Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ok, so here is what you said and lets see if you can back it up



Please give me an example (other then the After Hours uber patriots) of the lots of people who will be glad to see the back of the UK, because I deal extensively with people all over europe and other than the ones (particularly in the Netherlands and Denmark) who think the UK is doing the right thing, the rest are all very worried about the UK leaving the eu. Particularly in Germany who see the UK as a welcome voice of reason in a europe that is increasingly being run for the small countries, but paid for by the large ones.

I'm interested in the opts out the UK has as well, can you give me three examples of "Opt Outs" that are unique to the UK?

Fred no sane person thinks the UK leaving the EU is good for the UK or the EU.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh, about common defence policies, civil rights, harmonisation of corporation tax, those kind of things?

No Fred, about ill informed BS and painting the EU as an enemy of the UK. A A huge amount of Daily Mail articles, Daily express articles and right wing ideology from Farage are focused on the EU and migrants.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think it was their best argued point but the argument was that they would gain control of that money to use on things like the NHS. It was never stated that all would go to the NHS. The reality is that Hammond will need to use this money to pay the subsidies that the UK will lose and then potentially some of the rest will go to the NHS.

This is complete waffle.

Lie 1:

First of all we all should know by now that the £350 million per week was not the official amount that the UK payed into the EU as it did not include the rebate that the UK already received from the EU, about £100m. Ergo the figure that the UK puts in is £250m per week. Even though this lie was pointed out to the leave campaign they still persisted with the advertisement.

Lie 2: This was the principle promise of the Leave campaign. It was on their tour buses and in the Leave HQ the slogan:

'Lets give the NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week'

This is not ambiguous. It is promising this money to the NHS.
The leave campaign had no intention of ever fulfilling this promise. The promise dissapeared from official Leave sites days after the referendum result.

Rather than saving the UK economy £350m pw or even £250 pw a leaked treasury report from the treasury says a Hard Brexit will cost £66 billion per annum. That's £1.25 billion per week. Take away the £250m and that's £1 billion a week less to pay for NHS, Education, Social services etc. etc.

These lies stuck:

"A poll by Ipsos MORI published on 16 June found that nearly half the British public believed the claim."

I thought that most Brexiters had given up defending these absolute lies. But you never know!

wes

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is not necessarily. That depends on the type of arrangement that the EU want to argue for. My point is that Britain hasn't asked for trade tariffs with the EU and it isn't proposing this. Of course these things will take years to negotiate. An interim agreement could be helpful while these matters are being discussed.

Again, the EU is just stating the reality. Trade tariffs are the result of Brexit. The UK being in denial is not the fault of the EU. The UK wants out of the European Court of Human Rights, the EU Customs Union etc. These desires all have various consequences. The EU is just pointing it out. Point the finger at the EU, is simply denying responsibility on the part of the UK, who are solely responsible for the current situation.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Not at all. It's reasonable to do a post mortem on what happened. Why wasn't Cameron's deal acceptable to the British public? They thought it was too little, too late. They were hoping Cameron would come back with more.

The referendum was won on immigration and taking control of British law. The poll numbers actually started to go Leave's way when immigration was discussed.

It was also won on 350 million for the NHS. Again, there were multiple reasons, but the question asked and the one answered by the voters was to leave the EU. It is ultimately the UK government who will act on the referendum, and they have already abandoned Brexit promises.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think it was their best argued point but the argument was that they would gain control of that money to use on things like the NHS. It was never stated that all would go to the NHS. The reality is that Hammond will need to use this money to pay the subsidies that the UK will lose and then potentially some of the rest will go to the NHS.

It was clearly stated on a bus that criss crossed the UK. They made a promise of 350 million for the NHS, and they have since abandoned it, as they were lieing through there teeth the whole time, and knew exactly what they were doing.

solodeogloria wrote: »

That isn't true.

South Korea has single market access with a free trade deal and doesn't have free movement.

Yes it is true. Single market access isn't the same as being part of the single market. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Anyone can sell into the EU single market. Not everyone can be a member. The UK can certainly sell into the single market, but they are demanding access akin to that of being a member, while being able to disregard on of the 4 freedoms, which is simply suicide for the EU. The UK, are acting like a special snowflake, but they aren't going to get what they want.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Also when you say this. What you mean is that this is what the EU will argue. This is what Juncker, Tusk and Schulz are claiming is a red line. May says free movement and sovereignty of law are her red lines.

Yes, and this was all know before hand. May has chosen a Hard Brexit, and the UK needs to own up to there own decision, and stop blaming foreigners for all there problems.

solodeogloria wrote: »

OK - claiming that the 4 freedoms insistence is anything but a negotiating position at this point is premature.

It is not for negotiation. If you want to be part of the single market, then you abide by the 4 freedoms. If you don't want to, then you are not part of the single market. These are the club rules, and the UK has chosen to leave the club, so its there problem.

Now, they need to grow and accept that a free trade deal is the way to go, and that the consequences are based on there choices and no one elses.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Claims of racist violence are over exaggerated. Most people deplore actions like in Harlow recently. Most Leave people do too. Most British people are clear that bigotry has no place here.

Great, care to tell Nigel Farage, and the entire Brexit campaign, about there stirring anti-immigrant sentiment, which resulted in the up tick in Xenophobia. Once again, denying the consequences taken by certain people, which predictably lead to an increase in Xenophobia.

You see, when you blame all your problems on foreigners, some people tend to attack them. Go figure.

solodeogloria wrote: »

See what I've said above about the 350 million and in previous posts.

They made a promise, that they had 0 intention of ever keeping. Brexit promises are only sacrosanct, when it suits them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree. The UK are partners with Ireland. They care a lot more about Irish issues than the EU do.

The complete disregard for the Good Friday agreement, says otherwise. The situation in the North was completely ignored by Brexiters, and they are continuing to do so. This is not something a friend or partner does.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's discussion about the nature of the border and it will be raised in the negotiation as a major issue. It's worrying to see so many people forget the work that Britain and Ireland have both done in recent years. The UK is looking for the best arrangement to keep trading with Ireland. It is up to the EU to consider that case.

You mean like the entire Brexit campaign who didn't give a crap about the Good Friday agreement. IMHO, Brexters are on hook for the mess they have made. Trying to blame Johny Foreigner is not going to work with the rest of the EU, I am afraid.

solodeogloria wrote: »

As a foreigner in the UK I've decided to stake my confidence here. I'm confident that the UK will be an outward looking country now and into the future.

People here claiming Britain needs to grow up need to see it another way. Acknowledging that a relationship isn't working for either them and the EU is a sign of maturity. Hopefully a more appropriate relationship will be formed where the UK are still close partners. Then they will be able to form new trade deals with the wider world. I'm very hopeful.

Nigel Farage showed the EU, just how mature the UK is. People won't soon forget the representative of the UK, that they sent to the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is things will be harder without Britain at the table arguing from the same corner.

Yes, we are well aware of that. Another problem that the UK has created for Ireland.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think the UK have thrown anything out of the pram. The EU hasn't been working for them. Their political culture is less technocratic than mainland Europe. As I said I voted remain (as a pragmatic Eurocritical person looking for reform) in June. But the people have now spoken and the best port of call is to seek the best Brexit possible. It isn't working for Britain or the other countries to have the UK in the EU. Therefore we should look for the best divorce we can.

What the UK is looking for is hard Brexit, and they need to grow up and accept there choice, and stop blaming everyone else.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

I'm not confused at all. In yesterday's JMC (Joing Ministerial Council) the first ministers of all the smaller nations want at least guaranteed membership of the single market.

I think everybody wants that, not just the smaller nations.

demfad wrote: »

The mandate for immigration as a red line is therefore an English requirement. The current hard Brexit push is an English position NOT a British one.

Is it? could you show some evidence of that, such as why Wales voted to leave the eu?

demfad wrote: »

This is why the UK is currently as disunited as it has been since the Irish war of independence or hadn't you noticed? May herself warned of a constitutional crises yesterday if the other leaders didnt row in behind her. They didn't row in behind her.

Nicola Sturgeon will never row in behind whoever is in Westminster, it is her job.

demfad wrote: »

European politicians know the difference between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May, Boris Johnson etc.

damn clever those europeans

demfad wrote: »

The Germans believe that Boris Johnson is a liar. They also remember that he compared the EU to a fascist state headed by Adolf Hitler. For May to have this man as a negotiator shows severe weakness or stupidity. One of many many such examples from this disastrous English administration.

which is why he isn't a negotiator. That will be Theresa May and David Davis. The last part of this English team being Liam Fox.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fred no sane person thinks the UK leaving the EU is good for the UK or the EU.

Wes seems to think the eu will be glad to see the back of the UK and Francie seems to think the eu are giving the UK an "Overwhelming f u ".

wes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wes seems to think the eu will be glad to see the back of the UK

Yes, I believe that some people will. We will still suffer from the UK leaving the EU, but some people will look at the bright side of things. What else is there to do? Brexit is Brexit as May has said. So best to look at some of the benefits, that will result from Brexit. It will over all be a lose lose for all involved.

However, it is only sane to try and mitigate some of these losses, and some of that will be at the expense of the UK. Nothing more than rational self interest at the end of the day.

At the end of day, the British electorate sent Nigel Farage as a representative of there country, and he did his level best to insult everyone. Guess what, that has consequences, and I know a lot of people will be glad to see the back of Farage and his ilk, regardless of other negative consequences, the lack of UKIP in the EU, is certainly something a lot of people will be happy with.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wes seems to think the eu will be glad to see the back of the UK and Francie seems to think the eu are giving the UK an "Overwhelming f u ".

