I think our Brexiteer friends are forgetting what happened on Black Wednesday in 1992 - Soros's actions forced us out of the ERM which was meant to be a predecessor to joining the Euro. Soros and his currency traders friends were only enriched because of the verging on criminally stupid behaviour of the likes of Major and Lamont, and before them Thatcher, in trying to tie us in to a ridiculously high entry rate to the Euro which they then tried to defend by pushing up interest rates to ridiculously high levels and then in effect giving away our currency reserves to the currency traders. I'm afraid this is what happens when you try and defend an ideological position without any thought as to the consequences. I'm not a fan of free and unregulated markets, because I'm not of a purist ideological bent and one of the benefits of market economies is that they do punish really stupid behaviour.
Of course if we were to crash out of the EU as the ideological Brexiteers now wish one consequence would be a run on the pound and a hike in interest rates - remember Lamont/Major put them up to 15% on Black Wednesday - which I'm sure would go down well with all the non elite people paying mortgages, for whom we are told the whole thing is being carried out.
I think our Brexiteer friends are forgetting what happened on Black Wednesday in 1992 - Soros's actions forced us out of the ERM which was meant to be a predecessor to joining the Euro. Soros and his currency traders friends were only enriched because of the verging on criminally stupid behaviour of the likes of Major and Lamont, and before them Thatcher, in trying to tie us in to a ridiculously high entry rate to the Euro which they then tried to defend by pushing up interest rates to ridiculously high levels and then in effect giving away our currency reserves to the currency traders. I'm afraid this is what happens when you try and defend an ideological position without any thought as to the consequences. I'm not a fan of free and unregulated markets, because I'm not of a purist ideological bent and one of the benefits of market economies is that they do punish really stupid behaviour.
Of course if we were to crash out of the EU as the ideological Brexiteers now wish one consequence would be a run on the pound and a hike in interest rates - remember Lamont/Major put them up to 15% on Black Wednesday - which I'm sure would go down well with all the non elite people paying mortgages, for whom we are told the whole thing is being carried out.
Not sure anyone on here wants us to ‘crash out of the EU’ !!!
Lets have a People's Vote with the only 3 options that really exist at present a) No deal b) May's deal or c) staying. People could state their preferences with the least popular being eliminated in the first round. Since Parliament cannot decide let the people do so.
I think our Brexiteer friends are forgetting what happened on Black Wednesday in 1992 - Soros's actions forced us out of the ERM which was meant to be a predecessor to joining the Euro. Soros and his currency traders friends were only enriched because of the verging on criminally stupid behaviour of the likes of Major and Lamont, and before them Thatcher, in trying to tie us in to a ridiculously high entry rate to the Euro which they then tried to defend by pushing up interest rates to ridiculously high levels and then in effect giving away our currency reserves to the currency traders. I'm afraid this is what happens when you try and defend an ideological position without any thought as to the consequences. I'm not a fan of free and unregulated markets, because I'm not of a purist ideological bent and one of the benefits of market economies is that they do punish really stupid behaviour.
Of course if we were to crash out of the EU as the ideological Brexiteers now wish one consequence would be a run on the pound and a hike in interest rates - remember Lamont/Major put them up to 15% on Black Wednesday - which I'm sure would go down well with all the non elite people paying mortgages, for whom we are told the whole thing is being carried out.
Not sure anyone on here wants us to ‘crash out of the EU’ !!!
I think there may be one or two here - but there are rather more elsewhere.
I think our Brexiteer friends are forgetting what happened on Black Wednesday in 1992 - Soros's actions forced us out of the ERM which was meant to be a predecessor to joining the Euro. Soros and his currency traders friends were only enriched because of the verging on criminally stupid behaviour of the likes of Major and Lamont, and before them Thatcher, in trying to tie us in to a ridiculously high entry rate to the Euro which they then tried to defend by pushing up interest rates to ridiculously high levels and then in effect giving away our currency reserves to the currency traders. I'm afraid this is what happens when you try and defend an ideological position without any thought as to the consequences. I'm not a fan of free and unregulated markets, because I'm not of a purist ideological bent and one of the benefits of market economies is that they do punish really stupid behaviour.
Of course if we were to crash out of the EU as the ideological Brexiteers now wish one consequence would be a run on the pound and a hike in interest rates - remember Lamont/Major put them up to 15% on Black Wednesday - which I'm sure would go down well with all the non elite people paying mortgages, for whom we are told the whole thing is being carried out.
Not sure anyone on here wants us to ‘crash out of the EU’ !!!
Apart from the lack of specifics, he shows a poor grasp of spelling and grammar.
BTW how many people died in the Cold War?
He's my MP. I have to deal with him occasionally. I can confirm that he is a prize prat. He's getting undeserved publicity at the moment but hopefully he will fade out of the national stage soon.
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
I'm not going to state that the article is either entirely or partially wrong, because, lacking specific expertise, it would, in effect, be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
Fair enough, which is why I clearly stated it isn’t likely to be unbiased. Unfortunately I cannot find any other relevant legal assessments of the WA.
Just out of interest, does this mean that you believe this is not a rubbish deal? Because, from a non-legal perspective, if doesn’t look very good to me .., but I could also be accused of bias
In my opinion...
The Withdrawal Agreement is, sadly, the best that could be negotiated, given the red lines laid out, the approach taken to attempt to negotiate with individual member states, and the time wasted with grandstanding.
I don't believe that it was possible to get a good deal with Brexit (because, IMHO, the UK already has the best deal with the EU), I do believe it was possible to get a workable deal, and, as far as it goes, what has been agreed is workable, and better than crashing out without a deal. There's nothing particularly shit about the deal that has been agreed - the political declaration is up for revision and is a wish list, in all honesty.
It is blackly, and bleakly, amusing to see those who had, for most of the past two years, claimed that the land border in Ireland was inconsequential suddenly now going berserk about the potential backstop.
The UK and EU have agreed that there will be an insurance policy, to prevent the need for additional controls on the border, should it not be possible to agree a trading relationship that would achieve the same aim. Both sides have been vocal in their assertions that they wished to avoid change and would ensure that they would do everything that they could to come to an arrangement that would make the backstop obsolete.
But, the thing is, the backstop is not a UK only insurance policy, it's a joint policy. It's not unreasonable, from the other side of the border (and for many on this side as well), to have a position where both have to agree to have the backstop removed or amended - however, it is clear that, if a better solution can be found, it would be implemented.
Listening to Michael Howard this afternoon, he seems to expect that the UK can effectively tell the EU to eff off and leave with no deal, but that the EU should agree a series of ad hoc deals to protect the UK.
Immensely frustrating that this week’s Political Declaration was not produced prior to invoking Article 50 - it would have provided an excellent negotiating starting point for both the UK and the EU, and both sides could have benefited from it.
Absolutely (though an agreed version would not have happened until after Article 50 was triggered).
The UK Government could (and should), if the politicians could have agreed with themselves, put forward a prospectus for their vision of the future relationship in more detail than the soundbites thrown about with gay abandon, which would have proved the basis for the Political Declaration discussions.
It could even have proved an attractive usp for the Conservatives in the General Election, it would have ensured that the electorate would have their say (and would have swept away much of the argument for a further referendum).
As an aside, watching The View (BBC NI) from Thursday, on catch up, might be informative about how bad the agreement between the UK and EU27 actually may be.
I know that a link to this story has already been posted but I make no apologies for posting it again. It really is shocking to see proof of the immense efforts of the Russians to interfere with and influence the US and Brexit elections in 2016.
The Russians have inflicted more long term damage on the UK with their covert Brexit campaign than anything achieved by the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
Forgive me if I'm being terminally stupid, but surely people didn't expect a better deal with the EU than we already have. Didn't they want to end free movement, make trade deals with other countries, and not be bound by EU law and the ECJ... Has that not happened to a certain extent? Of course we aren't going to have any say in an organisation we've left - that would be silly. So why is a anyone saying this deal isn't brexit, when it most certainly is
“What the British people want,” the prime minister said time and again, on each occasion mistaking what she herself wanted for what the British people wanted. It was she who was fed up with the whole Brexit process and wanted the whole thing over. It was she who believed it was in the national interest, when everyone could see it was actually only in hers. It was she who wanted to believe in a deal that was so obviously bad for the country, that delivered so little of what had been originally promised. A Brexit deal whose only saving grace was that it would leave everyone marginally better off than leaving the EU with no deal at all.
Comments
Of course if we were to crash out of the EU as the ideological Brexiteers now wish one consequence would be a run on the pound and a hike in interest rates - remember Lamont/Major put them up to 15% on Black Wednesday - which I'm sure would go down well with all the non elite people paying mortgages, for whom we are told the whole thing is being carried out.
It's always worth remembering how well her last big 'plan' to get her way went....
This is a report of another letter.
Pure Gold actually when you read it.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1046208/theresa-may-no-confidence-vote-brexit-mark-francois-letter-brexit-deal
BTW how many people died in the Cold War?
The UK Government could (and should), if the politicians could have agreed with themselves, put forward a prospectus for their vision of the future relationship in more detail than the soundbites thrown about with gay abandon, which would have proved the basis for the Political Declaration discussions.
It could even have proved an attractive usp for the Conservatives in the General Election, it would have ensured that the electorate would have their say (and would have swept away much of the argument for a further referendum).
As an aside, watching The View (BBC NI) from Thursday, on catch up, might be informative about how bad the agreement between the UK and EU27 actually may be.
Democracy in motion.
“What the British people want,” the prime minister said time and again, on each occasion mistaking what she herself wanted for what the British people wanted. It was she who was fed up with the whole Brexit process and wanted the whole thing over. It was she who believed it was in the national interest, when everyone could see it was actually only in hers. It was she who wanted to believe in a deal that was so obviously bad for the country, that delivered so little of what had been originally promised. A Brexit deal whose only saving grace was that it would leave everyone marginally better off than leaving the EU with no deal at all.
Not the message that May is pretending is real ... they have completely taken the piss out of her.