Brexit again...

[Fosse69]

If found guilty it poses the question how many more MPs would be charged for not being honest in pledges, promises, manifestos, electioneering etc?

 

Surely the start of more honesty from politicians? Only one example is needed to change the culture, the glaring one will do.

[Davebrad]

what about the expensives scandal a few cases dealt with inhouse, and it still goes on... the sex abuse scandal still going on... pay awards awarded to them selves...

 

a great pity guy fawkes didn't succeed...

[Fosse69]

what about the expensives scandal a few cases dealt with inhouse, and it still goes on... the sex abuse scandal still going on... pay awards awarded to them selves...

 

a great pity guy fawkes didn't succeed...

To me side issues, truth or lack of it causes more hardship.

[Davebrad]

The problem is that the implications of Brexit were not discussed properly after the result, May went in a huddle refusing to discuss what she was going to do. A no deal is better than a bad deal became policy.

 

a more positive approach was needed, but a no deal was our ace card, soon as parliament vetoed that possibility, plus a few other things, the eu saw how indecisive we were, and are making us pay for it... but if a deal can't be made there's only one outcome.

[JohnJames]

No more links from you then?

I don't suppose you can believe a word that comes out of the mouth of somebody who worked at the BBC for 25 years,was a co-founder of the Oxford Foodbank,which collects 5 tons of food from supermarkets a week and distributes it to charities,and was also awarded the MBE for this work in 2014.

 

 

Source - Wikipedia.

 

Your position is to deny EVERYTHING by claiming the BBC are anti Brexit and anti Tory.

When you compare their coverage with Channel 4 nothing could be farther than the truth.

 

There will soon be nothing left of UK industry and you will still be in denial.

[Regal Beagle]

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-48451024?__twitter_impression=true

 

Interesting. So the cost of remaining is beginning to mount up.

 

Probably should just get on with it really to avoid these costs.

[Regal Beagle]

A no deal is better than a bad deal became policy.

 

I wish that had become policy.

[Davebrad]

I wish that had become policy.

 

and a reality...

[geosname]

a more positive approach was needed, but a no deal was our ace card, soon as parliament vetoed that possibility, plus a few other things, the eu saw how indecisive we were, and are making us pay for it... but if a deal can't be made there's only one outcome.

 

You should never enter negotiations if your not prepared to walk away.... especially if you tell the other side.

[geosname]

The problem is that the implications of Brexit were not discussed properly after the result, May went in a huddle refusing to discuss what she was going to do. A no deal is better than a bad deal became policy.

 

No deal is always better than a bad deal...... if you don't have one you have a chance of getting one.... if you have a bad one you are stuck with it, unless you can find another bargaining chip to force negotiations.

[Fosse69]

a more positive approach was needed, but a no deal was our ace card, soon as parliament vetoed that possibility, plus a few other things, the eu saw how indecisive we were, and are making us pay for it... but if a deal can't be made there's only one outcome.

 

The people have to decide, no deal will not get through parliament, nor will parliament go for an election.

[Fosse69]

No deal is always better than a bad deal...... if you don't have one you have a chance of getting one.... if you have a bad one you are stuck with it, unless you can find another bargaining chip to force negotiations.

 

If the deal is worse than what you have you stay as you are. If the house you are buying is no longer worth it you stay as you are.

[TheSage]

No deal is a bad deal.

[Regal Beagle]

The people have to decide, no deal will not get through parliament, nor will parliament go for an election.

 

No deal is already decided and enshrined in law by parliament.

 

If we do nothing we leave in October with no deal.

[Joe B]

No deal is already decided and enshrined in law by parliament.

 

If we do nothing we leave in October with no deal.

 

As we did in March?

 

As articulated by the eminently sensible Rory Stewart yesterday, a No Deal would be a silly decision as all we would be doing is delaying eventually securing a trade deal, largely akin to the one being offered now, in a few years. "Give us the divorce payment, protect citizens' rights, and work out Ireland, and sure, you can have a trade deal". No Deal is simply kicking the can down the road, with the cherry on top being short term reduction in trade and probably another round of bond purchasing to help keep the economy afloat, as they did to the tune of £10bn immediately after the Leave vote in 2016. (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-boe-stimulus/bank-of-england-brings-forward-potential-timing-of-qe-bond-sell-off-idUKKBN1JH2A4)

 

Brexit can happen, but as I've suggested, lets do it slowly and steadily with a permanent customs union first and foremost, and then re-evaluate 3-5 years down the line. If the country shows a desire to accelerate Brexit, then it can occur then via parliamentary legislation or a another vote. That gives us time to focus on domestic matters without the inevitable firefighting of No Deal, and see for ourselves whether a Soft Brexit is better than a Bad Brexit, whilst also giving us more times and space to evaluate how to mitigate the undoubted hit to the economy, in the short-term, No Deal would exert. (If you can find any evidence that suggests No Deal WOULDN'T affect the economy and/or trade, please let me know).

 

I'm sure you'll retort with 'the ONLY Brexit is No Deal' but that isn't what the myriad leave campaigners claimed in 2016, most of them promising 'the easiest trade deal in history' (will link if you want proof') so unfortunately it is very difficult to make the argument that the people wanted No Deal in 2016 as very few were advocating it. Added to this, whilst Sunday night was an undoubted success for Farage, the Brexit Party didn't poll a majority, which implies a majority of the country do not want a No Deal. I can concede, if we're going to do political arithmetic jiggery-pokery, there is still a slight demand for Brexit, but if people were that keen surely we would have seen 52% of the votes for the Brexit Party, the only party (bar their predecessor UKIP) to offer No Deal?

 

My final point; who elects the WTO governing body? Wouldn't it merely be transferring our sovereignty over trade regulations from one undemocratic body in the EU to an even less democratic body in the WTO?