Advanced search

There really is no point trying to persuade Leavers....

(524 Posts)
Closertotheheart Tue 25-Jun-19 19:21:56

As the title suggests really. There is no point trying to reason a debate with them as they are totally tunnel-visioned. Loads of them seem to think we should leave without a deal and go on to WTO rules.

They blame the Remainers in parliament for us having not left yet.

They blame Remainers in general for, well, seemingly anything and everything.

They blame the EU for us not having left yet.

They spout myth as if it was fact.

I despair. There really is no point trying to reason with them.

I'm at the point where I feel there is nothing left to say on the topic so let them have their 'victory' so at least they will have no one to blame.

TheElementsSong Wed 03-Jul-19 18:13:40

Do we like MPs now or not.

Do keep up.

Some MPs are baddies who voted against the WA because they're traitorous Remoaners thwarting the Willy of the People and frustrating Brexit. Some MPs are goodies who voted against the WA because they're True BeLeaving Guardians of the Willy of The People and the WA is not True Pure Brexit which is No Deal Crash Out Only.

The way we tell which MPs are baddies and which MPs are goodies, despite the fact that both groups voted against the WA, is by looking into their souls. Or something.

1tisILeClerc Wed 03-Jul-19 18:27:43

{LeClerc, I have never read the Daily Mail.
Why on earth don't you call it by its name.}

It is 'published' daily, although it is a bit like a rodent in being continually incontinent, and it fails to either report issues correctly or give a balanced view.
It also seems to be a MN 'pet name' for it, perhaps some 'woman' thing, who can tell.
The comments are great but depressing if they are any sort of reflection of the UK public in that it suggests that even counting the 'assets' of the strangely bikini'd women on the sidebar stretches the intellect of the commenters.

1tisILeClerc Wed 03-Jul-19 18:33:51

{they realised that WA was rubbish and voted against it 3 times as it was remaining in the EU}

Yes, when MPs started to look at it they realised how much the UK is going to lose, on one hand, and the enormity of having to rewrite or modify 585 pages of legal treaties.
'Selling' the things that the UK is going to lose to the public will be tough.
To think that it means the UK will stay in the EU is particularly ridiculous unless you can't understand the two words 'Withdrawal Agreement' although it's full title helps.

bellinisurge Wed 03-Jul-19 19:16:16

"Willy of the People " @TheElementsSong , I actually laughed out loud at that one and I thought I was only able to summon up rueful chuckles on this subject.😂

Closertotheheart Wed 03-Jul-19 19:26:28

Closer, how do you know people were drawn in or hoodwinked?

Ask your average Sun reader what they thought of the EU 5-10 years ago. What bits of it did they like/didn't they like. Go on.

Mistigri Wed 03-Jul-19 19:42:52

When you see people claiming with a straight face that passing the withdrawal agreement would have meant "remaining in the EU" then you can be certain that they are being hoodwinked and manipulated by someone.

Bearbehind Wed 03-Jul-19 20:12:40

I do actually think that passing the WA would have meant effectively staying in the EU. Just on much worse terms.

That’s why I can’t support it.

If we are going to do this shite then let’s have no deal and let Leavers really see what they’ve done.

Bearbehind Wed 03-Jul-19 20:13:08

Sorry - do this with TMs red lines still in place.

1tisILeClerc Wed 03-Jul-19 20:22:10

The WA is only a transitional period where, as negotiated in the PD, the UK can leave as fast and as completely as it wants. The end result of the (originally proposed) 2 years is that the UK is out.
If the PD were to be modified at the beginning of the transition, then maybe the UK can keep some things it would like.
During the transition the UK will be 'IN' but there would be an end date proposed which everyone can work to and prepare for.
Well, that was the plan originally but it looks like the UK are just going to bugger around forever.
As the UK is the one leaving, it doesn't get to make 'red lines' that impinge on the EU. It is 'accept the EU offer or nothing'.
If the UK wants something better then it ought to grow up.

Mistigri Wed 03-Jul-19 20:27:45

I do actually think that passing the WA would have meant effectively* staying in the EU. Just on much worse terms.*

This is absolutely wrong. If the U.K. were "effectively staying in the EU" then you wouldn't need either the Irish backstop or the deal on citizen's rights.

Bearbehind Wed 03-Jul-19 20:30:05

Effectively in so much as nothing much would change except we’d lost our seat at the table.

LifeContinues Thu 04-Jul-19 02:12:03

I do actually think that passing the WA would have meant effectively staying in the EU. Just on much worse terms

That’s why I can’t support it

Correct. That is why MPs voted against it three times. First by the biggest Majority in UK history of 230. Second by 149. Third by 58.