And Fred thinks the EU will do as the UK wants.

Most of the messages coming from the EU are off the non conciliatory hard line variety. In layman's or in the language of this parish - a 'P.F.O.'.
If the overwhelming message is different to that, please show us how it is.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And Fred thinks the EU will do as the UK wants.

Most of the messages coming from the EU are off the non conciliatory hard line variety. In layman's or in the language of this parish - a 'P.F.O.'.
If the overwhelming message is different to that, please show us how it is.

Most if the messages coming from politicians who owe their living to the eu.

At the end of the day, Junckers et al will do what the member states tell them, which is to negotiate a deal that minimises the damage as much as possible.

Like adults should.

solodeogloria

wes wrote: »

Again, the EU is just stating the reality. Trade tariffs are the result of Brexit. The UK being in denial is not the fault of the EU. The UK wants out of the European Court of Human Rights, the EU Customs Union etc. These desires all have various consequences. The EU is just pointing it out. Point the finger at the EU, is simply denying responsibility on the part of the UK, who are solely responsible for the current situation.

Good afternoon!

This is my last post I think. Thank you all for a good discussion.

Tariffs if they are erected will be as a result of the EU's decision.

Again, I'm not denying that the British people voted to leave. However it isn't true that leaving the EU automatically means tariffs. That will be up for the EU to decide.

Britain isn't asking for tariffs. You seem to conflate what Britain wants to do with what some EU member states (Sweden wants an amicable free trade deal) and the paid up presidents of the EU want to do. The reality is that there is a discussion yet to be had.

It is dishonest to claim that leaving the EU automatically means tariffs when that is simply what Tusk, Schulz, and Juncker have expressed with some member states before the negotiation.

wes wrote: »

Yes it is true. Single market access isn't the same as being part of the single market. You are being deliberately obtuse.

I'm really not being obtuse. I don't think May is actually looking for single market membership but rather a free trade agreement into the single market.

wes wrote: »

Anyone can sell into the EU single market. Not everyone can be a member. The UK can certainly sell into the single market, but they are demanding access akin to that of being a member, while being able to disregard on of the 4 freedoms, which is simply suicide for the EU. The UK, are acting like a special snowflake, but they aren't going to get what they want.

Again, I disagree. Seeking a free trade agreement into the single market isn't the same as seeking to be a member. I agree that that seems to be the UK's position.

wes wrote: »

Yes, and this was all know before hand. May has chosen a Hard Brexit, and the UK needs to own up to there own decision, and stop blaming foreigners for all there problems.

When have I blamed foreigners on this thread?

I'm simply saying as a remain voter who lost in the referendum that the mature option is now to seek the best Brexit possible. The UK is owning up to it's decision by preparing for triggering Article 50 in March. Everything will be on the table then and the real work will begin hopefully for a mature and amicable free trade deal.

I don't think that the EU is a special snowflake free of criticism either.

wes wrote: »

It is not for negotiation. If you want to be part of the single market, then you abide by the 4 freedoms. If you don't want to, then you are not part of the single market. These are the club rules, and the UK has chosen to leave the club, so its there problem.

I disagree. We can't say what will or won't be up for discussion until the deal is concluded. Different member states have different positions and inevitably there will be compromise.

wes wrote: »

Now, they need to grow and accept that a free trade deal is the way to go, and that the consequences are based on there choices and no one elses.

Why do you think the British media are following CETA so closely?

Britain isn't looking for an EEA style relationship or the Swiss model but a bespoke deal to take it out of the EU.

wes wrote: »

Great, care to tell Nigel Farage, and the entire Brexit campaign, about there stirring anti-immigrant sentiment, which resulted in the up tick in Xenophobia. Once again, denying the consequences taken by certain people, which predictably lead to an increase in Xenophobia.

You can talk to Nigel yourself. Most people I know who voted for Brexit aren't bigots.

It's not helpful or reasonable for you to associate my position with Farage.

wes wrote: »

You see, when you blame all your problems on foreigners, some people tend to attack them. Go figure.

I disagree that Brexit of necessity means blaming problems on foreigners. I also think certain people within and without the UK need to listen to the working class. That's the reason why Brexit was won in my view. Look to the people who voted Brexit in Essex and in the North of England and other places. People with genuine concerns not listened to for too long.

wes wrote: »

The complete disregard for the Good Friday agreement, says otherwise. The situation in the North was completely ignored by Brexiters, and they are continuing to do so. This is not something a friend or partner does.

This is totally premature. Nobody is ignoring the Good Friday Agreement. David Davis and May are committed to keeping it and have worked extensively with the Irish Government and the Northern Executive since taking office.

