How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
Mrr T said:
SantaBarbara said:
Mrr T said:
I suspect the EU will tell Ireland we are sorry it seems the UK are determined to destroy your economy. Mind you if you now join Sehengen you can assist with our irregular immigration problem and completely screw the UK.
How so?SantaBarbara said:
Mrr T said:
You mean when you voted leave you did not understand this?
You have spelling problems or cannot understand theborder between Eire and Northern Ireland What's amusing are all the posters on PH demanding immigration control while knowing the UK has already offered an open border with Eire. I just wonder what they say when Eire joins Schengen.
sidicks said:
Mrr T said:
So after all the debate over many months you still do not understand how creating a customs border in Ireland will effect the economies of both north and south.
1. I assume you mean 'affect' not 'effect'?2. 'affect' <> 'destroy'
"a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause."
///ajd said:
Troubleatmill said:
Coolbanana said:
And I enjoy winding Leavers up. 
I don't think you are as good at it as you think.Still - you only have to please yourself.
The emerging information suggests many brexiteers both here and elsewhere believed things would happen that patently won't.
It will "all be on the table" we were boldly - and mockingly - told when any concerns about negotiations with the EU were raised.
As it all turns to dust - as predicted and warned by remainers - you should not be surprised if many point this out, and ridicule the way so many were duped into talking about German cars and the like.
Yes, anyone who has bleated about them needing us more than we need them - all those arguments about 44% or this, deficit that, BMW this, etc. - they are all coming to nought. You were told, many facts were pointed out, but no - you wanted to believe Davis, Farage and all the other right wing blow hards who think shouting Rule Britannia and talking about how great we are will make everything OK.
Leaver should contemplate that it is going to get worse as the full extent of the brexit lies are laid bare.
What do you think of their conclusions ? https://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and...
Sadly I suspect that your relentless, narrow minded "As it all turns to dust" cynicism and negativity will prevent you from reading the article with and open mind.
Edited by Crackie on Saturday 14th October 16:56
Tuna said:
Not wishing to be pedantic, but effect is the consequence, affect is the action of producing the consequence. You affect things, and observe the effect of your actions.
I do not often argue about English but in this case I still think I am right. The introduction of a customs border is the action and the economic down turn the consequence.http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-...
I do agree my misspellings of Schengen was an error.
Mrr T said:
I do not often argue about English but in this case I still think I am right. The introduction of a customs border is the action and the economic down turn the consequence.
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-...
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-...
your dictionary source said:
The basic difference between them is that affect is chiefly used as a verb. Its main meaning is ‘to influence or make a difference to’
That's exactly the meaning you are seeking to apply, but you've used effect instead.The (non-standard) use of effect as a verb:
your dictionary source said:
to bring something about as a result’
This is different to your usage.As an example, rephrasing your sentence:
So after all the debate over many months you still do not understand how creating a customs border in Ireland will make a difference to
= Intended meaning!
So after all the debate over many months you still do not understand how creating a customs border in Ireland will bring about the
= Unintended meaning!
Using your terminology
Mrr T said:
The introduction of a customs border is the action and the economic down turn the consequence.
You I think you can either have:"So after all the debate over many months you still do not understand how creating a customs border in Ireland will affect the economies of both north and south"
or
"So after all the debate over many months you still do not understand how creating a customs border in Ireland will effect the economic downturn in the economies of both north and south"
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th October 16:18
///ajd said:
Troubleatmill said:
Coolbanana said:
And I enjoy winding Leavers up.
I don't think you are as good at it as you think.Still - you only have to please yourself.
The emerging information suggests many brexiteers both here and elsewhere believed things would happen that patently won't.
It will "all be on the table" we were boldly - and mockingly - told when any concerns about negotiations with the EU were raised.
As it all turns to dust - as predicted and warned by remainers - you should not be surprised if many point this out, and ridicule the way so many were duped into talking about German cars and the like.
Yes, anyone who has bleated about them needing us more than we need them - all those arguments about 44% or this, deficit that, BMW this, etc. - they are all coming to nought. You were told, many facts were pointed out, but no - you wanted to believe Davis, Farage and all the other right wing blow hards who think shouting Rule Britannia and talking about how great we are will make everything OK.
Leaver should contemplate that it is going to get worse as the full extent of the brexit lies are laid bare.
I want out of EU, out of SM. WTO terms are fine by me, and pay nothing into the the EU coffers.
As I said before - negotiations always go down to the wire.
Still early days.
Im still waiting for the plaque of locusts Carney, Osborne etc promised. ( All lies - even bigger and more devastating than a red bus )
You have a good memory //ajd - How many of the Remainer lies can you recall?
I bet you don't post up more that 50% of them.
Troubleatmill said:
You have a good memory //ajd - How many of the Remainer lies can you recall?
