Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

personally i am perfectly happy to accept what has been tabled, and would equally have accepted had the referendum been to remain

is it in the best interests of the country at large?
given the result of the referendum, it looks to me that a pretty good compromise has been reached .... whatever the rabids may think, a compromise was always inevitable

if you don't like it that much, then feel free to emigrate - to venezuela perhaps

Cynic, Some would like to come back if the UK had a clean break from the EU to take advantage of the NHS and enjoy the booming conditions that would follow, plus the improving climate as the UK gets warmer.

oh i see .... so you don't mind leeching off the system when it suits you then

i wonder if you'll be so keen if (God forbid) corbyn and his marxist friends ever get elected

as for your pipe dream of "clean break"!!! ....... trying wiring up a few brain cells and you'ld realise that was never on the cards, and also that "no brexit deal" is not the silver bullet that you delusionally imagine it is

The Political Declaration

Here's a quick Interpretation by John Rentoul, Political Commentator, The Independent

What the political declaration says:

The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms.

What it really means: The fourth paragraph of the draft goes right to the heart of the problem. The first half talks about the “indivisibility of the four freedoms” – namely goods, services, capital and labour.

What the document says: It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.

What it really means: The next sentence of the same paragraph puts up in lights that “free movement of people” will end. In the previous version, this was buried so deep some experts missed it. But if the freedoms are indivisible, that means the UK cannot have free movement of goods, services and capital. That contradiction is not solved by the rest of the document.

What the document says: The economic partnership should ensure no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors, with ambitious customs arrangements that, in line with the Parties' objectives and principles above, build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement which obviates the need for checks on rules of origin.

What it really means: The sentence in the first draft that caused Dominic Raab to resign as Brexit secretary is still in there, about building on the single customs territory, only now it has “and improve” in as well, as if that makes it better from the point of view of someone who doesn’t want a single customs territory (fudgespeak for a customs union).

What the document says: The Parties envisage that the extent of the United Kingdom’s commitments on customs and regulatory cooperation, including with regard to alignment of rules, would be taken into account in the application of related checks and controls, considering this as a factor in reducing risk.

What it really means: This paragraph referring to “checks and controls” cleverly leaves out “at the border” from last week’s version. This is an important win for Theresa May, in allowing future regulatory checks to be carried out at the point of despatch or arrival.

What the document says: Noting that the United Kingdom has decided that the principle of free movement of persons between the Union and the United Kingdom will no longer apply, the Parties should establish mobility arrangements, as set out below.

What it really means: The section on mobility now starts by asserting that “free movement of persons” will come to an end. Someone has joked that “freedom of movement” is being replaced by “liberty of mobility”, but that is not (yet) fair.

What the document says: The Parties agree to consider conditions for entry and stay for purposes such as research, study, training and youth exchanges.

What it really means: Specifying the possible purposes for which EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU might “stay” is new.

What the document says: Within the context of the overall economic partnership the Parties should establish a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares.

What it really means: Scottish Conservative MPs warned the prime minister that they could not accept fishing quota shares being included in the future trade deal. But they have been. More trouble ahead.

What the document says: Both Parties affirm that the achievements, benefits and commitments of the peace process in Northern Ireland will remain of paramount importance to peace, stability and reconciliation. They agree that the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement reached on 10 April 1998 by the United Kingdom Government, the Irish Government and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations must be protected in all its parts, and that this extends to the practical application of the 1998 Agreement on the island of Ireland and to the totality of the relationships set out in the 1998 Agreement.

What it really means: The explicit reference to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement has been added, and the phrase “must be protected in all its parts”. But this won’t be enough to reassure the DUP or Conservatives worried about Northern Ireland being kept in parts of the EU single market when the rest of the UK is not.

What the document says: In setting out the framework of the future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom, this declaration confirms, as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, that it is the clear intent of both Parties to develop in good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship and to begin the formal process of negotiations as soon as possible after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, such that they can come into force by the end of 2020.

What it really means: The section on the timetable for negotiating the full trade treaty has been expanded, but with little actual substance. Instead of “using best endeavours to ensure” the treaty can take effect by the end of 2020, it now speaks of the “intent … to develop in good faith”. Which sounds a bit weaker to me, but I’m not an international trade negotiator. As Nick Macpherson, the former permanent secretary to the Treasury, commented: “With no legal status a political declaration can be all things to all people.”

cynic - If TM gets that through you might find that a load of bloody minded Leavers do vote for JC and friends at the next election, to teach the tories a lesson that it will take a few lifetimes to undo.

If that is the case then which is better - Clean Break or JC?

on the other hand, you may not
it also has clearly not sunk in to that gap between your ears that "no deal" is most assuredly not synonymous with "clean break"

you may even surprise yourself to discover that the tories (and thus TM) are far more favoured to handle the brexit negotiations than labour (and thus corbyn)

you may find yourself surprised to discover that the majority of people in this country would rather accept the deal on the table, flawed as it may be, than to have no deal

you may also surprise yourself to find that the majority of people in this country really do not want another referendum, whatever its outcome might be

For me, this was always going to be the outcome. Keep the process going as long as feasibly possible. Then come up with the "Take it or leave it deal". Then add armeggedon as a back stop if its not accepted.

As someone who voted to leave. I would rather have been on the losing side than surrender to this pile of sh!t.

CD - did you also delude yourself that "clean break" was even feasible, and without pain?

Manuel,

I would have thought you and It. would think Boris would make an iconic leader for the New Tory party representing its present morality perfectly.

But with your obvious omniscience would consider arguing with you about the Party's future.

(Especially, with your dithering over it at the beginning of this thread.)

But some are prepared to wait for the scrawny lady to sing.

Again, it seems to me that you and the Brexiters will be happy to wait at table and live on scraps with the hope for tips once again.

What disastrous period in tory party history.

Winny must be turning in his grave.

:)

''What disastrous period in tory party history''.

JOBS
Over the past five years, 2.3 million new jobs have been created in the private sector — most of them full-time and in higher skilled occupations.

This is more than four times the 500,000 jobs lost in the public sector.

Three out of five of the new jobs created since 2010 are outside London and the South-East.

Between 2010 and 2013, more jobs were created in Yorkshire than in the whole of France.

ECONOMY
Last year, Britain’s economy grew faster than every other major developed country in the world.

In 2014, GDP (Gross Domestic Product) grew by 2.8 per cent — revised up from 2.6 per cent and the fastest annual rate of growth since 2006.

The deficit has been halved from 10.2 per cent of GDP in 2009-10 to 4.8 per cent in 2014-15. The national debt is falling as a share of GDP.

amazing how consistently wrong you are fred:-)

the only thing you are correct about is that i prevaricated about which way to vote until the very last minute
if i had to vote again, i'm pretty sure i would vote once more to exit

btw, i suspect winny would not have joined eu in the first place, but unimportant

george - from where did you glean your numbers? ....... not doubting, but curious

Cynic - From James Slack for the Daily Mail published in 2015 so figures relate to that period.

As do these:-


Living standards are officially higher than when the Coalition took office.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility predicts families will be £900 better off by the end of 2015 compared to 2010.

In THE three months to February, wages increased by 1.8 per cent. By contrast, inflation is zero - giving families more spending power.

The incomes of pensioners have risen in real terms by 10 per cent under the Coalition due to the Government’s ‘triple lock’, which ensures the state pension goes up by whichever is higher: inflation, wages or 2.5%

And these which relate to The Labour Party;-

JOBS
Labour increased unemployment by 500,000 from two million before the 1997 general election to 2.5 million by 2010.

Almost one million 16-to-24-year-olds in England were classed as not in education, employment or training by the time the party left office.

Of the increase in employment levels under Labour, 72 per cent was accounted for by foreign workers. Migrant workers were imported while Britons were allowed to languish on welfare.

bit old news, but still, and i'm afraid the mail is not renowned for its impartiality any more than is the telegraph or the mirror!

And:-

WELFARE
Overall, spending on benefits doubled under Labour from £93.3 billion in 1997/98 to £192.6 billion in 2010/11. Taking into account inflation, this was still a 54 per cent increase.

While some families were able to claim £100,000 a year in housing benefit, pensioners were given rises as low as 75 pence per week, provoking an outcry in 2000.

A Government report in 2009 said that two million pensioners had been left below the poverty line.

i'm sure fred will be able to come up with counter-figures :-)

as they say, there's lies, damned lies and politicians (and fred!)

Old news it is, but factual, not like Fred's comments which he throws around to suit.