How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
DeepEnd said:
Yes, it was written just under the bit that said we had to leave the CU, SM and stop free movement of foreigners and [angry mode on] we CANNOT be like Norway under any f
king circumstances OK!!!, or its a massive betrayal of the will of the Nigel people and will SHAME democracy!!!! [/angry mode off]
Sounds stupid and inconsistent eh? Indeed it does.
Could of sworn you posted everything was going so well a few posts ago.king circumstances OK!!!, or its a massive betrayal of the will of the Nigel people and will SHAME democracy!!!! [/angry mode off]Sounds stupid and inconsistent eh? Indeed it does.
rockin said:
amusingduck said:
I feel like one of us seriously misunderstands what arbitrators are for. I hope it's not me 
Like andymadmak you're dodging the questions. And yes, I know exactly what an arbitrator is for.- Why are you happy to accept a foreign arbitrator in the context of "taking back control". It makes no sense.
- There's no guarantee an arbitrator will make a decision that you like. Would you really roll over quietly and accept it if the independent arbitrator's decision went against your own views?
amusingduck said:
rockin said:
amusingduck said:
It's fine if they're in Brussels, or literally anywhere else. The key word is independent. How are you struggling with this?
You're dodging both of the fundamental points.- If you want "sovereignty" how can you conceivably agree to accept the decision of a foreign arbitrator?
- And if the arbitrator's decision was, "Mrs May's government negotiated an excellent deal with the EU so that's what you're getting" would you quietly accept that decision?
Why would the arbitrator be making any kind of decision about how good, bad, or otherwise the 'negotiated' deal was? They're there to settle disputes, no? That's the whole point of them being independent!
DeepEnd said:
Otis Criblecoblis said:
You are adding your own twist now. I agree with you, and I don't speak for the 17m.
I would guess a majority thought a decent deal possible and perhaps a likely outcome. That however was not garanteed and I don't know of anything that ruled it out. Remainers fked up and forgot to put any caveats in and actually campaigned using the no deal outcome as a possible result.
As I've said, I went to the polls knowing there was a possible route to no deal. Did you, or what do you think blocked it ?
You just seem to dismiss those leavers who wanted a deal as irrelevant. Does it not matter that they might change their mind on brexit now the promises have been broken? If the govt can break the deal promise, why bother leaving the SM and CU, or even stopping free movement? If you take the view nothing about leaving actually matters you expose your arguments completely. I would guess a majority thought a decent deal possible and perhaps a likely outcome. That however was not garanteed and I don't know of anything that ruled it out. Remainers f
ked up and forgot to put any caveats in and actually campaigned using the no deal outcome as a possible result.As I've said, I went to the polls knowing there was a possible route to no deal. Did you, or what do you think blocked it ?
It is good that you actually remember the remainers warning about the threats of no deal - at the time that was project fear and rubbished by brexit errs as nonsense - of course we’d get a great deal they said. Didn’t influence voters? Nonsense - I’ll bet you were saying & thinking the same - we’d get a great deal. Now it seems you want project fear. The desired outcomes have become so skittish as to be very hard to take seriously.
You say remainers f
ked up by not caveating - it is like you know full well no deal is daft but just don’t care. Weird. What you are not honest enough to say is that nothing did.
As a responsible adult in a vote, you have to weigh up possible outcomes. If you are daft enough to say a poltician promised this and that and didn't warn you it could go bad, then you are supremely gullible.
No deal was a possible technical outcome that dolt remainers didn't caveat or exclude.
There was a rather easy route to it too; talks don't go well, this happens. It was one of two outcomes, with a 50-50 chance ?
I called project fear on various things, and a few honest remainers here accept it was a stupid campaign with added fear to try and win, but in a referendum where it's in or out as the only question , this was a very real possibility and what people had to accept by voting leave. The majority did so by their very vote.
I didn't want a no deal situation, but it's a consequence I can live with and one you have to accept. If someone elects Corbyn, I don't get to overturn that result next morning before he rolls into Number 10 by screaming it's the end of the world. Democracy means you also have to suck it up until your next chance, something you missed when not voting for a party who wanted a referendum at the last election. You are free of course to scream for one though. Who knows , there may be another chance soon in which the LibDems win and hold another referendum. I won't be able to do anything about it.