It's totally careless to say that the Good Friday Agreement has been ignored when it hasn't. I genuinely think we need restraint in this debate instead of jumping to emotive nonsense. This all will be discussed next year and is being discussed informally now.

wes wrote: »

You mean like the entire Brexit campaign who didn't give a crap about the Good Friday agreement. IMHO, Brexters are on hook for the mess they have made. Trying to blame Johny Foreigner is not going to work with the rest of the EU, I am afraid.

See above. I think what I would say is firstly that isn't true and people need to calm down.

wes wrote: »

What the UK is looking for is hard Brexit, and they need to grow up and accept there choice, and stop blaming everyone else.

The UK is looking for an amicable trade deal with the EU and a good security arrangement that will also benefit the EU. The terms hard and soft Brexit aren't helpful. The UK is looking for a bespoke deal not the Swiss or Norwegian model. But the UK model. It will be as hard or as soft as the EU27 want to make it.

I'm confident and hopeful as an Irish person living in the UK of a good outcome for the UK and the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most if the messages coming from politicians who owe their living to the eu.

At the end of the day, Junckers et al will do what the member states tell them, which is to negotiate a deal that minimises the damage as much as possible.

Like adults should.

And in the meantime, the overwhelming message is....

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think everybody wants that, not just the smaller nations.

Really? Theresa May mentioned during her Brexit speech that the UK would be able to 'have its own British labels on products' again. Tell me: how does one have non Eu Labelling as part of a single regulatory EU market? The red line for the Tories is immigration and controlling Law. Access to the single market is a distant pipe dream.

Is it? could you show some evidence of that, such as why Wales voted to leave the eu?

Yesterday Carwyn Jones stated access to the single market as vital.

Presumably, Wales voted to leave the EU for many reasons believing many of the lies of the Leave campaign would have had a significant impact.
If the Welsh assembly accept the vote, then It is up to them to take a position to have it impelmented in a way most beneficial to Welsh people. Clearly guaranteed single market access is vital, as he says.
The Tories and others may believe Brexit is an excuse to throw the economy down the drain to get a free kick at Johnny foreigner. In political circles this does seem to be an English disease though.

Nicola Sturgeon will never row in behind whoever is in Westminster, it is her job.

Her job is to follow her mandate. If the UK remains and possibly if the UK opts for a soft Brexit, she could back the PM to safeguard Scotland's interest.
An independent Scotland is better off in a common market with the Uk AND the EU after all.

damn clever those europeans

Not really. Relative to the British government, then yes, very much so.

which is why he isn't a negotiator. That will be Theresa May and David Davis. The last part of this English team being Liam Fox.

He is the foreign secretary. He has a vital role in Brexit. The people he needs to colaborate with and persuade think he is a lying buffoon. It is either weakness or stupidity that he holds this position. Do you disagree?

Christy42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most if the messages coming from politicians who owe their living to the eu.

At the end of the day, Junckers et al will do what the member states tell them, which is to negotiate a deal that minimises the damage as much as possible.

Like adults should.

Pretty sure attempting to get the best deal possible leaves the UK in the EU.

Or is this requirement to be reasonable only on the EU?

Seriously. Free trade for free movement of people. I can't demand a store give me something for free. The benefits for the UK are far higher and so logic dictates they are in the weaker position.

The UK want the free trade agreements that come from the existence of the EU while pretending it is a negative force. It is ridiculous. Scrap the EU and some countries will break ranks and impose tariffs but the UK have no interest in doing anything to keep this mutually beneficial arrangement afloat.

Snickers Man

Arghus wrote: »

There Will Be Brexit.

That's the prequel, I take it?

Nate--IRL--

How much do you think the EU will price access to the free market (given all other barriers are overcome)? It would be funny if the yearly contributions matched or exceed the current contributions.

Nate

Sand

demfad wrote: »

What makes you say that there is zero chance? Have you no faith in the democratic process in the UK? If Brexit is shown to be clearly detrimental to the UK state then it is the parliaments DUTY to vote it down regardless of what teh advisory referendum says.

Ironically enough, the Brexiteers despite getting teary eyed and emotional at the prospect of British laws being made in the British parliament under British representative democracy alone are doing everything in their power to prevent the Parliament having a say in Brexit. May, a PM with no direct mandate in the traditional manner, will ram through Article 50 and the Brexit negotiations barely even offering information to the Parliament, let alone giving it any influence on the negotiations or determining red lines. Every measure is being taken to avoid giving the voters any opportunity to get representation on Brexit.

For all the pro-democracy narratives given to the Brexit vote, their elected MPs are muzzled on Brexit, and due to their FPTP electoral system 5 million of their voters in 2015 have 2 elected MPs to represent those 5 million people. The issues about democratic representation in the UK are not even close to be addressed by Brexit. The Brexiteers are off tilting at Brussels windmills whilst ignoring the dragons closer to home.

wes

solodeogloria wrote: »

Tariffs if they are erected will be as a result of the EU's decision.

Tariffs are the result of Brexit. The nature of the leave procedure, pretty much grantee them. The EU can't negotiate a free trade deal with a member, and even if they could it would not be feasible to do so in the 2 year time frame. Al

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, I'm not denying that the British people voted to leave. However it isn't true that leaving the EU automatically means tariffs. That will be up for the EU to decide.

Except that it pretty much does. Care to explain how tariffs can be avoided? The process to leave the EU, will take 2 years and then a free trade agreement can start negotiations, and even if the negotiations were concurrent, they would be unlikely to finish in that time frame. Again, you engaged in a basic denial of the reality of the situation.

Tariffs will be due to Brexit.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain isn't asking for tariffs. You seem to conflate what Britain wants to do with what some EU member states (Sweden wants an amicable free trade deal) and the paid up presidents of the EU want to do. The reality is that there is a discussion yet to be had.

Yes, which will take more than 2 years. Tariffs are the result of the Brexit process. Again, a denial of reality. No one in the EU, is against a free trade deal, there just realistic about the time frames and difficulty involved. The UK however is not.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is dishonest to claim that leaving the EU automatically means tariffs when that is simply what Tusk, Schulz, and Juncker have expressed with some member states before the negotiation.

It is not dishonest, as May has made her preference for a hard Brexit clear. It is simply the reality of the situation, and the UK can't blame the EU for its decision. Its on them and no one else.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm really not being obtuse. I don't think May is actually looking for single market membership but rather a free trade agreement into the single market.

Boris her foreign secretary has said other. She should get him in line then. Again, free trade agreement will take years. That is just the nature of the beast.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, I disagree. Seeking a free trade agreement into the single market isn't the same as seeking to be a member. I agree that that seems to be the UK's position.

Great, and again it will take years to sort out, hence Tariffs, once the UK leaves.

solodeogloria wrote: »

When have I blamed foreigners on this thread?

Your blaming the EU on tariffs, when it is reality of Brexit that will cause them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm simply saying as a remain voter who lost in the referendum that the mature option is now to seek the best Brexit possible. The UK is owning up to it's decision by preparing for triggering Article 50 in March. Everything will be on the table then and the real work will begin hopefully for a mature and amicable free trade deal.

They promised to trigger it immediately. I see no owning up at all. As for maturity, well maybe next time the UK electorate shouldn't send Nigel Farage to represent them in the EU. BTW, Boris Johnson is Foreign Secratery, a man who has lied and maligned and insulted the EU for years. The 3 Brexiteers who will be involved in this process, are the opposite of mature.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think that the EU is a special snowflake free of criticism either.

The EU has been lied about by the UK media for decades. Criticism is perfectly valid. Making crap up isn't and that is what the UK has been at for decades.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree. We can't say what will or won't be up for discussion until the deal is concluded. Different member states have different positions and inevitably there will be compromise.

There is a 2 year dead line, there is every possibility there won't be one.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why do you think the British media are following CETA so closely?

Britain isn't looking for an EEA style relationship or the Swiss model but a bespoke deal to take it out of the EU.

Yes, and the best they will get is something akin to Canada or the US. BTW, look at the issues with the Canadian free trade deal, and most people in Europe are at worse indifferent to Canada. The UK have annoyed a lot of people by sending a clown like Farage to represent them, and they will have a far harder time of things.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You can talk to Nigel yourself. Most people I know who voted for Brexit aren't bigots.

Plenty of them are, including Nigel "Recycling Nazi Propaganda and Trump supporter" Farage. Ignoring this element and the fact that Brexiters deliberately stoked up anti-immigrant sentiment, which has directly lead to increase Xenophobia and the continued denial by Brexiters is hugely problematic.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's not helpful or reasonable for you to associate my position with Farage.

My point is that people in Europe will think of Farage when they think the UK. Sending a clown to be one of there representatives, has consequences.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree that Brexit of necessity means blaming problems on foreigners. I also think certain people within and without the UK need to listen to the working class. That's the reason why Brexit was won in my view. Look to the people who voted Brexit in Essex and in the North of England and other places. People with genuine concerns not listened to for too long.

You mean areas, that had little immigration? When, people concerns don't reflect reality, they should be challenged. I could care less if there own government didn't listen to them. I am not from the UK and they should take that up with there government instead of blaming all there problems on immigrants.

Still, the irony is that increase food prices, will hit those people worse, which is what they voted for, so kind of there own fault end of the day. If they didn't vote for it, they can point the finger on those that did. End of the day, actions have consequences, and in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. Something a lot of people refuse to acknowledge.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is totally premature. Nobody is ignoring the Good Friday Agreement. David Davis and May are committed to keeping it and have worked extensively with the Irish Government and the Northern Executive since taking office.

It was completely ignored during the Brexit campaign actually. I remember watching Brexiters completely ignore direct questions in regards to the North. It is not premature at all. This should have been discussed before the vote, but was ignored by both remain and leave, and I believe I have every right to be annoyed by this.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's totally careless to say that the Good Friday Agreement has been ignored when it hasn't. I genuinely think we need restraint in this debate instead of jumping to emotive nonsense. This all will be discussed next year and is being discussed informally now.

It was ignored. It was no mentioned at all during the campaign. It doesn't matter to Brexiters at all. The Irish government tried to organize an all island forum, and the extremist Brexit supporting Unionist didn't bother to join. That attitude tells us a lot, and the complete disregard to the peace process is worrying.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is looking for an amicable trade deal with the EU and a good security arrangement that will also benefit the EU. The terms hard and soft Brexit aren't helpful. The UK is looking for a bespoke deal not the Swiss or Norwegian model. But the UK model. It will be as hard or as soft as the EU27 want to make it.

Again there are 2 parties involved. Its astonishing that you think that the EU can impose an agreement on the UK. It can't. It will have be agreed on by both sides. Again, the UK has chosen a Hard Brexit, you have chosen to ignore words at the Troy conference, about leaving the customs unions etc. They made there choice already.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm confident and hopeful as an Irish person living in the UK of a good outcome for the UK and the EU.

There is no good outcome, just less bad. There is 0 reason to expect otherwise, and you have not provided a case for it at all. There will be long painful negotiations that will take years, and Brexit will wreck havoc on the Irish economy, and we will be hurt only 2nd to the UK itself. We may also see the see the Good Friday agreement ruined by careless lunatic extremist nationalists.

Tough times ahead, and it would be foolish to not try and mitigate them.

Patser

Oh Brexit where art thou?

The Darling Brexit of May?

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Really? Theresa May mentioned during her Brexit speech that the UK would be able to 'have its own British labels on products' again. Tell me: how does one have non Eu Labelling as part of a single regulatory EU market? The red line for the Tories is immigration and controlling Law. Access to the single market is a distant pipe dream.

that's all bluster at the moment. When article 50 in enacted, then we will see the actual government position, as we will the eu's.

demfad wrote: »

Yesterday Carwyn Jones stated access to the single market as vital.

Presumably, Wales voted to leave the EU for many reasons believing many of the lies of the Leave campaign would have had a significant impact.
If the Welsh assembly accept the vote, then It is up to them to take a position to have it impelmented in a way most beneficial to Welsh people. Clearly guaranteed single market access is vital, as he says.

so from Wales it was a "We want to leave the eu buuutttt..... This is as bad as Cornwall voting out and then asking London to pick up their lost subsidies. They voted out, tough ****.

demfad wrote: »

The Tories and others may believe Brexit is an excuse to throw the economy down the drain to get a free kick at Johnny foreigner. In political circles this does seem to be an English disease though.

really, so only the English like to blame their problems on Johnny Foreigner?

demfad wrote: »

Her job is to follow her mandate. If the UK remains and possibly if the UK opts for a soft Brexit, she could back the PM to safeguard Scotland's interest.
An independent Scotland is better off in a common market with the Uk AND the EU after all.

Nicola Sturgeon would rather eat Ann Widdicombe's soiled underwear than agree with Westminster.

demfad wrote: »

He is the foreign secretary. He has a vital role in Brexit. The people he needs to colaborate with and persuade think he is a lying buffoon. It is either weakness or stupidity that he holds this position. Do you disagree?

His role is not vital. There is a specific minister for Brexit who will be taking a lead role. Boris will be lucky if he is even on the plane, let alone at the meetings. Whilst the serious politicians are negotiating with the eu leaders, Boris will be in UlaanBaatar taking the Mongolian Prime Minister out for lunch.

The jury is still out on Boris' appointment, it could be a huge mistake, it could be a superb tactical move.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most if the messages coming from politicians who owe their living to the eu.

And most of the noises from British Givt are from politicians who all owe their living to the UK. What on earth is your point?

At the end of the day, Junckers et al will do what the member states tell them, which is to negotiate a deal that minimises the damage as much as possible.

Like adults should.

Not exactly. The EU negotiating team led by Michel Barnier will first negotiate a deal on behalf of the EU. This is just divorce proceedings from the EU it is not a trade deal. That will be massively difficult in itself.
Now the real crux. Assuming the EU leaves the single market they will seek some form of trade deal with the EU. This will take several years with very little chance of success. And it must be ratified by all 27 members. Otherwise, the UK will fall on default WTO rules. Default here is misleading. The UK is not a member of the WTO and it must negotiate a trade deal with them just like the EU. These guys are old school bureacracy. This is the off the cliff scenario.

Logically the UK must negotiate an interim deal a kind of platform to safeguard against a dirty exit. The EU must agree to this. This will be a MAJOR concession. There will be a PRICE.

If the British Government had tried to negotiate as responsible adults, they would have foreseen this and tried to bargain using leverage. The major leverage they had was DELAYING invoking article 50. Due to internal Tory right wing Brexit pressure they invoked early. Did they understand the dilemma but have to capitulate due to weakness? Did they just not foresee this? (stupidity)
The fact that we don't know which shows the precariousness of the UKs situation

Here's an analysis of the UKs likely negotiating path by Simon Fraser ex chief of the British Foreign Office.

Read it and inform yourself, as an adult should. (there's a good chap)

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

And most of the noises from British Givt are from politicians who all owe their living to the UK. What on earth is your point?

eu politicians have a different driver. their main objective is to protect the eu, each state will be concentrating on protecting their state's best interests. The two are not the same. I thought a grown up like you would understand that.

demfad wrote: »

Not exactly. The EU negotiating team led by Michel Barnier will first negotiate a deal on behalf of the EU. This is just divorce proceedings from the EU it is not a trade deal. That will be massively difficult in itself.
Now the real crux. Assuming the EU leaves the single market they will seek some form of trade deal with the EU. This will take several years with very little chance of success. And it must be ratified by all 27 members. Otherwise, the UK will fall on default WTO rules. Default here is misleading. The UK is not a member of the WTO and it must negotiate a trade deal with them just like the EU. These guys are old school bureacracy. This is the off the cliff scenario.

Logically the UK must negotiate an interim deal a kind of platform to safeguard against a dirty exit. The EU must agree to this. This will be a MAJOR concession. There will be a PRICE.

yes, there will. how much of a price is in question and it is in everyone's best interests that this price is not too high. The UK wants to trade with the eu and the eu wants to trade with the UK, correct?

demfad wrote: »

If the British Government had tried to negotiate as responsible adults, they would have foreseen this and tried to bargain using leverage. The major leverage they had was DELAYING invoking article 50. Due to internal Tory right wing Brexit pressure they invoked early. Did they understand the dilemma but have to capitulate due to weakness? Did they just not foresee this? (stupidity)
The fact that we don't know which shows the precariousness of the UKs situation

you do know article 50 hasn't been invoked yet, don't you?

sure you do :rolleyes:

demfad wrote: »

Here's an analysis of the UKs likely negotiating path by Simon Fraser ex chief of the British Foreign Office.

Read it and inform yourself, as an adult should. (there's a good chap)

I've read it, thanks. I was already aware of the process and the pitfalls that Brexit will bring. That is why I voted to remain.

You seem to have missed half of my points out for some reason, were the words too big?

A Little Pony

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If there is one thing we can agree is that it's our interests to have the UK in Europe.


If Brexit looks like costing us Billions because the UK are playing hardball we should do the same. Tell them that unless they pay us for any loss we will veto any future EU agreement.

The UK is leaving the EU, not Europe. Some are going to have to accept it. Its a done deal. Nicola Sturgeon whining like a big baby yesterday because she found out Mrs May doesn't care about her stupid attempts to get another referendum and ignored it (most likely).

swampgas

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At the end of the day, Junckers et al will do what the member states tell them, which is to negotiate a deal that minimises the damage as much as possible.

Like adults should.

The catch here though is that allowing the UK to cherry pick which aspects of EU membership they want would be very damaging to the EU as a whole. Something that seems to be ignored constantly by those arguing for some kind of special "everybody wants to trade, don't they" deal. The UK may not care if the EU falls apart (in fact some might welcome it) but the rest of the EU-27 are very much aware of the risks.

"Juncker et al" as you put it, will be very keen to minimise the damage to the EU as an entity. That could mean some limited collateral damage to individual countries, as their vested interests in maintaining EU cohesion would have a higher priority over modest (to them) trading costs.

The core EU members have always understood the concept of pooled sovereignty, and shared responsibility. The British, not so much - they have always approached the EU from a purely trading perspective.

This isn't a simple trade negotiation - it's also about the heart and soul of the EU project. There are two clashing sets of ideology. In the UK, you have a nationalist / patriotic ideology, where "taking back control" is more important than simple economics. It would be foolish to ignore the fact that the rest of the EU has an equally strong, if not stronger, ideology, which is also about more than simple economics, and it will not undermine the principles on which the EU was founded for the sake of a trade deal with the UK that the UK needs a lot more than they do.

.

Fratton Fred

swampgas wrote: »

The catch here though is that allowing the UK to cherry pick which aspects of EU membership they want would be very damaging to the EU as a whole. Something that seems to be ignored constantly by those arguing for some kind of special "everybody wants to trade, don't they" deal. The UK may not care if the EU falls apart (in fact some might welcome it) but the rest of the EU-27 are very much aware of the risks.

"Juncker et al" as you put it, will be very keen to minimise the damage to the EU as an entity. That could mean some limited collateral damage to individual countries, as their vested interests in maintaining EU cohesion would have a higher priority over modest (to them) trading costs.

The core EU members have always understood the concept of pooled sovereignty, and shared responsibility. The British, not so much - they have always approached the EU from a purely trading perspective.

This isn't a simple trade negotiation - it's also about the heart and soul of the EU project. There are two clashing sets of ideology. In the UK, you have a nationalist / patriotic ideology, where "taking back control" is more important than simple economics. It would be foolish to ignore the fact that the rest of the EU has an equally strong, if not stronger, ideology, which is also about more than simple economics, and it will not undermine the principles on which the EU was founded up for the sake of a trade deal with the UK that the UK needs a lot more than they do.

I agree and I don't honestly believe for a second the UK thinks any different.

The dust still needs to settle at the moment and then we will start to hear more reasonable rhetoric from both sides.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's all bluster at the moment. When article 50 in enacted, then we will see the actual government position, as we will the eu's.

From the Tory party conference.

Controlling immigration would be the key basis for departure, May said. The government would seek access to the EU’s single market if possible, she said, adding: “But let me be clear. We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.”

Curbing immigration + jurisdiction of the European court of justice = Hard Brexit. Perhaps the public threats by Hudd and others re. immigrations are just bluster also?

so from Wales it was a "We want to leave the eu buuutttt..... This is as bad as Cornwall voting out and then asking London to pick up their lost subsidies. They voted out, tough ****.

What are you on about? The difference between a hard Brexit and a soft Brexit is dozens of billions of pounds to the UK economy. Ofcourse the first ministers are concerned about exactly HOW Brexit will play out.

really, so only the English like to blame their problems on Johnny Foreigner?

No, many people do. Xenophobia seems to be a particularly severe problem in little England though.

Nicola Sturgeon would rather eat Ann Widdicombe's soiled underwear than agree with Westminster.

Youre projecting your childishness onto her. She is an adult. Her mandate is to do what is best for Scotland. Can you show some integrity in your debating please?

The jury is still out on Boris' appointment, it could be a huge mistake, it could be a superb tactical move.

lol Explain the superb tactical move please?

Note: a good tactical move re internal Tory politics does not equal a good move re. Brexit negotiations? OK? Shoot.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I agree and I don't honestly believe for a second the UK thinks any different.

The dust still needs to settle at the moment and then we will start to hear more reasonable rhetoric from both sides.

I'm sorry?

If the UK did not think any differently then why did they not withhold the date for invoking article 50 as leverage for the interim deal?
I missed that, please explain.

It is imperative on every UK citizen who wishes their country well to create such a storm as to the idiocy of Brexit that the beast collapses.
Do you consider yourself a patriot? Defending something you are ill-informed about that could be detrimental to your country. Is this your patriotism?

swampgas

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I agree and I don't honestly believe for a second the UK thinks any different.

The dust still needs to settle at the moment and then we will start to hear more reasonable rhetoric from both sides.

The problem I see is that this isn't like buying a second hand car, where you gradually converge on an agreeable middle ground.

Political rhetoric is dangerous, because people tend to believe it and expect you to stick with it. Of course politicians change positions all the time, but significant U-turns always carry political risk.

I can walk way from a car salesman after slagging off his car and his offer, and then agree to buy it when he chases after me and drops his price a little. We both understand the game being played. That doesn't translate into politics so well. The people don't always know (or care) that the rhetoric being provided by people like May (and Farage, Gove, Johnson) might be bluster to get a better deal. They usually accept it at face value. Politicians paint themselves into corners all the time, and find themselves forced to continue with a terrible path of action because changing their approach and going back on their word would simply be too embarrassing.

If May did a complete U-turn and accepted free movement as part of a deal with the EU, a huge part of the public support for her, her party and her government would disappear overnight.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Can you show some integrity in your debating please?

right, like you are......

demfad wrote: »

No, many people do. Xenophobia seems to be a particularly severe problem in little England though.

demfad wrote: »

lol Explain the superb tactical move please?

Note: a good tactical move re internal Tory politics does not equal a good move re. Brexit negotiations? OK? Shoot.

The Brexit side need a figurehead in a flagship role, it ishow the country reunifies itself. Short of giving Nigel farage a position (which would be stupid) then Boris is the man.

Anita Blow

I'm not even sure there's one person on the Brexit side that would describe Boris' appointment as a "superb tactical move"

wes

Interesting article about people using the working class for there own ends, and not actually letting them represent themselves:

I’m white and working class. I’m sick of Brexiters saying they speak for me

Its interesting that people use the working class as a prop, and don't give them any kind of agency.