Wes Tender

It is the EU's backstop policy that appears to be at fault, so yes, it ought to be their Law Court that sorts it out to avoid their embarrassment. Deliciously ironic, isn't it? I understand that if they're quick about it, which they have proven to be capable of in the past, there could just be enough time to get it fixed before the 29th March.

I hope that you enjoyed your conference call earlier. I was hoping that you would give us all the benefit of your expertise on the matter of the legality of the Backstop, as it seems that having one without a termination date could be illegal. I posted a link above and await your comments. Regarding the Japanese suggesting that they will give us an inferior deal to that they give the EU, then it is feasible that this is a negotiating ploy, could it not? We will see what we or they wish to achieve when the horse trading starts in earnest. But as I said, unusual for you not to have realised that the story is basically a rehash of one from 9 months ago. Must be a slow news day at the FT whilst we are in this lull in the negotiations with the EU, when all there is to report is Tusk and Verhofstadt acting like prats.

https://www.ft.com/content/8f0724b8-5a84-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0 I'm surprised at you; you must be slipping. This news is old hat, they were saying the same thing 9 months ago.

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf The backstop is the fly in the ointment of the Withdrawal Agreement, as there is no termination date or unilateral right to terminate it. But it seems that as it stands, having no termination date makes it illegal. No doubt Shurlock will tell us that these legal eagles don't know what they're talking about.

Meanwhile, only 49 days to go until we leave the EU

Quiet afternoon, is it? *Yawn*

I refer you to my second sentence which you quoted above.

The damage that may or may not be caused by Brexit is totally unknown. Where many Remoaners are predicting Armageddon, there are substantial fears within the EU that we will make a resounding success of it. Apparently we have been quietly beavering away in the background planning our future policies to make us a really attractive destination for inward investment to boost our economy post-Brexit. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/07/britain-will-cut-taxes-slash-tariffs-secret-plan-kick-start/

People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them. But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.

LOL. £9 million of pro EU propaganda paid for out of our taxpayers money. And not even included in the Remain campaign budget. Nice one Dave. And of course Dave told everybody during the actual Referendum Campaign on more than one occasion that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. And despite all his best efforts to scare us, we still voted to leave.

Shurlock deosn't seem able to show me where I said either of those things in an earlier post. Instead, all I've got in response are the usual insults and him going off in tangents onto other things, in order to distract interest away from answering the question.

Massage your ego all you like. I'm not embarrassed at all; this is your typical MO when you get it wrong. Despite your huffing and puffing obfuscation, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in that post I said that the Canada +++ deal was a legal entity on the table.

So what? We held a referendum asking us whether we wished to stay in the Common Market after Heath had signed us in. There should have been referenda for each treaty that changed the basis of our membership from a simple trading agreement towards a federal political union. Other countries held referenda for such things, but our lords and masters thought that the British people shouldn't be allowed to have them. The European Act effectively says that we are happy to close the stable doors after the horse has bolted, that we have already allowed four treaties to alter the basis on which we joined, without putting them to the electorate in referenda, but now that they are out of the way, we promise to behave ourselves in future. Of course, it didn't need this Act in order that the government could have arranged referenda previously had they felt so inclined.

Trying to fudge your way out of accepting that there are two ends of a stick and that you got the wrong one. Typical.

I am not upset. I have grown immune to your petty insults, even when they are hurled about for no reason, as in the example above.

What, like the referenda that were held following the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon? Those referenda?

Now, let me see. I can't for the life of me see where I suggested that a Canada +++ deal was legally on the table. I don't see anywhere where I suggested that the withdrawal agreement wouldn't be required either. Perhaps you will be kind enough to show me where I said either. It's hard to take your insufferable arrogance seriously when you you attack somebody's opinion for being what you want it to be, instead of what it is.

#Devil's advocate klaxon 2# Neither do we know what the EU would look like in 5, 10, or 20 years time, or indeed whether it will still exist as a Political Union any more.

I'm with you, leave the single market and the customs union, go for a FTA like Canada+++ and failing that, I'm perfectly content trading on WTO terms. May has been a disaster, but if her dithering, indecisiveness, Remainer lack of drive and incompetence somehow takes us to a position that we stumble past 11pm on 29th March without a deal, then I will forgive her. As you say, the Canada +++ deal was offered on more than one occasion by Tusk, it was what David Davis had spent all his time working on, until May's treacherous scheming with Robbins swept it aside for the awful Chequeurs deal. May having two Brexit Ministers resign, is testament to her deviousness.

I think this is the latest one, but here's another one that I post especially for Shurlock and Verbal, as I know that they will thank me if they hadn't come across it before.

Of course it was an amateur production. I accept that the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation do it much better with all our dosh. It's got some of you lot down to a tee, especially Shurlock and Verbal. Glad you liked it, Jeff.

Wizard Jape!

Thanks, pal

I made the mistake of posting somebody's views on Brexit that I agreed with, not knowing that he was an anti-semite. Of course, it could be that some of you EU luvvies post views of some Labour bloke, not realising that they are anti-semites. You continue to have your distorted view of what constitutes racism. It doesn't bother me, as I have no respect for your opinions, especially as you are prepared to go deep into the gutter in insulting others, and not even know where the boundaries of common decency lie.

You really don't have the first idea do you? But as you don't know where the line is, it is pointless in anybody trying to educate you now, if you have come this far in your life without knowing where the boundaries of common decency lie. I have never said that I dislike Jews, in fact I have said that I was an admirer of them in many ways. I have then said that I was not a great admirer of the Arabs. I don't hate them, but there are things about their culture that I don't agree with, such as the way that many of them treat their women as second class citizens for example. Do you approve of that? Silly question really, judging by your views on the wives of posters on here, you probably do.