So speak on what ruled it out as your first line of reply. You or Elysium can argue the case.
One of my fave parts of the referendum is it was entirely a Remainer invention . Voted on by hundreds of dolts like Lucus and Swinson, they sold people like you the vote and you didn't protest it or caveat it . Too arrogant in assuming a win, you rather put us where we are today. I don't mind that btw.
amusingduck said:
stuff
You're claiming to have answered questions you haven't answered whilst wandering off into a ramble about UK not seeking to control other countries. So let's get back to the basics,Which bit of "taking back control" is satisfied by handing over the decisions to a foreign arbitrator?
rockin said:
amusingduck said:
stuff
You're claiming to have answered questions you haven't answered whilst wandering off into a ramble about UK not seeking to control other countries. So let's get back to the basics,Which bit of "taking back control" is satisfied by handing over the decisions to a foreign arbitrator?
Please go and read up on these things before you embarrass yourself further.
Otis Criblecoblis said:
DeepEnd said:
Otis Criblecoblis said:
I think your claim, that the only mandate is to leave with a decent deal , has an added dishonest twist with regard to the 'decent deal' bit.
I went to the polls knowing there was a no deal scenario that was a possible consequence.
You need to demonstrate why the mandate was only to leave with a decent deal, and why there was no posible route to leaving without a deal and what blocked this.
You don’t speak for the 17mI went to the polls knowing there was a no deal scenario that was a possible consequence.
You need to demonstrate why the mandate was only to leave with a decent deal, and why there was no posible route to leaving without a deal and what blocked this.
Plenty were promised and expected a deal.
It is dishonest to pretend they didn’t.
It is not dishonest - as Elysium suggests - to ask what the majority now want as leave is not turning out anything remotely like what was promised.
I would guess a majority thought a decent deal possible and perhaps a likely outcome. That however was not garanteed and I don't know of anything that ruled it out. Remainers f
ked up and forgot to put any caveats in and actually campaigned using the no deal outcome as a possible result.As I've said, I went to the polls knowing there was a possible route to no deal. Did you, or what do you think blocked it ?
The referendumn campaign showed significant support for remaining, but there was an indisputible, although modest, majority to leave. That was based on a campaign fought by people who are now largely in Govt, that promised categorically we would be able to agree terms before we left.
The then Govt, as campaigners for remain warned that might not be possible and were dismissed as Project Fear.
The key point you are missing is that we are not heading toward no-deal because negotiations were difficult. We are here because of sheer incompetence on the part of Mays Govt and a staggering lack of ambition.
We triggered article 50 without doing basic perparatory work to determine the terms that Parliament and the electorate would accept. Once the difficulties emerged, instead of recalibrating and coming up with a vision we ploughed on going to war with ourselves. Now Johnson seems to be pursuing no-deal as a strategy to win a future election, largely because we still have no idea how to solve the basic problems that lead to a poor Withdrawal Agreement, but a sub-set of leave voters are desperate to 'just get on with it'.
In summary, no-deal is a bait and switch scam. Some leave voters may be happy with it, but making a 'guess' that they all are is unfounded. The dishonesty here is with people who are happy to 'steal' someone elses vote to try to argue that there is a mandate for something that they categorically said would not need to happen. You might be willing to go along with that, but that does not make it right.
It was always possible that we might not be able to agree full details of our future trading relationship before leaving. Although it was technical possible that we might leave without agreeing basic terms of withdrawal, it was never necessary, even now. I do not believe any voters in 2016 genuinely expected that our leadership would be this useless and stupid and that we would decide to commit ourselves utterly to leave on an arbitary date, with no regard for the consequences.
Voters who made the effort to tick a box in June 2016 had a right to expect their wishes to be handled with sense and competence. The idea that a leave vote is a blank cheque that allows Govt to be as stupid and reckless as it likes, without any responsibility, is absurd.
It also falls down absolutely when leavers argue that the Withdrawal Agreement, which would be allowed under that same blank cheque, is not acceptable, but no-deal somehow is.
I am being very honest indeed. you seem to be prepared to accept breathtaking incompetence and a complete lack of accountibility, because it gets you something you want. That would be fine, but please do not attempt to claim the moral high ground whilst laying claim to other peoples votes to prop up your argument.
If we really want to leave with this stupid version of no-deal, then on every moral, practical and democratic level, we should test the depth of support for that action amongst voters. The only conceiveable reason why some leavers do not want to do so is fear that it does not actually have majority support.
Elysium said:
As you have accepted, you are one person out of 17m. When you start to 'guess' at what was in every other leave voters mind and assume that they thought the same way as you do, you dishonestly missapropriate their votes.
The referendumn campaign showed significant support for remaining, but there was an indisputible, although modest, majority to leave. That was based on a campaign fought by people who are now largely in Govt, that promised categorically we would be able to agree terms before we left.
The then Govt, as campaigners for remain warned that might not be possible and were dismissed as Project Fear.
The key point you are missing is that we are not heading toward no-deal because negotiations were difficult. We are here because of sheer incompetence on the part of Mays Govt and a staggering lack of ambition.
We triggered article 50 without doing basic perparatory work to determine the terms that Parliament and the electorate would accept. Once the difficulties emerged, instead of recalibrating and coming up with a vision we ploughed on going to war with ourselves. Now Johnson seems to be pursuing no-deal as a strategy to win a future election, largely because we still have no idea how to solve the basic problems that lead to a poor Withdrawal Agreement, but a sub-set of leave voters are desperate to 'just get on with it'.
In summary, no-deal is a bait and switch scam. Some leave voters may be happy with it, but making a 'guess' that they all are is unfounded. The dishonesty here is with people who are happy to 'steal' someone elses vote to try to argue that there is a mandate for something that they categorically said would not need to happen. You might be willing to go along with that, but that does not make it right.
It was always possible that we might not be able to agree full details of our future trading relationship before leaving. Although it was technical possible that we might leave without agreeing basic terms of withdrawal, it was never necessary, even now. I do not believe any voters in 2016 genuinely expected that our leadership would be this useless and stupid and that we would decide to commit ourselves utterly to leave on an arbitary date, with no regard for the consequences.
Voters who made the effort to tick a box in June 2016 had a right to expect their wishes to be handled with sense and competence. The idea that a leave vote is a blank cheque that allows Govt to be as stupid and reckless as it likes, without any responsibility, is absurd.
It also falls down absolutely when leavers argue that the Withdrawal Agreement, which would be allowed under that same blank cheque, is not acceptable, but no-deal somehow is.
I am being very honest indeed. you seem to be prepared to accept breathtaking incompetence and a complete lack of accountibility, because it gets you something you want. That would be fine, but please do not attempt to claim the moral high ground whilst laying claim to other peoples votes to prop up your argument.
If we really want to leave with this stupid version of no-deal, then on every moral, practical and democratic level, we should test the depth of support for that action amongst voters. The only conceiveable reason why some leavers do not want to do so is fear that it does not actually have majority support.
I've made no claim for what they voted for, you made that up to post a lot of pompous stuff.The referendumn campaign showed significant support for remaining, but there was an indisputible, although modest, majority to leave. That was based on a campaign fought by people who are now largely in Govt, that promised categorically we would be able to agree terms before we left.
The then Govt, as campaigners for remain warned that might not be possible and were dismissed as Project Fear.
The key point you are missing is that we are not heading toward no-deal because negotiations were difficult. We are here because of sheer incompetence on the part of Mays Govt and a staggering lack of ambition.
We triggered article 50 without doing basic perparatory work to determine the terms that Parliament and the electorate would accept. Once the difficulties emerged, instead of recalibrating and coming up with a vision we ploughed on going to war with ourselves. Now Johnson seems to be pursuing no-deal as a strategy to win a future election, largely because we still have no idea how to solve the basic problems that lead to a poor Withdrawal Agreement, but a sub-set of leave voters are desperate to 'just get on with it'.
In summary, no-deal is a bait and switch scam. Some leave voters may be happy with it, but making a 'guess' that they all are is unfounded. The dishonesty here is with people who are happy to 'steal' someone elses vote to try to argue that there is a mandate for something that they categorically said would not need to happen. You might be willing to go along with that, but that does not make it right.
It was always possible that we might not be able to agree full details of our future trading relationship before leaving. Although it was technical possible that we might leave without agreeing basic terms of withdrawal, it was never necessary, even now. I do not believe any voters in 2016 genuinely expected that our leadership would be this useless and stupid and that we would decide to commit ourselves utterly to leave on an arbitary date, with no regard for the consequences.
Voters who made the effort to tick a box in June 2016 had a right to expect their wishes to be handled with sense and competence. The idea that a leave vote is a blank cheque that allows Govt to be as stupid and reckless as it likes, without any responsibility, is absurd.
It also falls down absolutely when leavers argue that the Withdrawal Agreement, which would be allowed under that same blank cheque, is not acceptable, but no-deal somehow is.
I am being very honest indeed. you seem to be prepared to accept breathtaking incompetence and a complete lack of accountibility, because it gets you something you want. That would be fine, but please do not attempt to claim the moral high ground whilst laying claim to other peoples votes to prop up your argument.
If we really want to leave with this stupid version of no-deal, then on every moral, practical and democratic level, we should test the depth of support for that action amongst voters. The only conceiveable reason why some leavers do not want to do so is fear that it does not actually have majority support.
I've said any leave voter had to accept there was a very clear route to no deal that they had to accept if voting leave. It was a technical outcome of the vote from the very simple question on the ballot paper, there is no interpreting that on my part.
Your failure to understand this is where you went wrong, well that and trying to slip in the misleading claim about the only mandate being for leaving with a decent deal. Never did bother really explaining that one, did you ?
Otis Criblecoblis said:
I've said any leave voter had to accept there was a very clear route to no deal that they had to accept if voting leave. It was a technical outcome of the vote from the very simple question on the ballot paper, there is no interpreting that on my part.
This is the apotheosis of leaver lies & delusions. You are in effect saying you voted against the people you called liars & scaremongers because secretly you knew all long they were right. The absolute state of your argument.Otis Criblecoblis said:
I've made no claim for what they voted for, you made that up to post a lot of pompous stuff.
You seem to think it is significant that you accepted no-deal when you voted. Since you are only 1 out of 17m, I can only conclude that you are ‘deciding’ that the other leave voters thought the same way. That isn’t up to you. Otis Criblecoblis said:
I've said any leave voter had to accept there was a very clear route to no deal that they had to accept if voting leave. It was a technical outcome of the vote from the very simple question on the ballot paper, there is no interpreting that on my part.
This is wrong. No-deal, as currently envisaged is leaving without agreeing even basic terms of withdrawal. The only way you get to this point is through a combination of total incompetence and recklessness at Govt level. There was no clear route to this and it is not a ‘technical outcome’. There are no circumstances under which it ‘needs’ to happen. It does not seem that it should be necessary to include a note on the ballot paper to confirm that the vote is subject to the Govts not being utterly f
king useless and implementing the outcome of the vote in the stupidest way possible. Otis Criblecoblis said:
Your failure to understand this is where you went wrong, well that and trying to slip in the misleading claim about the only mandate being for leaving with a decent deal. Never did bother really explaining that one, did you ?
I explained it, but to be more direct, I think it is entirely reasonable of us to expect some competence from our leaders. The obvious outcome of these negotiations was a decent deal. Any capable govt should have been able to deliver that and the electorate were entitled to expect it. The people now championing no deal are the ones who said it would never happen.
The mandate is for a deal.
Otis Criblecoblis said:
Elysium said:
As you have accepted, you are one person out of 17m. When you start to 'guess' at what was in every other leave voters mind and assume that they thought the same way as you do, you dishonestly missapropriate their votes.
The referendumn campaign showed significant support for remaining, but there was an indisputible, although modest, majority to leave. That was based on a campaign fought by people who are now largely in Govt, that promised categorically we would be able to agree terms before we left.
The then Govt, as campaigners for remain warned that might not be possible and were dismissed as Project Fear.
The key point you are missing is that we are not heading toward no-deal because negotiations were difficult. We are here because of sheer incompetence on the part of Mays Govt and a staggering lack of ambition.
We triggered article 50 without doing basic perparatory work to determine the terms that Parliament and the electorate would accept. Once the difficulties emerged, instead of recalibrating and coming up with a vision we ploughed on going to war with ourselves. Now Johnson seems to be pursuing no-deal as a strategy to win a future election, largely because we still have no idea how to solve the basic problems that lead to a poor Withdrawal Agreement, but a sub-set of leave voters are desperate to 'just get on with it'.
In summary, no-deal is a bait and switch scam. Some leave voters may be happy with it, but making a 'guess' that they all are is unfounded. The dishonesty here is with people who are happy to 'steal' someone elses vote to try to argue that there is a mandate for something that they categorically said would not need to happen. You might be willing to go along with that, but that does not make it right.
It was always possible that we might not be able to agree full details of our future trading relationship before leaving. Although it was technical possible that we might leave without agreeing basic terms of withdrawal, it was never necessary, even now. I do not believe any voters in 2016 genuinely expected that our leadership would be this useless and stupid and that we would decide to commit ourselves utterly to leave on an arbitary date, with no regard for the consequences.
Voters who made the effort to tick a box in June 2016 had a right to expect their wishes to be handled with sense and competence. The idea that a leave vote is a blank cheque that allows Govt to be as stupid and reckless as it likes, without any responsibility, is absurd.
It also falls down absolutely when leavers argue that the Withdrawal Agreement, which would be allowed under that same blank cheque, is not acceptable, but no-deal somehow is.
I am being very honest indeed. you seem to be prepared to accept breathtaking incompetence and a complete lack of accountibility, because it gets you something you want. That would be fine, but please do not attempt to claim the moral high ground whilst laying claim to other peoples votes to prop up your argument.
If we really want to leave with this stupid version of no-deal, then on every moral, practical and democratic level, we should test the depth of support for that action amongst voters. The only conceiveable reason why some leavers do not want to do so is fear that it does not actually have majority support.
I've made no claim for what they voted for, you made that up to post a lot of pompous stuff.The referendumn campaign showed significant support for remaining, but there was an indisputible, although modest, majority to leave. That was based on a campaign fought by people who are now largely in Govt, that promised categorically we would be able to agree terms before we left.
The then Govt, as campaigners for remain warned that might not be possible and were dismissed as Project Fear.
The key point you are missing is that we are not heading toward no-deal because negotiations were difficult. We are here because of sheer incompetence on the part of Mays Govt and a staggering lack of ambition.
We triggered article 50 without doing basic perparatory work to determine the terms that Parliament and the electorate would accept. Once the difficulties emerged, instead of recalibrating and coming up with a vision we ploughed on going to war with ourselves. Now Johnson seems to be pursuing no-deal as a strategy to win a future election, largely because we still have no idea how to solve the basic problems that lead to a poor Withdrawal Agreement, but a sub-set of leave voters are desperate to 'just get on with it'.
In summary, no-deal is a bait and switch scam. Some leave voters may be happy with it, but making a 'guess' that they all are is unfounded. The dishonesty here is with people who are happy to 'steal' someone elses vote to try to argue that there is a mandate for something that they categorically said would not need to happen. You might be willing to go along with that, but that does not make it right.
It was always possible that we might not be able to agree full details of our future trading relationship before leaving. Although it was technical possible that we might leave without agreeing basic terms of withdrawal, it was never necessary, even now. I do not believe any voters in 2016 genuinely expected that our leadership would be this useless and stupid and that we would decide to commit ourselves utterly to leave on an arbitary date, with no regard for the consequences.
Voters who made the effort to tick a box in June 2016 had a right to expect their wishes to be handled with sense and competence. The idea that a leave vote is a blank cheque that allows Govt to be as stupid and reckless as it likes, without any responsibility, is absurd.
It also falls down absolutely when leavers argue that the Withdrawal Agreement, which would be allowed under that same blank cheque, is not acceptable, but no-deal somehow is.
I am being very honest indeed. you seem to be prepared to accept breathtaking incompetence and a complete lack of accountibility, because it gets you something you want. That would be fine, but please do not attempt to claim the moral high ground whilst laying claim to other peoples votes to prop up your argument.
If we really want to leave with this stupid version of no-deal, then on every moral, practical and democratic level, we should test the depth of support for that action amongst voters. The only conceiveable reason why some leavers do not want to do so is fear that it does not actually have majority support.
I've said any leave voter had to accept there was a very clear route to no deal that they had to accept if voting leave. It was a technical outcome of the vote from the very simple question on the ballot paper, there is no interpreting that on my part.
Your failure to understand this is where you went wrong, well that and trying to slip in the misleading claim about the only mandate being for leaving with a decent deal. Never did bother really explaining that one, did you ?
It is good that you boil it down to “leave voters MUST accept they voted for no deal” - as that exposes just how feeble and dishonest your core assertion is.
The plea - “show me where no deal is forbidden” - is also staggeringly weak. Show me where anything is forbidden?
Such lame argumentation just hardens the resolve to ignore such ridiculously twisted views and take this mess back to the people. There is no way 17m would agree with such nonsense.
banjowilly said:
Otis Criblecoblis said:
I've said any leave voter had to accept there was a very clear route to no deal that they had to accept if voting leave. It was a technical outcome of the vote from the very simple question on the ballot paper, there is no interpreting that on my part.
This is the apotheosis of leaver lies & delusions. You are in effect saying you voted against the people you called liars & scaremongers because secretly you knew all long they were right. The absolute state of your argument.The only way to have avoided this was to vote remain and say this risk of it wasn't worth it. I guess many did. But remainers set the referendum up with this possibility and thought the threat of it would be a winner for them . Got that a bit wrong, didn't they.
Otis Criblecoblis said:
No , you are thick
Serious question, is this how you conduct yourself in real life? Do you realise how it makes you look starting every post with an insult? Or that it doesn't have the effect you hope for? All it does is undermine everything that follows. Either you have an argument that counters me or you have your signature rudeness, but you don't have both.And what you said doesn't scan anyway. You cannot claim to have listened to remain arguments on the consequences of no deal, accepted them & assumed your vote was a mandate for no deal. It wasn't & all leave campaigns made it clear at the time. You are as dishonest as they come on this.
Otis Criblecoblis said:
No , you are thick and can't understand a possible outcome of the referendum was no deal.
The only way to have avoided this was to vote remain and say this risk of it wasn't worth it. I guess many did. But remainers set the referendum up with this possibility and thought the threat of it would be a winner for them . Got that a bit wrong, didn't they.
He’s quite obviously not thick, is he? You can’t even get simple assessments right, so what hope is the reader to have over your brexit analysis? Let’s face it, none. The only way to have avoided this was to vote remain and say this risk of it wasn't worth it. I guess many did. But remainers set the referendum up with this possibility and thought the threat of it would be a winner for them . Got that a bit wrong, didn't they.
Oh look, still blaming remainers too, how quaint.
DeepEnd said:
Elysium has surgically explained why he is not being dishonest, but sadly, Otis you still are.
It is good that you boil it down to “leave voters MUST accept they voted for no deal” - as that exposes just how feeble and dishonest your core assertion is.
The plea - “show me where no deal is forbidden” - is also staggeringly weak. Show me where anything is forbidden?
Such lame argumentation just hardens the resolve to ignore such ridiculously twisted views and take this mess back to the people. There is no way 17m would agree with such nonsense.
If you set a vote up with a no deal possibility and where the only question is remain or leave, you thereby have an outcome where the instruction is to leave but where no deal is not ruled out.It is good that you boil it down to “leave voters MUST accept they voted for no deal” - as that exposes just how feeble and dishonest your core assertion is.
The plea - “show me where no deal is forbidden” - is also staggeringly weak. Show me where anything is forbidden?
Such lame argumentation just hardens the resolve to ignore such ridiculously twisted views and take this mess back to the people. There is no way 17m would agree with such nonsense.
Every voter had to weigh up that risk and ask if it was worth it, it is a consequence of having a vote in a democracy.
I don't claim every Leave voter wanted no deal, but as a voter they have to accept the possible consequences when Remainers f
k up.Speaking of which, Cameron could have set the referendum up with some caveats, no ? One of which might have involved blocking leaving on no deal and parliament having a final vote. That had to be done retrospectively when they realised what they had done.
Stop press!
Border issues and frictionless trade solved!
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fog...
Interesting % stat there too - you can see how the bullst somehow filters across the land and sticks.
Border issues and frictionless trade solved!
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fog...
Interesting % stat there too - you can see how the bulls
t somehow filters across the land and sticks.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff