger Article 50 after Parliament have her permission to do so. It's therefore a political decision and the courts can not intercede over the PM's decision.



Back 2 TT said:


> My MP constantly says that our constituency result was a "very close vote". It wasn't, it was 52/48%


For a referendum it was very close. A 2% (600k vote) swing - and that could easily have resulted from a 10% Vote Leave campaign overspend. It's unsafe.



Back 2 TT said:


> They gave the people the choice to make the decision now they regret it.
> 
> We are either a democracy or we aren't. Just as you can't be "a bit pregnant" we can't have a "some democracy" when it suits the House of Commons and a "representative democracy" when they don't agree with how the people voted. Utter hypocrisy.


Yes it's supposed to be a representative democracy which means that MPs take an oath to do what's in their constituents interests. Making them poorer isn't.

Trouble is there are too many MPs looking after their own interests under the influence of lobbyists for Brexit who are going to make a lot of money from the chaos. They've also been very good at messaging to the public and to other MPs that this is what they want and they have to go through with it, even though it's becoming very obvious that it's a bad idea.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> Trouble is there are too many MPs looking after their own interests under the influence of lobbyists for Brexit who are going to make a lot of money from the chaos. They've also been very good at messaging to the public and to other MPs that this is what they want and they have to go through with it, even though it's becoming very obvious that it's a bad idea.


Not so fast Mister.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11919 ... exit-party

...And probably a whole load of others for the same reasons.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

It's one thing to wish to keep your job for laudable reasons but quite another to exploit it to your own personal gain and the county's detriment.


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

John-H said:


> You just fancied a change? Or was there something specific you were persuaded by? What's your killer reason?


I want our government to make its own laws and the law of the land to be Great Britains

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

John-H said:


> It's one thing to wish to keep your job for laudable reasons but quite another to exploit it to your own personal gain and the county's detriment.


Rubbish.
When it suits your own reasoning (round & round as usual).

Anyway no more comments from me until we're out and / or conservatives win election.

Adios


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > It's one thing to wish to keep your job for laudable reasons but quite another to exploit it to your own personal gain and the county's detriment.
> ...


January 31st

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

HOGG said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > You just fancied a change? Or was there something specific you were persuaded by? What's your killer reason?
> ...


Which particular law don't you like?



leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > It's one thing to wish to keep your job for laudable reasons but quite another to exploit it to your own personal gain and the county's detriment.
> ...


You could keep your word as an example to Mr Johnson


----------



## NIJock (Nov 2, 2019)

Leave... Please just bloody Leave!!!!!


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)




----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

les said:


> https://youtu.be/G0nIhL4v6bY


Lol, Pie is going to have a stroke one of these days and no doubt he'll be ranting the same old crap for the next fifteen years because that's how long it will take for Labour to win any meaningful majority in a General Election


----------