LifeContinues Thu 04-Jul-19 02:29:16

Again, are you for No Deal or against it *@LifeContinues ? Or, like Johnson, Hunt, Corbyn and the rest, are you pretending not to hear the question?*

I think No Deal is the most likely outcome. UK have rejected the WA 3 times and EU have indicated that WA can't be re-visited. That leaves No Deal unless there is a change between the next PM being selected.

I would have preferred a Deal. However, giving the task of negotiating a deal with EU to someone who does not want UK to leave the UK (T May) was always going to be a failure.

Would a Muslim get excited and try hard to succeed if they were tasked with selling Pork Chops? I think not as you are asking them to do something they do not believe in.

Would the centre forward playing for Manchester City try hard if he was asked to take a penalty on behalf on Manchester United in a penalty shoot out? I think not as if successful he is promoting a result he does not want.

LifeContinues Thu 04-Jul-19 02:32:08

And how can it be a Remain WA if the terms are less favourable than the deal we have now?

Reason it was rejected as the temporary backstop meant that UK was still in the EU which limits the UK ability to seek independent trade deals outside EU.

LifeContinues Thu 04-Jul-19 02:37:10

Effectively in so much as nothing much would change except we’d lost our seat at the table

Correct. In the Club, but without a voice. Worst negotiation in history. Thankfully MP's kicked it out 3 times. Hence T May (a remain voter) has had to step down.

1tisILeClerc Thu 04-Jul-19 08:22:59

Are you trying to be stupid or does it just come naturally?
Failure by leavers to understand basic English is making this project very difficult.
The WA is a WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT which means that the UK will be OUT of the EU.
The PD defines how long the UK takes to do this, as responsible people know that undoing 40 years of legislation cannot happen immediately in zero time. The EU suggested a reasonable period to achieve this would be 2 years, to which Theresa agreed, hence the original plan for 2 years transition.

Jason118 Thu 04-Jul-19 08:28:14

In the club but without a voice but only for the transition period? Why is it such a problem when we could then make all of those easiest and great deals we were sold during the referendum? It's the fact that we didn't get cake that annoys ERG and the like and absolutely nothing to do with what's best for the country. (Largely) male pride and ego are a big part of the problem.

1tisILeClerc Thu 04-Jul-19 09:03:31

{In the club but without a voice but only for the transition period?}

Yes, to stop the UK deliberately messing up the EP during the transition period. Yes it is a bit of a gamble for the UK in that the EU MIGHT make some rules that would affect the UK during this time but the EU are not stupid and they know that the UK will always have a relationship with the EU.

bellinisurge Thu 04-Jul-19 09:43:27

The all UK backstop is only because of this fantasy that NI is the same as the rest of the UK - apart from civil rights, that is. Based in n being in political hock to the DUP. If there had been a border in the sea with NI as a special economic zone from the get go, would you have supported WA @LifeContinues ?

bellinisurge Thu 04-Jul-19 09:43:57

I mean the all UK transition terms.

LifeContinues Thu 04-Jul-19 10:12:07

The WA is a WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT which means that the UK will be OUT of the EU

So why did T May want to keep the attorney general legal advice from becoming public knowledge? Maybe take a look at the link

I don't claim to be a Legal expert, but the advice given in Article 16 with respect to the Northern Ireland backstop only being temporary until a permanent solution was agreed between UK and EU is clear to me which was:

Therefore, despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangement, in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place, in whole or part, as set out therein. Further, the Withdrawal Agreement cannot provide a legal means of compelling the EU to conclude such an agreement

In simple terms there would have been nothing to prevent EU from objecting to all and any suggestion as to how a hard border could be avoided.

Article 30 goes on to read:

In conclusion, the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if the parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement.

In simple terms this means the UK could be stuck in a temporary customs union forever pending agreement between EU and UK even if both EU and UK had agreed to disagree.


LifeContinues Thu 04-Jul-19 10:16:28

would you have supported WA *@LifeContinues ?*

No because the wording of the WA with respect to the backstop protocol opens the door for EU to stall the negotiations forever and UK would have no mechanism to withdraw from or terminate the WA even if both EU and UK agree to disagree.

bellinisurge Thu 04-Jul-19 10:29:21

So @LifeContinues , what sort of Withdrawal Agreement would you have?

1tisILeClerc Thu 04-Jul-19 10:38:56

It is not in the EU's interests to force the UK to stay, but so far after 3 years the UK has shown bad faith in so many things and the EU rightly needs to ensure the border issue is not trashed by the UK.
Had the UK started negotiations like grown ups from the word go, then things might have been different.
The UK will only be 'stuck' if it refuses to grow up and negotiate.
The EU have said that even if the UK departs with 'no deal' then it will not open any further negotiations until something that will look very like the WA is signed.
Maybe the UK should get some proper negotiators and try acting responsibly to start to sort things out.
Pretending that the UK can refuse to pay the £39 Billion, and holds 'all the cards' does not wash with the rest of the world, so the quicker the UK buckles down and talks sense the better.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »