Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 01:52 PM

"Well that has to be a unique interpretation for explaining the troubles"
Nothing whatever unique in that statement - a recorded fact confirmed by the many millions of Irish people having lived in Britain built the roads railways, canals, tunnels for the last few centuries and settled peacefully without warfare or social unrest
Irish people have become part of Britain, whereas the British establishment have ruthlessly supposed the inequalities and oppression in the Six Counties and helped to turn Civil Rights protests into a major war
Britain is now busting a gut to ascertain that crimes committed by soldiers during the most recent troubles are not brought to account while at the same time demanding that Republican Crimes be tried
Britain did not, as usually claimed, go into Ireland to keep the peace but to support the Unionists
The affair of the paedophile assassin 'Stakeknife' has already hit the Irish papers - not sure if it's made it to Britain yet
Lot's more to come yet
This behavior is historical - despite British laws which demand of uncovering state papers after a set period, there is still no information available about the execution of the Easter Week Leaders and how tey were 'tried' - the actions that led to Britain losing Ireland
I'm sure you have an alternative picture of British/Irish relations, but I doubt if it ever gets beyond your usual "made up Little Jimmie rubbish"
Why you are here, apart from to preen and bully, it totally beyond me
It certainly isn't to pass on information or to gain any
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 12:32 PM

"Perhaps divest ourselves of the Northern Ireland too. It seems to cost us billions."
Not so easy. It takes two to tango!
As per the good Friday agreement a referendum for reunification can only occur should the Secretary of State consider that at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

This of course assumes the Irish Republic should wish to accept such a potential liability and passes the required legislation to allow for a successful outcome.
"THe relationship should have been mutually beneficial, and would have been if Britain had opted for c-operation rather than the tanks and the Paras"

Well that has to be a unique interpretation for explaining the troubles. Realistically it will gain zero support from serious historians.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 12:04 PM

I'd remind people that at present the term "EU citizens living in the UK" includes all British citizens. At present you all have the right to live and work in all 28 EU countries, together with EFTA countries. I hope you continue to have that right after March 29th because Brexit has been cancelled.

Otherwise the only people to still have that right will be us Irish citizens.

And you have Theresa May trumpeting proudly about taking that right away from you. It's no wonder that the people who are most going to be hit by this, young people, are 84% against Brexit according to recent polls. But of course, they never even had a chance to vote on this issue, and won't unless there's a fresh referendum - described as "a betrayal of democracy" by May.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 11:41 AM

"It seems to cost us billions."
reland is Britain's Tiger by the tail
Ireland was an essential part of the British Empire - the oldest 'Jewel in the Crown
Despite centuries of opposition, it was held onto for both political and economic reasons - 'England's Breadbasket' and 'A safe pair of hands"
It's fight for independence and partial success sett the building blocks of Empire tumbling - statesmen like Gandhi and Nehru wrote of how they took heart from Easter week and the following War of independence
The unequally Protestant Six Counties State turned out to be a Frankenstein creation - recent events (the £1 billion bung) has shown how important politically The North still is to the British Establishment - especially to 'The Conservative and Unionist Party'

THe relationship should have been mutually beneficial, and would have been if Britain had opted for c-operation rather than the tanks and the Paras
'Gunboaat mentality still remains foremost in British policy - both abroad and at home
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 11:19 AM

I understand that free movement between the Irish Republic and the UK, exists irrespective of the EU. However, given that Irish insistence on the backstop seems to have been a bit of a pest, it might be time to reconsider both this and the dual passport stuff. Time for a proper clean break. Perhaps divest ourselves of the Northern Ireland too. It seems to cost us billions.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 11:15 AM

"Why else be here?"
Various reasons
Not the point
We are talking about who si likely to lose the most from closing borders
Europe has achieved a degree of stability - Britain never has; not if people can be working and living under the poverty line, it hasn't
Whatever exists in the form of trade will be most effected when free movement stops, both in cost and in movement of goods
Please do not act as if you have all the answers when in fact you have none
Your arrogance ceased to be amusing last week - it is now sickening
Only ignorant people are arrogant and those the most ignorant are the most arrogant
Nobody believes you as re as good as youi obviously do
Wonder if your position as an absentee landlords will be affected if the borders close
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:54 AM

