We can’t veto our own application (we don’t get a vote) but there was another letter (also in DT?) suggesting we could bung Malta a ‘donation’ of £1b to vote against an extension.
Much cheaper for us than £39b under May’s deal, or even the cost of a delay, but a significant sum to the Maltese…
I was reading an article that indicates France does not wish the extend A50 after October.
could this be the end of this phase of brexit??
Oh please, please, please let France veto it, they vetoed us joining although the 60s. Maybe Macron sees himself as the new de Gaulle.
I want all the remoaners in Westminster there for a photo call if this happened and one of Barnier and his cronies…
This could then put the PM on the front foot, free of all constraints with the eu and say you don’t want us to go without a deal and neither do we, but what are you going to do to stop it. This is what we want or it’s see you later.
Failing that a billion is a small price to pay to get out let the PM go as above.
but it isn’t what anyone wants…
No, just the majority?
if we are talking about “leave” yes
but i thought Teflon was indicating that “we don’t want a deal” - no body (UK Govn nor the EU) wants a “no deal” situation
I actually gave him a little credit and thought “this is what we want” referred to the terms of a deal…
No with a veto, it is effectively the much feared among a few, no deal. In that situation the PM can say we don’t really want this, and say to the eurocrats, this is what we want the deal to look like or we just go, inline the with veto. Put the ball back in the court of the eu and say we’re going on this date, get back to me when you’ve sorted it and if I don’t like it, well leave.
As I have said all long not having the option to just leave with no deal is poor practice. Unfortunately the idiots and political idealists (Socialists) in parliament don’t understand this and want to tie the hands of anyone going to Brussels. Even if we have a GE, whoever goes will have no negotiating power as they don’t have the walk away option. Unless say if we got a mish mash government of the remainers, and they repeal their own Machiavellian efforts, (how ironic would that be) because they can’t get anywhere and to avoid getting stuck with whatever the eurocrats tell us we’re having, which will stop us acting as a self-determining nation. No deal off the table means a position of weakness in negotiating.
There are many circumstances in our day to day lives where not having the option to walk away would be detrimental financially to you and financially advantageous to others.
Can’t work out if Kenneth Clarke, Nicholas Sommes, Phillip Hammond and Dominic Grieve are " idiots" or " political idealists" ( non-socialist of course)
Well why do you think that???
Actually leaving with no deal puts us in a worse negotiating position.
A deal is not the deal to end all deals. It’s the initial agreement which sees us through in the short term and either side then cam propose amendments or improvements.
Just like the backstop - a temporary last resort measure that no one wants to use. If a proposal is offered that would work in its place (now or later), then it could be removed from the deal.
Apologies big_g. I was referring to Teflon’s last post.
It’s not about actually leaving with No Deal it’s about having a credible threat to do so to put yourself in a stronger negotiating position.
If you take the Nuclear Option off the table you put yourself in a position of weakness.
And if they call your bluff or you overplay your hand?
We’ve already threatened no deal and got nothing extra for it.
@Giminion Imagine a footballer who has been successful and the club want to keep him, goes into the manager and says I will leave, unless you pay me £250000/week, knowing he can get it elsewhere. But if his agent had he can’t just leave, the club can pay £100/week and he can say or do nothing.
The opposition are the agent hamstringing the government.
Brussels are unlikely to call our bluff as they don’t want it as they will lose out on free money. The PM can’t threaten anything as they have their hands tied time and time again.
@celticmentor1 the Conservatives who 'crossed the house" or had the Whip removed are IMO people who are scared of being in a government charged with having to sort trade deals, foreign policy etc rather than just letting Brussels do it and saying it’s not our fault we had no say if it’s unpopular and seem to like the idea of ceding control to Brussels. So opposing their party leader who unlike the previous one, doesn’t seem to want to pander to people who won’t support his line of action, has resulted in what it has.
The footballer would in most cases be under contract which is why the agent is saying they can’t just leave without the club’s permission. But likewise the club can’t reduce the pay.
The other problem with the analogy is “knowing he can get it elsewhere”. We don’t know that. We certainly won’t be able to start with. If we leave on No deal WTO rules with everyone in the world then we will be negotiating with everyone else from a position of weakness as we will need the deal.
We would be like the out of contract footballer who stormed out of his previous club despite having 3 years left on the contract, leaving the club to take a financial hit. He needs a new club to earn money, play football and have the training/medical support. Knowing his unreliability and desperation to sign he would get offered a lower wage than his skill may usually attract
Threatening No Deal while Parliament is actively working to block it from happening is very different to No Deal looming on the horizon.
If we were to have theGeneral Election that Boris wanted and if he was able to walk into the 17th October meeting with a majority and a very real threat of No Deal I do think the EU would have to blink.
The problem with the whole Brexit debate is that it is long on opinion and short on fact. While Kenneth Clarke is overtly pro-european the last thing the recorded facts indicate is that he is “scared” of anything. Whether you agree with his politics or not he introduced GP fundholders and Hospital Trusts. As Chancellor, as the economy recovered from the recession of the early 1990s he reduced the basic rate of income tax from 25% to 23%, reduced UK Government spending as a percentage of GDP, and reduced the budget deficit from £50.8 billion in 1993 to £15.5 billion in 1997. Interest rates, inflation and unemployment all fell. The others have a similar positive record in government. Perhaps they just think that the current approach is not in the long-term interests of the UK?
And being in part of a club that has one size fits no one policies and is looking to try and unify (politically, economically, foreign policy and defence) 27 disparate nations is in the long term interests of whom? These 27 have nothing in common with each other. Little countries who pay hardly anything in wanting some “free money” and people from those countries looking to get a seat on the gravy train.
The eu “parliament” is a total mess of unholy alliances and total mish mash of political groups, consisting of MEPs who don’t actually represent anyone, except themselves. And if we want to continue to elect national MPs who are to all effects impotent and just get things constantly foisted on them, then the eu is the way to go.
You also have to consider this bloc imposes production quotas on food producers so that perfectly good food gets wasted to keep prices up to bolster less efficient and niche producers and then gives them money, something is wrong. It’s a nonsense and never made any sense before I hit my teens when my dad explained food and drink “mountains and lakes” to me in the 70s. As my dad said it just keeps prices artificially high. When these are sold off they are sold to other countries at below market price, not re-distributed across the countries who have had to ‘waste’ it. Why is the eu so against a free market?
There are many more countries in the world we can set up our own trade agreements and other things, that will be beneficial to UK citizens. We can offer all sorts of inducements to get companies here, rather than the eu, otherwise known as a competitive market. Leaving the eu is a long game and for the sake of our children and so on, this needs to be done and if our politicians and CS aren’t up to self-determinatrion, the door’s over there.
If the remoaners got their way and we went back tails between our legs, we would according to things I’ve read lose the rebate we get, so increasing membership fees by c.£4billion.
So why do we elect MEPs who’re only interested in representing themselves?