The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[zygalski]

powerstroke said:

zygalski said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

This is just what we need now, Tony Blair as the EU negotiator.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/tony-bl...

He is always willing to compromise, as long as someone else is suffering the compromise. The solid brass neck of the man is staggering.

I think it's a great idea. He's a man of experience. Let's face it - it won't be the first time he's saved this country from the brink of Tory disaster

Give that man a balloon !!! just don't mention the War or Chillcot

It was obvious during the months preceding it that Blair was against the war. The Yanks forced his hand.
Anyway, Blair is one of the few statesman-like politicians around with any gravitas & charisma. I think he'd be perfect for the job. Ironically, I think Cameron would have been my second choice.

[powerstroke]

zygalski said:

It was obvious during the months preceding it that Blair was against the war. The Yanks forced his hand.
Anyway, Blair is one of the few statesman-like politicians around with any gravitas & charisma. I think he'd be perfect for the job. Ironically, I think Cameron would have been my second choice.

[Guybrush]

powerstroke said:

zygalski said:

It was obvious during the months preceding it that Blair was against the war. The Yanks forced his hand.
Anyway, Blair is one of the few statesman-like politicians around with any gravitas & charisma. I think he'd be perfect for the job. Ironically, I think Cameron would have been my second choice.

Gravitas? Charisma? I would add trustworthy. Then

[mattmurdock]

don4l said:

I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that the EU only implements things that haven't had a strategy discussion beforehand?

No, for the apparently hard of thinking I am saying that pointing to this document and shouting 'An EU Army is coming, an EU Army is coming!' is the same as pointing at a government white paper in the UK and shouting 'this will be law, this will be law!'.

As in it completely ignores the actual process to take a policy/strategy document and turn it into reality.

[PRTVR]

hidetheelephants said:

I caught a few minutes of Business Questions on BBC Parliament while scoffing breakfast; apparently an Oz/NZ trade delegation is heading UKward already, so clearly the rest of the world wants things to move quickly even if the EU doesn't.

A trade deal should be easy with the likes of Oz/NZ, if it was me I would just have free trade but with a section that if either party had concerns regarging a particular industry that was suffering due to imports, talks could take place on limits.

[jmorgan]

powerstroke said:

zygalski said:

It was obvious during the months preceding it that Blair was against the war. The Yanks forced his hand.
Anyway, Blair is one of the few statesman-like politicians around with any gravitas & charisma. I think he'd be perfect for the job. Ironically, I think Cameron would have been my second choice.

What was his previous job again? Probably still after a seat in the upper house.

[hidetheelephants]

zygalski said:

hidetheelephants said:

I caught a few minutes of Business Questions on BBC Parliament while scoffing breakfast; apparently an Oz/NZ trade delegation is heading UKward already, so clearly the rest of the world wants things to move quickly even if the EU doesn't.

How does the EU not want things to move quickly? I thought we said we'd need time for a new PM to be in place, time to start informal negotiations etc, whereas the EU have repeatedly asked us to invoke Article 50 ASAP & avoid any informal negotiations. I don't see how even the most frothy-mouthed can suggest the EU are stalling things.

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

[PRTVR]

hidetheelephants said:

zygalski said:

hidetheelephants said:

I caught a few minutes of Business Questions on BBC Parliament while scoffing breakfast; apparently an Oz/NZ trade delegation is heading UKward already, so clearly the rest of the world wants things to move quickly even if the EU doesn't.

How does the EU not want things to move quickly? I thought we said we'd need time for a new PM to be in place, time to start informal negotiations etc, whereas the EU have repeatedly asked us to invoke Article 50 ASAP & avoid any informal negotiations. I don't see how even the most frothy-mouthed can suggest the EU are stalling things.

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

Wait till they decide all discussions and documentation will have to be carried in French, that really will put a spanner in the works.

[Phud]

Why? Her majesty is fluent, deal with her..

[jmorgan]

Phud said:

Why? Her majesty is fluent, deal with her..

And have Phil sitting at the back with his blunderbuss......... to keep the peace.

[mattmurdock]

hidetheelephants said:

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

[Jockman]

mattmurdock said:

hidetheelephants said:

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

The process started last Friday

[gizlaroc]

mattmurdock said:

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

Article 50 must be concluded in 2 years, otherwise an extension is needed which has to be agreed with all.

However, the speed at which it is completed is up to the others, it could be concluded in a matter of weeks.
So, delaying the trigger was the sensible thing to do, it allows us to get an idea of how we are coping economically even during a period of uncertainty, and it allows tempers to calm down and think logically.

Resigning and passing the article 50 trigger actually made me have a lot more respect for Cameron, it was a very smart move and for the good of the UK.

[steveatesh]

Jockman said:

mattmurdock said:

hidetheelephants said:

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

The process started last Friday

My understanding is that there can be no official negotiations until Article 50 is triggered, that's the only formal way to start negotiations. In addition the UK is still a member of the EU until we actually leave altogether so we can not officially start negotiations with other countries as trade is an EU competence.

However, none of this stops them having informal discussions to get the broad areas covered, and I have no doubt that will be happening with the actual states (if not the EU) before Article 50 is triggered.

But with just a week gone by they will be sorting themselves out still, appointing people etc etc, so any delay is to be expected. If they have not triggered it by the end of the year then I would suspect a u turn is Happening.

[Northern Munkee]

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/317160209/Lee-Co...

Probably more symbolic, but a US UK trade Bill put before Congress.

Good to know we do have friends.

[AJS-]

mattmurdock said:

No, for the apparently hard of thinking I am saying that pointing to this document and shouting 'An EU Army is coming, an EU Army is coming!' is the same as pointing at a government white paper in the UK and shouting 'this will be law, this will be law!'.

As in it completely ignores the actual process to take a policy/strategy document and turn it into reality.

So was the single currency. And enlargement. And everything else. Then it was inevitable. Then it was too late.

[zygalski]

hidetheelephants said:

zygalski said:

hidetheelephants said:

I caught a few minutes of Business Questions on BBC Parliament while scoffing breakfast; apparently an Oz/NZ trade delegation is heading UKward already, so clearly the rest of the world wants things to move quickly even if the EU doesn't.

How does the EU not want things to move quickly? I thought we said we'd need time for a new PM to be in place, time to start informal negotiations etc, whereas the EU have repeatedly asked us to invoke Article 50 ASAP & avoid any informal negotiations. I don't see how even the most frothy-mouthed can suggest the EU are stalling things.

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

Informal talks can go on for years. The EU want us out yesterday, it would seem.

[Mrr T]

mattmurdock said:

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

Maybe something to do with leaving under WTO rules would costs thousands of job and cause a substantial down turn in the UK economy. You know all those things said by various economists and the leave team said was project fear.

[don4l]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

This is just what we need now, Tony Blair as the EU negotiator.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/tony-bl...

He is always willing to compromise, as long as someone else is suffering the compromise. The solid brass neck of the man is staggering.

What could possibly go wrong?

After all, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Brussels.


Oh... wait a second!

[QuantumTokoloshi]

don4l said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

This is just what we need now, Tony Blair as the EU negotiator.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/tony-bl...

He is always willing to compromise, as long as someone else is suffering the compromise. The solid brass neck of the man is staggering.

What could possibly go wrong?

After all, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Brussels.


Oh... wait a second!

Didn't David Cameron mention WWIII, Juncker had better be careful. Tony is on the case.

Funnily enough, on more thought, ol' Tony. Might be a great addition to the team. We can offer his immulation, for cheap French croissants.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Friday 1st July 10:10