How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[Eddie Strohacker]

Deptford Draylons said:

Well , you could stop wasting time and just say how you voted.

You're bringing it up repeatedly, not me, so who exactly is wasting time?

Besides, what's it go to do with you? What makes you think I'm under any obligation to disclose to you what I do in the privacy of the voting booth?


At some point you're going to have to accept that postulating all remainers must vote Lib Dem is arrant nonsense, logically barren & plain wrong. Yet rather than display even one ounce of humility, you revert to type & pursue the individual pointing that out relentlessly to cover your own inadequacies of thinking.

[Deptford Draylons]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Well , you could stop wasting time and just say how you voted.

You're bringing it up repeatedly, not me, so who exactly is wasting time?

Besides, what's it go to do with you? What makes you think I'm under any obligation to disclose to you what I do in the privacy of the voting booth?


At some point you're going to have to accept that postulating all remainers must vote Lib Dem is arrant nonsense, logically barren & plain wrong. Yet rather than display even one ounce of humility, you revert to type & pursue the individual pointing that out relentlessly to cover your own inadequacies of thinking.

I haven't said all remainers MUST vote LibDem, more asking why their vote share went down when people like you turn up day after day to say Brexit will lead to the ruination of the country. They had no chance of outright winning the election , but they could have stood a decent chance of being part of a coalition.
Since you were so vocal in saying voting LibDem was a waste of time, and given you are a very vocal Remainer and doom monger about Brexit here, it does beg the question who you personally would have then voted for. Greens and any small party seems out given what you said about the LibDems. That just leaves the big two.

Since you obviously won't say which and just waste time in avoiding doing so, I'll just stick you down as a very shy Labour voter too embarrassed to admit it, probably because you couldn't even begin to back up anything Labour have ever said on Brexit and you might look a bit silly trying.

[andymadmak]

don'tbesilly said:

Eddie Strohacker said:

Deptford Draylons said:

No interest in your crossdressing activities, thanks. I just find it interesting you seemingly voted Labour to correct the coming ( according to you ) ruination of the country due to Brexit, and that other Remainers didn't even stick with the LibDems enough not to see their vote share drop.

If you did vote Labour, could you speak a little on their position on Brexit and why you thought this best given the scale of the coming problem as you see it ? Their position seems somewhat confused on every single aspect of Brexit, which makes me wonder why anyone interested in reversing Brexit ( if you are truthful ) or staying in the SM and CU ( if more diplomatic ) would vote for them. Or do with have a few closet Remainers who voted Tory and backing their vision of Brexit ?

Once again, you make a leap of logic you are in no position to perform. Was there anything else I can help you with?

It's clear you didn't vote for the Tories, nor the Lib-Dems based on your hatred for the former and your dismissal of the latter, it also seems you didn't vote Labour based on the above.

Was it the Greens that rocked your boat, or one of the other parties?
I guess you might suffer from a bad back like one of the other members on here and never made the polling booth.

Apparently there is a cadre of UKIP supporters who voted Remain....

[Eddie Strohacker]

Deptford Draylons said:

Since you obviously won't say which and just waste time in avoiding doing so

It's almost as if when you get an answer you don't like, you just repeat the allegation until the other guy dies of boredom answering it.

Deptford Draylons said:

I'll just stick you down as a very shy Labour voter too embarrassed to admit it, probably because you couldn't even begin to back up anything Labour have ever said on Brexit and you might look a bit silly trying.

Good luck with that line of thought.

[Robertj21a]

Any chance that we could get back to the original subject ?

[Deptford Draylons]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Since you obviously won't say which and just waste time in avoiding doing so

It's almost as if when you get an answer you don't like, you just repeat the allegation until the other guy dies of boredom answering it.

Deptford Draylons said:

I'll just stick you down as a very shy Labour voter too embarrassed to admit it, probably because you couldn't even begin to back up anything Labour have ever said on Brexit and you might look a bit silly trying.

Good luck with that line of thought.

I didn't get an answer to how you voted though, so it wasn't as if you answered and I didn't like it. But it's fine, you don't have to say, just thought you might since you involved yourself in the conversation voluntarily. But at least we agree voting LibDem was an utter waste of time and far better to back a party who backs Brexit and leaving the SM and CU.

[Deptford Draylons]

Robertj21a said:

Any chance that we could get back to the original subject ?

There was very little to discuss. As far as I can see in involves a rather stupid assumption on a press photo of one side with a big stack of papers in front of them and the other side with none. Lightweight propaganda stuff.

[Murph7355]

Eddie Strohacker said:

C'mon, bleating is harsh. But hey, we're talking, that's the main thing!

Harsh? Nah.

"Whining like a bed wetting ninny" would be harsh. But I didn't say that.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Murph7355 said:

Harsh? Nah.

"Whining like a bed wetting ninny" would be harsh. But I didn't say that.

No indeed, just as I would never entertain 'entrenched parochial simpleton'. It would just be rude.

[hyphen]

New story in the papers.

Apparently the UK as member of the EU and home of EuroAtom is storing Nuclear Waste from EU states, stored as powder under armed guard.

I'm guessing the EU won't want this back..

https://www.ft.com/content/0c56a4f2-6bc5-11e7-bfeb...

[turbobloke]

hyphen said:

New story in the papers.

Apparently the UK as member of the EU and home of EuroAtom is storing Nuclear Waste from EU states, stored as powder under armed guard.

I'm guessing the EU won't want this back..

https://www.ft.com/content/0c56a4f2-6bc5-11e7-bfeb...

If there's no fee for storing it now, there ought to be one post-Brexit; and if there is, it ought to increase significantly due to the imminent change from intra-club to extra-club nature of the arrangement.

[Einion Yrth]

andymadmak said:

Apparently there is a cadre of UKIP supporters who voted Remain....

I expect they were too old and thick to remember to be adequately racist.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

hyphen said:

New story in the papers.

Apparently the UK as member of the EU and home of EuroAtom is storing Nuclear Waste from EU states, stored as powder under armed guard.

I'm guessing the EU won't want this back..

https://www.ft.com/content/0c56a4f2-6bc5-11e7-bfeb...

If there's no fee for storing it now, there ought to be one post-Brexit; and if there is, it ought to increase significantly due to the imminent change from intra-club to extra-club nature of the arrangement.

Although the UK may run out of fuel for nuclear power stations in ~2 years according to some industry sources if EURATOM is ditched with no replacement.

Still think the UK can name its price?

[Einion Yrth]

cookie118 said:

Although the UK may run out of fuel for nuclear power stations in ~2 years according to some industry sources

[wiki]citation needed[/wiki]

[anonymous-user]

Einion Yrth said:

cookie118 said:

Although the UK may run out of fuel for nuclear power stations in ~2 years according to some industry sources

[wiki]citation needed[/wiki]

Professor cashmore the head of the UKAEA has said that 'by 2025 “you could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter”.

"It is also a more direct problem for nuclear power stations, Cashmore said, because without new treaties Britain would not be able to get new fuel once its stockpile of uranium runs out."

Ok it's a buzz feed article but professor cashmore is the chair of the UKAEA

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientis...

[turbobloke]

cookie118 said:

Although the UK may run out of fuel for nuclear power stations in ~2 years according to some industry sources if EURATOM is ditched with no replacement.

Still think the UK can name its price?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/.

That;s before any thoughts of thorium reactors.

[NJH]

confused_buyer said:

To be fair, that has always been the case. "Sufficient Progress" was always designed to be a political fudge and the Eu negotiating guidelines clearly state nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I was amazed when they were published that none of this really got picked up and instead there was a massive fuss of Gibraltar. In truth I would image the UK side was quietly delighted with much of the EU guidelines.

It was picked up at the time. I watched one of the press conferences back then, can't remember which EU bod answered the question but they stated that it meant agreement of the principles around the bill. This is what most people would expect, agree the principles and make up for the calculation but not the final number.

I don't have to state of course why such a thing was not reported or discussed in the mainstream media.

[NJH]

It should also be obvious of course that there is a possible swizz in relation to the size of the bill, much of it relates to commitments we entered into which run past 2019 into the next EU budgeting round (2020 ?). Ergo stay in some areas as part of a transitional arrangement (CAP for example) and run the bill down some.

Again this was very briefly mentioned by one of the Scandinavian ministers but got lost in the constant noise around 100 BN euro or whatever the latest plucked out of thin air number is.

[paulrockliffe]

NJH said:

It should also be obvious of course that there is a possible swizz in relation to the size of the bill, much of it relates to commitments we entered into which run past 2019 into the next EU budgeting round (2020 ?). Ergo stay in some areas as part of a transitional arrangement (CAP for example) and run the bill down some.

Again this was very briefly mentioned by one of the Scandinavian ministers but got lost in the constant noise around 100 BN euro or whatever the latest plucked out of thin air number is.

The EU position is that the budget was agreed, so we have to fund the budget until a new one is agreed. I rather suspect the UK position is we won't be funding the budget when we've left, everything needs sorting at the point of exit. That's the major sticking point.

The French seem to be arguing that because we'll have left the CAP in 2019 we can't have the rebate for the years after we've left, while on the other hand arguing we should be paying for the CAP after we've left it.

There's been no suggestion that funding for projects in the UK should continue beyond 2019 of course.

It's all nonsense, any other organisation that lost one of its major funders would be sorting out a new budget, not demanding the ex-member still pays until they can be bothered to sort their house out while denying the ex-member the benefits of membership.

[Murph7355]

Eddie Strohacker said:

No indeed, just as I would never entertain 'entrenched parochial simpleton'. It would just be rude.

Super. As long as we're all on the same wavelength