How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 4)

[SpeckledJim]

Helicopter123 said:

Vanden Saab said:

Smiler. said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't consider people without a degree to be 'engineers'.

Ignoramus Level: Elite

Did isambard brunel have a degree?

Yes he did, Brunel studied at Lycée Henri-IV and the University of Caen.

He certainly didn't vote leave either.

Both of these points are facts.

"HTY"

Hope That Yelps?

[Smiler.]

Helicopter123 said:

Vanden Saab said:

Smiler. said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't consider people without a degree to be 'engineers'.

Ignoramus Level: Elite

Did isambard brunel have a degree?

Yes he did, Brunel studied at Lycée Henri-IV and the University of Caen.

He certainly didn't vote leave either.

Both of these points are facts.

"HTY"

Up to your usual standard of "facts" then.

History Today said:

...young Isambard had been sent to school in France, before being apprenticed to Louis Breguet, France’s most celebrated maker of watches, chronometers and scientific instruments. He had been given an effective preparation for the engineering profession, which then had no recognized training programme or formal qualifications.

HTH

[alfie2244]

Smiler. said:

Helicopter123 said:

Vanden Saab said:

Smiler. said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't consider people without a degree to be 'engineers'.

Ignoramus Level: Elite

Did isambard brunel have a degree?

Yes he did, Brunel studied at Lycée Henri-IV and the University of Caen.

He certainly didn't vote leave either.

Both of these points are facts.

"HTY"

Up to your usual standard of "facts" then.

History Today said:

...young Isambard had been sent to school in France, before being apprenticed to Louis Breguet, France’s most celebrated maker of watches, chronometers and scientific instruments. He had been given an effective preparation for the engineering profession, which then had no recognized training programme or formal qualifications.

HTH

Helicopter Talks Yada Yadda

[don'tbesilly]

Smiler. said:

Helicopter123 said:

Vanden Saab said:

Smiler. said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't consider people without a degree to be 'engineers'.

Ignoramus Level: Elite

Did isambard brunel have a degree?

Yes he did, Brunel studied at Lycée Henri-IV and the University of Caen.

He certainly didn't vote leave either.

Both of these points are facts.

"HTY"

Up to your usual standard of "facts" then.

History Today said:

...young Isambard had been sent to school in France, before being apprenticed to Louis Breguet, France’s most celebrated maker of watches, chronometers and scientific instruments. He had been given an effective preparation for the engineering profession, which then had no recognized training programme or formal qualifications.

HTH

In fairness to Helicopter, he was right about Isambard and voting Leave.

Isambard died in 1859.

So Helicopter does get some points for that fact

[Tuna]

Mrr T said:

Back on how the negotiations are going. Some comments on the new and cunning ERG plan.

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87004

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/h...

They took a while to get their attack lines together, but now.. here they are. Singham personally is a "Stupid, venal little man". His plans are "madness" and are worthy of an "amoeba". Play the ball, lads.

Any negotiations require that we take the 'no successful outcome' option seriously - that we are willing to walk away from the table. So what do they go straight for? Yup, 'No deal' is absolutely impossible, we have no cards to negotiate with, we must accept the will of the EU in all matters. It's... it's almost as if they want to stay in.

I'll freely admit I'm not an international trade lawyer, but these articles are not about international trade. They're about the reputation of someone who has proposed a deal that stands a reasonable chance of influencing the direction after Chequers.

A lot of Remainers shamefully stood quiet when Chequers was rightfully lambasted for being a poor deal - because they thought it was 'BRINO' and could be tolerated as a way to ultimately get their way back in. They're now very upset that, in the face of near universal criticism of May's plans, the Brexiteers that they taunted for 'running away' have come back with answers to those criticisms. The fantasy that the EU would allow anything like 'BRINO' is under threat and we're back to people trying to polarise the discussion between 'super-duper extra-hard Brexit' and 'Democracy plus plus with a People's Vote'.

Increasingly I think the EU and May could yet negotiate a compromise that will mean we are genuinely leaving. I'm hoping in the process they will remove the immensely damaging third party tariff and customs processing proposals - but it looks like in the process we'll be leaving BRINO behind.

Whatever happens, the final outcome will be decided by a small group of people - because Labour and Remainers have each for their own reasons decided not to contribute to the negotiations we committed to. That's particularly ironic when "We can influence the EU from inside" Remainers proved completely unwilling to help develop a Brexit strategy that best suited the country as a whole.

I guess it's possible Tony 'Democracy' Blair could yet derail the whole process, but anyone thinking we'll wake up to find it was all a bad dream is going to be bitterly disappointed, just as we were by the promise of 'new politics' from New Labour.

[don'tbesilly]

Tuna said:

Mrr T said:

Back on how the negotiations are going. Some comments on the new and cunning ERG plan.

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87004

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/h...

They took a while to get their attack lines together, but now.. here they are. Singham personally is a "Stupid, venal little man". His plans are "madness" and are worthy of an "amoeba". Play the ball, lads.

Any negotiations require that we take the 'no successful outcome' option seriously - that we are willing to walk away from the table. So what do they go straight for? Yup, 'No deal' is absolutely impossible, we have no cards to negotiate with, we must accept the will of the EU in all matters. It's... it's almost as if they want to stay in.

I'll freely admit I'm not an international trade lawyer, but these articles are not about international trade. They're about the reputation of someone who has proposed a deal that stands a reasonable chance of influencing the direction after Chequers.

A lot of Remainers shamefully stood quiet when Chequers was rightfully lambasted for being a poor deal - because they thought it was 'BRINO' and could be tolerated as a way to ultimately get their way back in. They're now very upset that, in the face of near universal criticism of May's plans, the Brexiteers that they taunted for 'running away' have come back with answers to those criticisms. The fantasy that the EU would allow anything like 'BRINO' is under threat and we're back to people trying to polarise the discussion between 'super-duper extra-hard Brexit' and 'Democracy plus plus with a People's Vote'.

Increasingly I think the EU and May could yet negotiate a compromise that will mean we are genuinely leaving. I'm hoping in the process they will remove the immensely damaging third party tariff and customs processing proposals - but it looks like in the process we'll be leaving BRINO behind.

Whatever happens, the final outcome will be decided by a small group of people - because Labour and Remainers have each for their own reasons decided not to contribute to the negotiations we committed to. That's particularly ironic when "We can influence the EU from inside" Remainers proved completely unwilling to help develop a Brexit strategy that best suited the country as a whole.

I guess it's possible Tony 'Democracy' Blair could yet derail the whole process, but anyone thinking we'll wake up to find it was all a bad dream is going to be bitterly disappointed, just as we were by the promise of 'new politics' from New Labour.

I got as far as the personal attacks and didn't bother with anymore.

If the Singham paper was so bad and flawed, any personal attacks aren't required, it just makes anything North writes uncreditworthy, and not worth the time reading.

One is left wondering what North's PH username is, and explains why one poster in particular is such a fan, and where his script comes from.

[PurpleMoonlight]

don'tbesilly said:

I got as far as the personal attacks and didn't bother with anymore.

If the Singham paper was so bad and flawed, any personal attacks aren't required, it just makes anything North writes uncreditworthy, and not worth the time reading.

One is left wondering what North's PH username is, and explains why one poster in particular is such a fan, and where his script comes from.

[don'tbesilly]

PurpleMoonlight said:

don'tbesilly said:

I got as far as the personal attacks and didn't bother with anymore.

If the Singham paper was so bad and flawed, any personal attacks aren't required, it just makes anything North writes uncreditworthy, and not worth the time reading.

One is left wondering what North's PH username is, and explains why one poster in particular is such a fan, and where his script comes from.

Have you got something to say? Or is your lack of conviction holding you back from saying it?

[Mrr T]

Tuna said:

Any negotiations require that we take the 'no successful outcome' option seriously - that we are willing to walk away from the table. So what do they go straight for? Yup, 'No deal' is absolutely impossible, we have no cards to negotiate with, we must accept the will of the EU in all matters. It's... it's almost as if they want to stay in.

Yes they should have investigated the implications of no deal and quickly realised it’s not an option unless you want to throw the country under a bus. Instead all we got was the “no deal is better than a bad deal” nonsense.

I have said all along we had 2 cards in the negotiation, money, and a large trade deficit (mainly with Germany). We agreed to give up the money part almost on day one and the EU (German) decided to take away the second.

Once you realise how little we had to negotiate with the only logical conclusion was an outcome that achieved some of the objectives in a reasonable time scale but protected the UK economy. That answer was Flexit.

Tuna said:

I'll freely admit I'm not an international trade lawyer, but these articles are not about international trade. They're about the reputation of someone who has proposed a deal that stands a reasonable chance of influencing the direction after Chequers.

If you mean someone who has proposed a deal even less likely to be acceptable than Chequers, then let hope TM does not listen or we are in even more trouble.

[Kenny Powers]

Looks like Labour are imploding. What a bunch of jokers.

[FiF]

Tuna said:

They took a while to get their attack lines together, but now.. here they are. Singham personally is a "Stupid, venal little man". His plans are "madness" and are worthy of an "amoeba". Play the ball, lads.

Sorry for the selective quote, but that sort of thing is exactly where I fall out with the Norths, both of them.

Fair enough, they've been subjected to a lot of bile, and it's difficult to be polite to folk whom you don't know them or anything about them apart from they've pitched up and called you a c*** simply for having a different opinion with nothing to back up that insult. Yes there has been a lot of that. But Norths are too quick to open up with the adhoms towards anyone who disagrees or misses the slightest nuance of their position.

It must turn some folks off.

It's like the poster who continually fires out the tag "buffoons", and some of the people he so describes are indeed such. It's got to the point where I see the word , at reading and move on.

I've no other reason for removing the rest of your post as no time to comment upon it. Hopefully later. Cheers.

[Crackie]

vonuber said:

Given the same people making such a hash of the negotiations are going to be the same who are going to be negotiating all these wonderful new deals that will lead the UK to its sunlit uplands of prosperity, it's not exactly confidence inspiring is it.

its not a given though is it?? Please advise which same people you mean?? I don't think any of the people involved in Brexit negotiations are part of the DIT team.

[Tuna]

Mrr T said:

Tuna said:

Any negotiations require that we take the 'no successful outcome' option seriously - that we are willing to walk away from the table. So what do they go straight for? Yup, 'No deal' is absolutely impossible, we have no cards to negotiate with, we must accept the will of the EU in all matters. It's... it's almost as if they want to stay in.

Yes they should have investigated the implications of no deal and quickly realised it’s not an option unless you want to throw the country under a bus. Instead all we got was the “no deal is better than a bad deal” nonsense.

I have said all along we had 2 cards in the negotiation, money, and a large trade deficit (mainly with Germany). We agreed to give up the money part almost on day one and the EU (German) decided to take away the second.

Once you realise how little we had to negotiate with the only logical conclusion was an outcome that achieved some of the objectives in a reasonable time scale but protected the UK economy. That answer was Flexit.

This is the complete opposite of what I said, and you know I fundamentally disagree with you on that point.

With rather good timing, this is what Next PLC has to say in it's annual report with respect to a no-deal Brexit:

Next said:

<No deal does not> pose a material threat to the ongoing operations and profitability of NEXT’s business here in the UK or to our £190m turnover business in the EU.

I get that people have different opinions on this, but presenting 'your side' of the argument as a fact is quite dishonest.

Mrr T said:

Tuna said:

I'll freely admit I'm not an international trade lawyer, but these articles are not about international trade. They're about the reputation of someone who has proposed a deal that stands a reasonable chance of influencing the direction after Chequers.

If you mean someone who has proposed a deal even less likely to be acceptable than Chequers, then let hope TM does not listen or we are in even more trouble.

On what grounds? After those two articles, I'm completely in the dark. They've argued that the backstop to the negotiations "can't work" at tedious length, but haven't actually explained why the main thrust of the proposal, essentially Canada++ is magically unacceptable. If seems frankly contradictory to most other commentary on the subject.

[Deptford Draylons]

Not that many of you Remainers ever voted in Euro elections or know who represents you, but just in case you were thinking of digging deeper.....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/25/mep-...

[Ridgemont]

FiF said:

Tuna said:

They took a while to get their attack lines together, but now.. here they are. Singham personally is a "Stupid, venal little man". His plans are "madness" and are worthy of an "amoeba". Play the ball, lads.

Sorry for the selective quote, but that sort of thing is exactly where I fall out with the Norths, both of them.

Fair enough, they've been subjected to a lot of bile, and it's difficult to be polite to folk whom you don't know them or anything about them apart from they've pitched up and called you a c*** simply for having a different opinion with nothing to back up that insult. Yes there has been a lot of that. But Norths are too quick to open up with the adhoms towards anyone who disagrees or misses the slightest nuance of their position.

It must turn some folks off.

It's like the poster who continually fires out the tag "buffoons", and some of the people he so describes are indeed such. It's got to the point where I see the word , at reading and move on.

I've no other reason for removing the rest of your post as no time to comment upon it. Hopefully later. Cheers.

Agreed: as a supporter of flexcit it is deeply frustrating that the only sensible way forward unfortunately depends on the North’s limited social skills.

Back in 2016 R North got invited in to sit alongside Singham at European Select Committee. A pretty good opportunity to demonstrate his ability to play nice and also to demonstrate authority.

Sadly it became pretty clear that a key reason for the invite was to be smacked around by Andrew Tyrie, the committee chair, largely because North had needlessly insulted him previously.

They may argue that they are giving as good as they get. I think they voluntarily exclude themselves from influence.

[don'tbesilly]

Deptford Draylons said:

Not that many of you Remainers ever voted in Euro elections or know who represents you, but just in case you were thinking of digging deeper.....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/25/mep-...

Beggars belief, but the EU fans see this type of thing as an expense worth funding.

[Sway]

Ridgemont said:

Agreed: as a supporter of flexcit it is deeply frustrating that the only sensible way forward unfortunately depends on the North’s limited social skills.

Back in 2016 R North got invited in to sit alongside Singham at European Select Committee. A pretty good opportunity to demonstrate his ability to play nice and also to demonstrate authority.

Sadly it became pretty clear that a key reason for the invite was to be smacked around by Andrew Tyrie, the committee chair, largely because North had needlessly insulted him previously.

They may argue that they are giving as good as they get. I think they voluntarily exclude themselves from influence.

I miss Tyrie - a bloody good constituency MP, let alone his skill in various Select Committees in cutting through bullst. A couple of chats pre and post ref were very interesting.

I liked the idea of Flexcit. Unfortunately it didn't consider the risk of it not being a one way process.

The Norths really do put me off. I get that they've devoted their lives to this, but they have absolute tunnel vision and in some ways are even less capable of handling change than the most ardent remain supporters.

[Dr Jekyll]

Bizarre response from Jeremy Corbyn to a BBC interviewer.

BBC: If the vote was Leave or Remain which way would you vote?
Corbyn: We don't know what the question would be.
BBC: But hypothetically if the question was Leave or Remain?
Corbyn: I can't answer that because we don't know what the question would be.

He really is a complete fool.

[andy_s]

Dr Jekyll said:

Bizarre response from Jeremy Corbyn to a BBC interviewer.

BBC: If the vote was Leave or Remain which way would you vote?
Corbyn: We don't know what the question would be.
BBC: But hypothetically if the question was Leave or Remain?
Corbyn: I can't answer that because we don't know what the question would be.

He really is a complete fool.

Like nailing jelly to a wall.

[dromond]

Dr Jekyll said:

Bizarre response from Jeremy Corbyn to a BBC interviewer.

BBC: If the vote was Leave or Remain which way would you vote?
Corbyn: We don't know what the question would be.
BBC: But hypothetically if the question was Leave or Remain?
Corbyn: I can't answer that because we don't know what the question would be.

He really is a complete fool.

But of course we all know he cant answer that because he doesn't know which one will lead to more Labour votes.