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....

Don't worry we'll be out in 204 days and then they can stick their Articles where the sun don't shine.

And Fred , it would be quicker to dig a hole for the remoaners as there are fewer of them.

h/t to MT across the road fro flagging this up.




There's a way out from Chequers for Mrs May - Liam Halligan


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/06/way-chequers-mrs-may/



'Trading with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules “isn’t the end of the world” said Theresa May, during Prime Minister’s Questions. She was quoting the WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo, the world’s leading trade diplomat.

Azevedo first publicly said those words in a Telegraph interview with me in November 2017. He also described UK-EU trade under WTO rules, with no formal free trade agreement, as “perfectly manageable” – discrediting the doom-mongers who claim Britain must bow to Brussels’ every demand as “crashing out” would be “disastrous”.

His words won’t surprise anyone with an open mind and knowledge of global trade. Britain conducts most of its trade outside the EU, largely under WTO rules. Such trade is growing, forms the majority of our exports and generates a surplus. Our EU trade, in contrast, accounts for well under half our exports, is falling and in deficit – despite us making massive annual EU contributions and accepting Brussels-derived rules to gain “single-market access”.

It is vital Britain declares “no deal” a realistic and acceptable outcome – not least as it’s true and, with the clock ticking ahead of March 2019, could well happen. Unless we prepare for “no deal”, we’ll be forced to accept any trade agreement the EU offers, however much it favours Germany, France and other member states.

May has lately played down “no deal”, keen to promote her Chequers proposals. Philip Hammond has pitched in, with yet another blood-curdling Treasury prediction that “no deal” would reduce GDP by 8% over 15 years. The idea is to present Brexit as a choice between Chequers and “no deal” – hence the need to make “no deal” look ghastly. Such a strategy is misguided and, if the Prime Minister is to survive beyond next month’s party conference, she must rapidly change tack. Citing Azevedo across the Commons dispatch box suggests she just might understand.

For the truth is, Chequers is dead. Plans to accept EU rules on goods, a modified customs union and ongoing Brussels diktat, with no say, have been viciously rejected by May’s party. Boris Johnson’s description – “vassalage” and “miserable permanent limbo” – was right. Even arch Remainer Justine Greening, foreseeing a grassroots rebellion, says Chequers is “more hated than the poll tax”.

Michel Barnier, too, has dismissed May’s plan as “insane, illegal, and fraudulent”, seeing as it breaks single market rules. Perhaps the EU’s lead negotiator is bluffing and will suddenly relent if Britain makes even more concessions. All the more reason for the Prime Minister to abandon this Whitehall-contrived nonsense and take Chequers off the table, returning to the coherent vision she outlined in January 2017 at Lancaster House.

For the real choice isn’t between Chequers and a “no deal disaster”. It’s between “no deal” – “perfectly manageable” – and a free trade agreement with the EU. Barnier has long acknowledged that “Canada-plus” is acceptable, a comprehensive trade deal similar to the recent EU-Canada agreement. That could happen quite quickly. Trade deals are normally very complex, as both sides start with conflicting regulatory regimes. Not so here – the UK and EU have been trading freely for decades, so begin “perfectly aligned”.

A formal UK-EU trade agreement may be impossible before next March. I’ve long said the chances are limited, given required ratification by 27 member states and the European Parliament. So, if the EU won’t accept ongoing tariff-free trade, we go to WTO rules. That’s a good platform to strike a trade agreement with the EU once the tensions of Brexit itself have passed, helping Britain secure a better long-term deal.

As such, May must ditch Chequers and reassert, as she did at Lancaster House, that the UK is unequivocally leaving the single market and customs union. She should publicly stress our preparations for WTO rules, not least the ongoing HMRC upgrade that means required extra “no deal” border checks are possible from January 2019.

May should state the UK won’t put up customs posts across Ireland and that technological solutions are available and adequate – as both British and Irish border authorities have said. And while declaring “no deal” on trade is fine, May must press hard for a basic “withdrawal agreement” on issues such as trade facilitation and airspace – stressing the £39 billion “divorce payment” is contingent on rapid progress.

The EU is legally obliged to extend such non-contentious administrative protocols to the UK, as it has to almost all other non-EU countries. To refuse would break EU treaties, WTO rules and make the eurocrats a global laughing stock.

The world understands trading under WTO rules. It wouldn’t understand the deliberate destruction by Brussels of UK-EU commerce, costing member states billions of euros in profit and countless jobs. And neither would EU voters.

So Chuck Chequers, Theresa! Or be replaced by someone who will.'

That is the most sensible article I have read on Brexit for months.

I've said right from rage beginning the EU would play silly buggers with us and we should have just left with no deal and no payments to them at the earliest opportunity.

Then a proper deal could have been worked out by now.

Well done Dil.

The Brexiters remind me of "The Neighbours from Hell", or the "Leader from Barry Island".

Strange how 27 countries are prepared to continue in their madness and negotiate their problems, while the more "knowledgeable" who are not getting their own way are happy to jump off the cliff.

