Please can someone tell me the upsides of Brexit

[CleopatrasMum]

Apparently Dominic Raab has said there are many upsides of Brexit. The article in the Guardian that I read this in gave no details of what Raab (presumably) went on to say those upsides were.

Please can someone explain them to me?

Link to article here for what it's worth:

Raab says Brexit will bring 'huge series of upsides' for UK trade

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/06/raab-says-brexit-will-bring-huge-series-of-upsides-for-uk-trade?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[sigh] [again]. If we could get enough MPs to agree an NI only backstop (and I think we could), we could leave in an orderly way as soon as.

We can identify who the hard of thinking are now.

Nothing. Zip. Nada.

@NosyBe2006 - Whilst I agree that a border between ROI and NI is detrimental to the Island of Ireland I could never agree that 17.4 million can be told their vote has to ignored because of EU regulations. The vote to leave was to be free of EU not to remain under EU control.

So what you are saying is that the UK should not be required to uphold their part in an international peace treaty they signed, simply because it is no longer convenient?

Mind you, it's par for the course in terms of the UK attitude towards Ireland but really doesn't invite trust in a country willing to do that.

GFA would not have happened if evolution had not taken place

GFA wouldn't have been needed if the British government hadn't been so fucking awful to Ireland in the first place.

Now you somehow think it's acceptable that they get to restart a war, which they caused in the first place, because it suits their agenda?

whyamidoingthis you said it better than I did!

The WA was an agreed exit strategy between the UK and the EU

No it was not. Voted down three times. Firstly by 230 majority, secondly by 149 majority and thirdly by 58 majority.

It was agreed between the democratically elected UK government (elected after the referendum) and the EU. The red lines were created by the UK government . An NI only backstop was never tested in Parliament.

GFA would not have happened if evolution had not taken place

Are we blaming Darwin for Brexit now? Seriously, though, I don't know what this means.

@NosyBe2006 - No it was not. Voted down three times. Firstly by 230 majority, secondly by 149 majority and thirdly by 58 majority.

Again, you seem to be struggling to understand what went on. The UK prime minister, on behalf of the UK, agreed the WA with the EU. Where Theresa May fucked up, was not agreeing in advance with parliament what was acceptable. The WA was agreed. However, the UK parliament voted it down which prevented it being implemented.

So what you are saying is that the UK should not be required to uphold their part in an international peace treaty they signed, simply because it is no longer convenient

Point has been missed. EU regulations require borders checks between EU and Non EU Countries. If UK leaves the EU without a deal then UK is no longer bound by EU regulations. So it would be the EU that is placing border controls between ROI and NI.

NosyBe2006 it was agreed between the UK government and the EU.

Not proposed by the EU.

You're like a cracked propaganda machine stuck on a broken loop.

You don't understand politics, we know.

But your goady posts about Ireland and your bitter ignorance is getting tiresome.

Go and fucking educate yourself a bit.

Tbe evolution analogy is another load of ignorant bollocks.
NI only backstop. We leave in an orderly way on 31 October.
What's your problem with that?

Point has been missed. EU regulations require borders checks between EU and Non EU Countries. If UK leaves the EU without a deal then UK is no longer bound by EU regulations. So it would be the EU that is placing border controls between ROI and NI.

You have missed the point, entirely.

Why does the British government have the right to tamper with an internationally agreed peace treaty just because it's chucked it's toys out of the pram?

It doesn't. Your inability to understand anything that changes nothing.

@NosyBe2006 - Point has been missed.

The point has not been missed. The point is: the UK signed an international peace treaty. They have obligations under that treaty. Any changes they make in the way they do business must consider the implications to that treaty. That may result in them not being able to do everything thing they want but that's the way the grown up world works.

Where Theresa May fucked up, was not agreeing in advance with parliament what was acceptable

Proving the point that T May was not the sole representative of the UK. The case brought by Gina Miller meant that Brexit had to go through Parliament. Hence preventing T May making decisions by herself.

That T May attempted to keep the legal advice on the WA a secret was criminal which effectively said that EU could force UK to remain in the EU permanently.

How do the remain supporters justify T May attempt to hide the legal advise on WA?

How does EU placing border control between ROI and NI represent tampering by UK?

Two massive mistakes. Having something like this resting on a simple majority. And triggering Article 50 so early.

it was agreed between the UK government and the EU

No it was not. WA voted down three time by, 230, 149 and 58 majorities respectively.

NosyBe2006 nobody, literally nobody is as stupid as you're pretending to be to get a reaction.

You have the entire internet at your disposal, fucking do some research.

WA voted down three time by, 230, 149 and 58 majorities respectively.

Ffs, we know. Stop copy and pasting Wikipedia.

The negotiations were between the UK government and the EU. That is who agreed on the WA.

Parliament voting it down is irrelevant, the terms of the WA were agreed between the Tories and the EU. Which is what you cannot understand.

It was agreed between the democratically elected UK government (elected after the referendum) and the EU

You have missed out the bit after the referendum in which the Courts ruled Brexit had to go through parliament. Also missed out the bit about T May trying to hide the legal advice on the WA.

Why did she do that?

Two massive mistakes. Having something like this resting on a simple majority. And triggering Article 50 so early

Would agree that there appears to have been little or no research done before calling the referendum and later invoking Article 50, but that is now history.

As an individual I would not object to the NI only backstop that Bellini has advocated for some time. However, it was expanded to a UK wide backstop hence WA voted down.

Why was it made a UK wide backstop? Was it DUP or was it Westminster not wanting to be seen discriminating against Scotland as they too, like NI, voted by majority to remain in the EU?

Parliament voting it down is irrelevant

No it is not. Courts ruled that Brexit had to go through Parliament before Article 50 was triggered. Indeed Artcile 50 was put on hold pending ruling by the Courts of the case brought by Gina Miller.

Ok, so having read the full thread, why, in your favourite deities name, are we still doing this? It makes no fucking sense whatsofuckingever, and we need a serious injection of grownups in the room.