The Brexit Arms. For all those who like a good drink, a good flounce, & a bit of trickery.

[surferjet]

Pull up a chair & relax......

More like Up Yonder

*RTFT

I agree with independence*

If you RTFT, Boredof you will probably notice that I was responding to, and quoting, a different poster

Seek. Maybe in your head, but the distinction is not clear.
Anyhoo. Moving on.
Politico.eu Have an article on the dismal state of the European Parliament, worth a read.

Bored I don't know if I can read any more about how useless the EP is. Had a good laugh reading back over the last few pages though I like some good pub banter.

Ok for you winter:
Tony Blair needs a name for his new party. Let's suggest some, I'll start:
The IIFY Party (in it for yourself party)

Yes he must have fingers in pies with the EU and is panicking he will loose £££££££.

Evil man!

WrongTrouser Tue 29-Nov-16 15:20:16

You have taken over my soap box wrong. I get what your saying re PT and its what I do not like and no many many people do not make or see that distinction of her teeny tiny disclaimer hence you then have a wild bunch of whipped up harridans all baying for blood.
In some respects you could call it whipping up hate? Hate speech?

Following on from yesterday's discussion on how the UK will have the value of our net contributions to spend at will once we're outside the EU, today's comments by David Davies and Phillip Hammond are interesting.

How does continuing to pay into the EU in return for trade deals sit with Leavers?

InfiniteSheldon Tue 29-Nov-16 18:10:57

Just reading your badge of being out Infinite and it made me

The horror that I feel about this misdirection is compounded by that the fact that if Article 50(2) is ‘triggered’ it implies that the UK government accepts that the EU will decide the conditions of UK’s withdrawal

Just reading that article mango and this of course immediately struck chord. I really like this approach and like her style, not even to play hard ball! Dont play ball, at all.

shall we all email this article to TM

Since law, medicine and even politics are all based on common sense it would seem to me that the main and urgent issue is to disentangle ourselves as soon as possible from the rules and regulations of the EU. Why would we want to engage and discuss “trade deals”. What trade deals? The EU has taken years and years to negotiate a string of trade deals that are not even that advantageous to the UK. Surely the UK could just start its own trading under other arrangements? As an expert on treaty law, I fail to understand why you need any “trade agreements” to trade? I agree with businessmen like Tim Martin of Wetherspoon and Lord Bamford of Bamford JCB that to trade you just trade

Interesting!

Bear, I understand they are looking for sectoral access and he who accesses, pays. Drain the swampbanks

Stonking appraisal of the court situation in the law section of the Times today, by Nicholas Strauss QC. A version was published in the New Law Journal 18/11/16. Might be available online.

Oh Mango thanks for posting that, what a refreshing read! An eagle eye view of things, we have all become so bogged down as she says with this Triggering of artcile 50 we need to look at why we are triggering it at all.

The EU needs the UK far more than the UK needs the EU and we have nothing to gain from “discussions” or further “agreements” – unless such agreements are with non-EU states such as the United States, India, Brazil and China. There is the future

Brilliant. What would you call this - No hard Brexit at all - just exit? San ferry anne.
Great read, thank you.

Bored do you mean this Triggering thing? I got the Times today will have a look

Winter page 64

bored I don't understand your reply.

Are you happy we'll potentially still be paying into the EU in order to retain the level of access we currently have?

'To trade you just trade'. Not really, in real life.

Bear, first of all I think it is gamesmanship, a comment thrown out to catch the reaction. Secondly, if the banks wanted to pay to retain passporting then I'd say that was up to them but I don't think it is worth paying for. And I'd imagine they would look to recoup it by placing bigger fees on the trades we do for Europe.

Since law, medicine and even politics are all based on common sense

Yeah that's what you spend years and £s doing to be a lawyer or a doctor: learning common bloody sense.

Would you be happy with that Bear? Or would it not suit you if FOM is lost and replaced with controlled immigration?

Why do you think it's limited to banks bored?

The way I've read it is that it is for 'access to the single market'.

This isn't about immigration, why does it keep coming back to that?

" Parliament should not be taken as having intended to mislead the electorate , which would be the case if the ref were only advisory"

"The govs best hope may be to reconsider its concession that the ref was advisory before its supreme court appeal is heard"

"It seems extraordinary that the gov, having relentlessly emphasized for more than three years that the people should decide by referendum, should have ever accepted its only advisory". It is hoped in a case as important as this, the point will now be properly argued in the Supreme court."

Interesting Bored thanks for pointing this out! The pages were actually stuck together and I have a back log to read would have missed this.

Well lets hope the Govs legal team, are aware of this line of argument!!!

The law is boils down to whoevers hands it is in to interpret it

Winter, the article was originally linked to by RTB on the westmistender thread - it's an interesting take on it all, isn't it?!

I don't understand why the general content hasn't been picked up yet by the general press or pro-Brexit politicians tbh.

Well maybe they have missed it - as Boris once said - there is a Stockholm syndrome with the EU, we bow to our masters there. Maybe its too mind blowing a concept but its one I like if they are going to keep up this hard line rhetoric, pull the rug out - fuck them basically.