Mind perhaps the leadership will not be paying the future bills.

You can see a Tory government blaming future NHS and Welfare cutbacks and failing economy being blamed on the EU next door.

=-=-=

Liam Halligan and Farage would make fitting leaders for the "New Tory Party", with running mates Moggie and Boris.

We would see a new revitalised Littler England after NI and Scotland devolve.

-=-=-=

PS. what has been the cost of administration of the failing EU simple Brexit "negotiations" so far?

Mind it is other people's money, not mine comes to mine.

Daft.

A lot less than staying in the EU for a day.

And you do realise there are more countries outside the eu than in it don't you Fred so I'd rather be with the majority.

They weren't invited to the party!

But many seem to wish to join the EU and or deal with its members.

Many wish to join the €U for a hand out .. 20 of the 27 are on the take, why else do you think they are there?

If so, why are the rest so gullible?

Because unlike us they haven't been given a vote ..... YET !

Talking about gullible - anyone that follows JC must be the most gullible of all.

I bet he changes his underpants less often than he changes his mind, and rather than being like a strong oak tree is a little weak sapling.

200 days to go , tick tock.

Be careful your spring may break!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/10/operation-save-theresa-eu-considers-redrawing-michel-barniers/

Jacob Rees-Mogg: "We say NO to squandering tax payers money"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5vqka0axuE

During a passionate speech in the Commons on Monday, 10th September, the European Research Group (ERG) chairman reminded British politicians that they do not “owe” the European Union any money for Brexit.

In a debate in the Commons on legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement, Mr Rees-Mogg referenced a report produced by the House of Lords' EU Committee and said: “The case that was explained in this very powerful document was, if we leave under the terms of Article 50 without a withdrawal agreement, we owe no money.”

The prominent Brexiteer said politicians “must say no” to a bad Brexit deal that would waste British taxpayers’ money.

Mr Rees-Mogg told MPs: “The reason for this is that our obligation to pay any money would in normal circumstances depend upon the Vienna Convention on Treaties until 1968.

“And if we left under those terms without anything in the Lisbon Treaty or other EU treaties we would indeed be liable for our share of the liabilities.

“But that convention says that if the treaty of the organisation to which you belong makes a different provision for leaving then that provision is authoritative.

“And then you go back to Article 50 and the provision of Article 50 is that if you leave after two years without deal then that is it. There is no financial provision at all.

“The £40billion we are talking about, of our constituents’ money, of money that could be spent on other pressing needs and every member of this House could identify pressing need in their own constituency or for their own constituents or for the nation at large – that £40billion is not a legal obligation – it is a charitable donation unless it comes with a very clear quid quo pro.”

MPs could be heard chuckling as Mr Rees-Mogg added: “We had a report last week that we are going to have a 10 page document of a political agreement saying motherhood and apple pies all fine and dandy - that would be £4billion a page for waffle.

“You may like waffles, you may prefer Belgian waffles, but £4billion a page for waffle is not something I think any responsible member of Parliament could vote for.

“What after all is the job and power of this House? Who do we control the executive? It has always been by the provision of money.

“If the executive wishes to waste British taxpayers’ money, we must say no.”

Mr Rees-Mogg concluded by saying MPs should say “yes to people who are living here and generous” but “say no to being a vassal state” and “no squandering taxpayers’ money’.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan, calling for close regulatory alignment with the EU’s single market for British exports, has faced scrutiny from both Brexiteers and Remainers.

The proposal includes plans to create a ”common rule book” – involving a free trade area with the EU on industrial and agricultural goods.

The Brexit plan has been heavily criticised by former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson since the Tory MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip resigned over the agreement in July.

On Sunday, Boris Johnson wrote that Mrs May was wrapping a “suicide vest” around a “great British Brexit”.

But Mrs May has so far vowed to stick by her controversial Brexit blueprint.

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has previously rejected Mrs May’s plans and ruled out any special economic relationship with the UK – claiming it would unravel the entire “European project”.

But in a shock u-turn, Mr Barnier told a forum in Slovenia on Monday it is "realistic" to expect a divorce deal with Britain in six to eight weeks – suggesting the divorce could be settled by the week beginning October 15 – just in time for the EU Summit on October 18.

The EU chief negotiator said: "I think that if we are realistic we are able to reach an agreement on the first stage of the negotiation, which is the Brexit treaty, within 6 or 8 weeks.

"Taking into account the time necessary for the ratification process, the House of Commons on one side, the European Parliament and the Council on the other side… We must reach an agreement before the beginning of November. I think it is possible."

Barny can think what he likes but the current proposal won't get agreed by Parliament anyway.

He's running scared now and probably getting pressure put on him not to lose our 40 billion hand out.

EU falling apart , Poland and Hungary breaking any rules they want to and the EU can do nothing about it.

Something for Dil and Manuel to celebrate.

We've bought a bigger, shinier one Fred. That was given to "car crash" Barry Gardiner.