Britain would lose hands down any 'sending home' pissing competition - Any European looking for work in Borderless Europe has a far greater choice of work than British returnees forced to come home would have

Around 3.8 million people living in the UK in 2017 were citizens of another EU country. That's about 6% of the UK population. They obviously regard the UK as a land of milk and honey! Why else be here?

As usual, your argument does not compute!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:31 AM

"Ia(i)ns' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens."
Then they have no relevance here"

All countries try to keep tabs on the number of foreigners within their borders. If such data was of no relevance why do you think money is wasted to collate such data?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:06 AM

"Ians' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens."
Then they have no relevance here - apart from a hard Border, Brexit should not affect movement between Britain and Ireland in any way
THE EU have already confirmed this
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-and-uk-citizens-common-travel-area-rights-protected-1.3337125
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:06 AM

"Ians' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens."
Then they have no relevance here - apart from a hard Border, Brexit should not affect movement between Britain and Ireland in any way
THE EU have already confirmed this
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-and-uk-citizens-common-travel-area-rights-protected-1.3337125
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:04 AM

From the De Vere Group

https://www.devere-group.com/news/Rolls-Royce-EU-relocation-Brexit.aspx

From Derbshire Live

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/business/rolls-royce-confirms-transfer-work-2319550

From Capital FM

https://www.capitalfm.com/eastmids/radio/news/local/rolls-royce-confirms-its-moving-some-work/

And nobody is claiming that the European Aviation Safety Authority is the only body internationally to set standards, the point is that unless/until we negotiate access/membership we have a problem.

@ Nigel;

"Do you honestly think that American businesses (or any other major manufacturing nation) have to get their engines approved in the EU?"

No mate. Did you honestly think that I did? Unfortunately, we cannot 'take back control' over aircraft engine design. We're governed by rules which we have to take.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Certification_of_Aircraft,_Design_and_Production

You knew all that when you made your post, of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:50 AM

Ians' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens. I checked on the BBC web site.

@ Nigel, read below an extract of what it said in the Business Section of the Telegraph some time ago. It seems that this week the decision was finally taken, which is how come BBC Radio 4 reported on it.


Rolls-Royce is preparing to relocate the “signing off” of British-made airliner engines to Europe, as the EU aviation authority will hold the right to certify they are safe to fly in the event of a hard Brexit.
The iconic British brand - and leading member of the country’s £31.8bn-a-year aerospace sector - is preparing the contingency plan to protect itself from huge disruption if negotiations stall over Britain leaving the EU.
Without such an arrangement, sources inside the company say that design, manufacturing and maintenance of Rolls-Royce engines built at its Derby base could grind to a halt if Britain suffers a “cliff-edge” departure from the EU.
The UK was a founder member of the European...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:42 AM

Do you honestly think that American businesses (or any other major manufacturing nation) have to get their engines approved in the EU?

Yes. The EU nations will not allow the sale of goods that do not meet the standards set by the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:36 AM

Let's take Rolls Royce. It was on the radio this week that the team who get approval for engine designs is leaving GB for the EU because only teams based in the EU can approve engines for flying. Ironically, the Telegraph discussed plans to do this by referring to the iconic British brand, but guess who owns Rolls Royce? BMW. ANd before that Volkswagon owned it.

Oh, well if it was on the radio it must be true.
Do you honestly think that American businesses (or any other major manufacturing nation) have to get their engines approved in the EU?
It would seem you're only reporting part of the story, or misconstruing it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:27 AM

"Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. "
Ireland doesn't count in these figures - the Treaty established a 'special relationship' between the U.K. and the Republic which has no effect whatever on what happens with Brexit
Britain would lose hands down any 'sending home' pissing competition - Any European looking for work in Borderless Europe has a far greater choice of work than British returnees forced to come home would have
Britain is in the pretty unique situation where it is now possible to be in work while, at the same time living in poverty - nice thing to be able to offer returning Brits

Over 14 million people, about one in five of the UK population are in poverty, according to the Joseph Rountree Foundation. Of them 8.2 million are working-age adults, 4.1 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Eight million people live in poverty in families where at least one person is working.

"Ho Hum! More nonsense."
It is getting beyond a joke that this feller can continue to abuse and insult the way he does without being checked by the mods - at least two of his mates have had their arses kicked off this forum for lesser serious behaviour
I really thought they had scraped rock bottom last week with the thread they got closed - apparently not
How long Lord - how long!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:27 AM

"Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. "
Ireland doesn't count in these figures - the Treaty established a 'special relationship' between the U.K. and the Republic which has no effect whatever on what happens with Brexit
Britain would lose hands down any 'sending home' pissing competition - Any European looking for work in Borderless Europe has a far greater choice of work than British returnees forced to come home would have
Britain is in the pretty unique situation where it is now possible to be in work while, at the same time living in poverty - nice thing to be able to offer returning Brits

Over 14 million people, about one in five of the UK population are in poverty, according to the Joseph Rountree Foundation. Of them 8.2 million are working-age adults, 4.1 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Eight million people live in poverty in families where at least one person is working.

"Ho Hum! More nonsense."
It is getting beyond a joke that this feller can continue to abuse and insult the way he does without being checked by the mods - at least two of his mates have had their arses kicked off this forum for lesser serious behaviour
I really thought they had scraped rock bottom last week with the thread they got closed - apparently not
How long Lord - how long!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:24 AM

we all voted in the knowledge that clean water was dependent on EU chemicals.

Yeah right! Project fear in top gear. (Unstable chemicals?volatile? did they bother to check with a chemist?)


http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6892/michael_gove_from_brexit_hero_to_political_clown

and from Gaia Fawkes

https://order-order.com/2018/11/26/dehydrated-zombie-brexit/


I do recommend guido's comments. Very pithy!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:08 AM

Also, I disagree that the 'partition' of Ireland was really one 'country' partitioning another; it was the UK divesting itself of a bit. Different thing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:05 AM

A couple of memorable quotes from grandstanding bliar blair:

   “If the British people vote no, they vote no. You can’t then start bringing it back until they vote yes.”

    “If the British people vote no in this referendum, that is their verdict. That is absolutely clear.”

How best to remind him I ask myself?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:59 AM

The UN estimate for 2016 suggests just over 500,000 Irish in the UK and around 10% of the UK population are able to claim Irish citizenship by virtue of having at least one Irish grandparent. Britain and Ireland have allowed unfettered travel and residence under the CTA long before the EU was even dreamed of.

Citizens of Ireland and the United Kingdom living in each other’s countries will not have to apply for residency rights to protect existing social and travel entitlements, the foreign office in London has confirmed.

The agreement reached in Brussels earlier this month(Dec.2017) “means the rights of Irish and British citizens under the Common Travel Area (CTA) are protected after the UK leaves the EU”, the foreign office declared.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:36 AM

Well, glad to see some of the 2 billion put aside for No Deal preparations is going on ensuring we can continue to import the chemicals needed for clean water from the EU. This issue was well rehearsed in the run up to the referendum, and we all voted in the knowledge that clean water was dependent on EU chemicals.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1059650/brexit-news-philip-hammond-no-deal-money-preparations-theresa-may-eu

Awaiting Stanron's comments about how much more they will lose y not selling us their water purifying chemicals than we will lose by not selling them ours. :)

I like having Europeans living in GB. Variety is the spice of life.

Giving up Brexit pondering for Xmas. Speak in the new year.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:14 AM

Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. Brexit isn't going to alter that, unless we follow Jim's logic and cut Ireland as a whole off completely.   We should maybe get rid of the dual Irish GB passport business as well because I for one resent the fact that people with Irish ancestors will still get UE passports whereas I won't be able to. Not fair. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:00 AM

Let's take Rolls Royce. It was on the radio this week that the team who get approval for engine designs is leaving GB for the EU because only teams based in the EU can approve engines for flying. Ironically, the Telegraph discussed plans to do this by referring to the iconic British brand, but guess who owns Rolls Royce? BMW. ANd before that Volkswagon owned it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:58 AM

How about if they decide to send home all the Brits working there - maybe the unemployed 36,000 will find jobs stacking shelves in Sainsburys to keep Britain's employment figures up
Take that
Jim Carroll

Ho Hum! More nonsense. Below, the facts.

1.3 million people born in the UK live in other EU countries
Around 3.8 million people living in the UK in 2017 were citizens of another EU country. That's about 6% of the UK population.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:55 AM

On the contrary, we have voted to some out of a system where BMWs can be sold from the EU to GB without trade tariffs. Looking at one of Trump's ideas, we could think about putting a 20% tariff on cars imported from Germany.

The other question would be about GB based manufacturing owned by BMW. Take the Mini, for example.

I cannot find a more up to date source at short notice, but in 2016 the Independent newspaper reported that SIX British-based companies owned by BMW, including at the time Rolls Royce warned of British job losses in the event of tariffs being introduced after Brexit.

The same article stated that

For BMW Group, more than half of Minis built and virtually all the engines and components made in the UK are exported to the EU, with over 150,000 new cars and many hundreds of thousands of parts imported from Europe each year

This isn't the ravings of some commie, it is from the mouths of industry executives and managers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Stanron's post makes no sense to me. For I do not know anybody who imagines that the Germans are planning to refuse to sell BMWs to people in GB after Brexit. The idea is ridiculous.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:28 AM

Congratulations. Enjoy your meal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:27 AM

"Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials"
Don't rise to this brained insecuro - he only comes here because nobody else wants to have anything to do with him and he can abuse away to his hearts content from the shadows of anonymity without fear of retribution
He's little more than a cyberstalker
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:27 AM

"Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials"
Don't rise to this brained insecuro - he only comes here because nobody else wants to have anything to do with him and he can abuse away to his hearts content from the shadows of anonymity without fear of retribution
He's little more than a cyberstalker
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:11 AM

Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials. Don't forget to buy the 30-day dry-hung sirloins at Waitrose this morning, dear (actually true! Only cos it's our anniversary tomorrow...)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 05:39 AM

""We will no longer sell you our BMWs and Mercs. Take that!""
How about if they decide to send home all the Brits working there - maybe the unemployed 36,000 will find jobs stacking shelves in Sainsburys to keep Britain's employment figures up
Take that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:49 AM ..........

I wonder why he feels a need to boast all the time? Must be insecurity!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:55 AM

Trying to discuss the finer points of finance with the left is as futile as discussing astrophysics with a lamprey.They even share similar traits. The left largely leech off the public teat therefore have no concept as to how money is generated, only how to squander it. Just look at the state of the economy after a hard left administration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:49 AM

This ultra-communist leftie owns a big house in the country (lovely sea views) outright, has a huge garden and has two cars in the capacious driveway, one of them a sports car. Is there a bottle of Prosecco chilling, dear?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:45 AM

They are eight times bigger than us. They'll manage without us. You should have listened to Start The Week this morning. All round the world, people are scratching their heads as to why a little country should be cutting itself adrift. The world is dominated by big hitters such as Russia, China, the US and India. We are making ourselves into small fry. They don't particularly need us as trading partners and will call the shots in any trade deals we try to achieve. At the same time, trade with the EU will tougher. Our economy, on every available forecast, will shrink. But you brexiteers are fine with all that. You call it "taking back control."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:14 AM

>

Steve Shaw wrote: Wow, don't you just LOVE the little Englander hubris here? Negotiate what? With whom? From what position of strength, like wot we 'ave not got? We piss the EU off, the EU wot is eight times bigger than us, and depend on deals that'll take years to seal with countries that aren't interested in us and don't need us, and you think that all that'll be better than wot we 'ave now?   Pie in the sky! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Once again the "Little Englader" sneer. Is that the best you've got? It's not very good. Obviously I don't expect an ultra communist lefty to understand this but the arguement is based on something called the 'profit motive'.

When the Germans sell us a car it costs them, let's say, X amount of money to produce and they sell it to us for X plus a little bit. Actually it's more likely to be X plus quite a big bit. That big, or little bit is their profit. They use that profit to employ a workforce, maintain their infrastructure, buy supplies and pay their taxes. After all that there should be a surplus, some of which will be a return to investors.

OK, the day after a No Deal Brexit. Is the EU going to say to the UK "We will no longer sell you our BMWs and Mercs. Take that!"

If they do, the result will be that they will have less moeny, because we have not bought their cars, and we will have more money, because we have not bought their cars. Who hurts more? Who has the better bargaining position?

I honestly don't expect you to get it. Apparently the left thinks that all money grows on trees and you just pluck it when you want it. Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 03:54 AM

Perhaps if those advocating Britain having "the strongest hand" explained what that "strongest hand" was, it might help
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:13 PM

The EU is not "delaying discussions on future trade," Nigel, much as you'd like that to be the case. And you really ought to bone up on the backstop. You seem to not get it at all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:09 PM

3)Abandon BREXIT entirely (BREXIT EXIT) as though the first referendum had gone the other way AND make it a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for any future single choice referendum to leave.(assuming the EU will have you).

The second part of that would be impossible. A future parliament could always repeal any legislation that attempted to bind it in that way. Parliament always has the right to repeal or reverse any legislation, it's a fundamental part of our democracy.

I still haven't heard any justification for the assertion that a referendum at this time, giving a second chance to the people to decide what should happen, would be "a betrayal of democracy", with its implication that Ireland and Denmark betrayed democracy in similar circumstances in giving its electorate a opportunity of thinking again, and that those countries are less committed to democracy than this one is.

Actually the principle that is involved is the same as that in the previous paragraph. Just as parliament cannot bind itself in its future action, nor can the voters. That's why we can vote the other way in any election - and a referendum is really just a different kind of election.

The argument that if the decision in a fresh referendum was to remain, the minority who had voted for Brexit would call for a third one, doesn't stand up to critical examination. Yes, of course they might, and they'd have every right to do so. That's what those calling for us to leave the EU had been doing for years, calling for a vote to reverse the previous referendum which had confirmed our membership of what was then the Common Market. And, as with the 2016 referendum, those who had won would do everything they could to stop that dream and being successful. All part of our imperfect democratic process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:05 PM

"Leave now, negotiate later."

Wow, don't you just LOVE the little Englander hubris here? Negotiate what? With whom? From what position of strength, like wot we 'ave not got? We piss the EU off, the EU wot is eight times bigger than us, and depend on deals that'll take years to seal with countries that aren't interested in us and don't need us, and you think that all that'll be better than wot we 'ave now?   Pie in the sky! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:51 PM

Stanron. I really appreciate your answer. It means to me that it is far better to submit the UK to a referendum because should it go No. 3 the population has to take the blame independent of any party.

Once the referendum was over with the public could vote for the 'responsible' parties to administer it.

I think putting such a complicated decision to a deceptively simple vote and a simple majority rule was not a particularly salutary way to go BUT now we've got a much better idea of where we're going and a referenfum is the way to get past the fallout of the first referendum.

Again, the EU has been kind and presented you with a straightforward choice.

It's the clearest path forward. The cherry on top would be if Trump tweets against it. That would be the ultimate recommendation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:45 PM

After the experience with the agreed backstop which was negotiated a year ago in order to enable negotiations to proceed, it is highly unlikely that the EU will agree to any such pseudo-"clarification". In the case of the backstop agreement the UK reinterpreted it, and misinterpreted it, so as to provide a cover for an attempt to back out of what they had agreed a year later.

We have not yet reached an agreement on how Brexit will be effected. Anything which has been suggested so far is a negotiating position, and can still be changed. This is the EU position. "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
By delaying discussing future trade the EU are ignoring their own guidelines. 'Brexiteers' may not find this surprising.

I have quoted the guidelines before, but people (usually remainers) insist on ignoring them in this discussion.
Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately. The Union will approach the negotiations with unified positions, and will engage with the United Kingdom exclusively through the channels set out in these guidelines and in the negotiating directives. So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union.
3. The core principles set out above should apply equally to the negotiations on an orderly withdrawal, to any preliminary and preparatory discussions on the framework for a future relationship, and to any form of transitional arrangements.
From the EU's own guidelines : Here

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:40 PM

Another referendum is no more a "betrayal of the referendum" than the 2016 referendum was a betrayal of the 1975 referendum. If we have another referendum, all those people who voted leave can still vote leave, and they'll get what they want. What are you afraid of? That a few of your leave compatriots will have changed their minds in the light of all the new information we now have and swing the vote? Give over! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:09 PM

I got his number eons ago Nigel, glad to see you coming around.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:08 PM

Of the options 1, 2 or 3 I prefer 2. Cold Brexit. Leave now, negotiate later. This would give us, the UK, the strongest hand.

Option 1. Brerxit May leaves the UK with a weaker bargaining hand but attempts to placify those people who don't want to leave the EU in ther first place.

Option 3 is a betrayal of the referendum. Any party that enforced option 3 would be political toast for the next 30 years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:04 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM
Well you're wrong about everything all the time, Niggler, but I don't go on about it.
Mind you, I am tempted...

Once again, shown to be wrong, cannot accept it, reduced to insult and name calling.

Maybe I should start misusing his name (as he does mine) and calling him "Steve Shat" after all, he posts a load of crap!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:46 PM

The past:
I just watched a very sympathetic documentary about the life of Sir Winston Churchill. Even in his era, they were talking in the U.K. about a "United States of Europe" (U.S.E.) I think the European Union is what they got. It wasn't perfect but the main goal of no more world wars out of Europe was achieved. That and NATO are not small potatoes.

The present:
I think a multiple choice referendum is the best way out for the current UK:

1)BREXIT MAY - Accept the terms as promulgated by EU and Theresa May.
2)Cold BREXIT. Leave now and negotiate after.
3)Abandon BREXIT entirely (BREXIT EXIT) as thought the first referendum had gone the other way AND make it a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for any future single choice referendum to leave.(assuming the EU will have you).

Those are the clear seamless choices UK has because the EU has laid down the law. They've done you a favor and kept it simple.

Since this is multiple choice you have to determine if it will be a simple majority win situation or you want to have a minimum percentage of electorate on the winning selection. But that is simple enough for anyone to understand and gets the political 'leaders' out of the loop since they seem to be bogged down by the situation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:25 PM

One of the most dishonest claims made by what is still referred to as "the government", though it has ceased to be an effective government, is that Theresa May is seeking "clarifications" about the withdrawal agreement. In reality what she is seeking is to find some form of words which might enable her to obscure and fudge the meaning of that agreement.

After the experience with the agreed backstop which was negotiated a year ago in order to enable negotiations to proceed, it is highly unlikely that the EU will agree to any such pseudo-"clarification". In the case of the backstop agreement the UK reinterpreted it, and misinterpreted it, so as to provide a cover for an attempt to back out of what they had agreed a year later.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM

Well you're wrong about everything all the time, Niggler, but I don't go on about it.

Mind you, I am tempted...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:11 PM

"You may add to that that the referendum was held at a time when the state was at war with Britain."

What state and what war was that then? Pray enlighten us all!
Is this another story that starts Once upon a time?