My favourite was his own about just voting to remain and we'll reform the EU after. I did ask what he thought of Juncker's speech outlining the direction the EU wants to go, but as with nearly everything you ask of ///ajd, a reply you do not get. Deptford Draylons said:
My favourite was his own about just voting to remain and we'll reform the EU after. I did ask what he thought of Juncker's speech outlining the direction the EU wants to go, but as with nearly everything you ask of ///ajd, a reply you do not get.
Some on the remain side honestly believe that the EU could have been reformed from within, despite all the evidence to the contrary that showed that not only was the EU unwilling to reform, but also that the standard EU answer to the problems of the EU was/is MORE EU. Junckers speech is discomforting for remainers because it drives a coach and horses through their line of thinking. The standard answer to the speech is that " if we had stayed in we had a veto that could have stopped it all from happening"......... Which may be true to some degree, but ignores the precarious nature of the veto and further ignores just how damaging it would have been to the UKs relations with fellow member states by being always seen as the barrier to the aspirations of the majority.
I did try asking on several occasions what the referendum outcome would have been if Juncker had been allowed to make his speech in the week before the vote. I never get an answer from remainers, instead I am told that it is stupid to speculate and I am catigated for indulging in "whataboutary and what ifs..."
The answer again though is pretty clear to all but the most ardent remainers. The true path for the EU is not something that the UK people wanted to follow. Ever closer union, a single state, a European head of state, EU taxes ( in addition to VAT), an EU army and all the other paraphanalia of a super state that the EU craves to be are not supported by the overwhelming majority in the UK in my honest opinion.
There was always going to come a time when the fudges and half truths that took us into the EC, and which have kept us in since the 1975 Refer ndum were going to come up against the the realities of the future direction of the EU - a direction which was written into the founding treaties and which has been repeated regularly ever since.
The EU was never going to be just the "pooling of some sovereignty, and mostly about trade".
It was always about ever closer union and a single European state. 40 years of dishonesty by British politicians, aided by a like minded media pack have got us to where we are today.
andymadmak said:
Some on the remain side honestly believe that the EU could have been reformed from within, despite all the evidence to the contrary that showed that not only was the EU unwilling to reform, but also that the standard EU answer to the problems of the EU was/is MORE EU.
Junckers speech is discomforting for remainers because it drives a coach and horses through their line of thinking. The standard answer to the speech is that " if we had stayed in we had a veto that could have stopped it all from happening"......... Which may be true to some degree, but ignores the precarious nature of the veto and further ignores just how damaging it would have been to the UKs relations with fellow member states by being always seen as the barrier to the aspirations of the majority.
I did try asking on several occasions what the referendum outcome would have been if Juncker had been allowed to make his speech in the week before the vote. I never get an answer from remainers, instead I am told that it is stupid to speculate and I am catigated for indulging in "whataboutary and what ifs..."
The answer again though is pretty clear to all but the most ardent remainers. The true path for the EU is not something that the UK people wanted to follow. Ever closer union, a single state, a European head of state, EU taxes ( in addition to VAT), an EU army and all the other paraphanalia of a super state that the EU craves to be are not supported by the overwhelming majority in the UK in my honest opinion.
There was always going to come a time when the fudges and half truths that took us into the EC, and which have kept us in since the 1975 Refer ndum were going to come up against the the realities of the future direction of the EU - a direction which was written into the founding treaties and which has been repeated regularly ever since.
The EU was never going to be just the "pooling of some sovereignty, and mostly about trade".
It was always about ever closer union and a single European state. 40 years of dishonesty by British politicians, aided by a like minded media pack have got us to where we are today.
Sorry, but: yes.Junckers speech is discomforting for remainers because it drives a coach and horses through their line of thinking. The standard answer to the speech is that " if we had stayed in we had a veto that could have stopped it all from happening"......... Which may be true to some degree, but ignores the precarious nature of the veto and further ignores just how damaging it would have been to the UKs relations with fellow member states by being always seen as the barrier to the aspirations of the majority.
I did try asking on several occasions what the referendum outcome would have been if Juncker had been allowed to make his speech in the week before the vote. I never get an answer from remainers, instead I am told that it is stupid to speculate and I am catigated for indulging in "whataboutary and what ifs..."
The answer again though is pretty clear to all but the most ardent remainers. The true path for the EU is not something that the UK people wanted to follow. Ever closer union, a single state, a European head of state, EU taxes ( in addition to VAT), an EU army and all the other paraphanalia of a super state that the EU craves to be are not supported by the overwhelming majority in the UK in my honest opinion.
There was always going to come a time when the fudges and half truths that took us into the EC, and which have kept us in since the 1975 Refer ndum were going to come up against the the realities of the future direction of the EU - a direction which was written into the founding treaties and which has been repeated regularly ever since.
The EU was never going to be just the "pooling of some sovereignty, and mostly about trade".
It was always about ever closer union and a single European state. 40 years of dishonesty by British politicians, aided by a like minded media pack have got us to where we are today.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff