How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
lrdisco said:
All the keyboard warriors on here not one of you has contacted me and to be honest I know 100% not one of you would say “Boo Hoo” to my face.
I’ll be ok. I’ll manage. You don’t care about me and my family, I get that.
I have to accept the vote. I just want to know what is the upside?
To those that have said there’s loads of construction work. There is but again my knees and shoulders are fooooked.
Listen again. I can not do it physically anymore.
I understand that my issues are not important to the nation but to me it’s all I care about. I do not care about taking back control etc.
I was doing well as was the rest of the country as far as I could see but a very small majority of those that voted chose to leave. Not a majority of the electorate.
That’s a bizarre way of conducting democracy.
Disco, why are you being made redundant? I’ll be ok. I’ll manage. You don’t care about me and my family, I get that.
I have to accept the vote. I just want to know what is the upside?
To those that have said there’s loads of construction work. There is but again my knees and shoulders are fooooked.
Listen again. I can not do it physically anymore.
I understand that my issues are not important to the nation but to me it’s all I care about. I do not care about taking back control etc.
I was doing well as was the rest of the country as far as I could see but a very small majority of those that voted chose to leave. Not a majority of the electorate.
That’s a bizarre way of conducting democracy.
Is it a decision to wind up a business? Is it someone else's decision? Is your work in continental Europe? Whatever niche it is you work in can it be done here, is there a market for it? No offence like but you're being a bit vague, how can anyone comment if the ins and outs of your situation are unknown? Help us to help you, perhaps?
I'm a remain voter and haven't been convinced by the leave arguments however the BBC's approach these last few days in particular is nothing short of a disgrace. They are blatantly fear-mongering with every other story about something that will run out or whatever.
Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
pgh said:
DeepEnd said:
Worth a read.
He sort of turns the backstop around and implies it is actually threatening the GFA. That could go down badly.
So badly that they'll erm, come up with a worse backstop? He sort of turns the backstop around and implies it is actually threatening the GFA. That could go down badly.
DeepEnd said:
He doesn’t really give a solution which is a bit concerning, just talks towards the end about “alternative arrangements” - almost as vague as “technology”.
He is basically trying to turn it into a “as far a possible” promise that the UK can unilaterally break.
It’ll be interesting to see how the EU react and how long they take.
Why would it be incumbent upon the PM to propose a specific border solution in this letter? That seems a little unusual to me, any plan for the border would surely be longer than any reasonable length letter.He is basically trying to turn it into a “as far a possible” promise that the UK can unilaterally break.
It’ll be interesting to see how the EU react and how long they take.
I enjoyed the part where a mutual legally binding commitment on border infrastructure was proposed. I'm sure the EU will rush to this, just like they did with ex-pat rights...
I see Starmer has panned it as offering nothing and being vague. Some suggest it reveals Boris has no negotiation strategy. Or if he has it is to fail - perhaps a Cummings stunt to just transfer blame to the EU.
I thought the border commitment was cheeky, I suspect that was aimed at your typical brexit ultra. It is not practical to ignore border issues that arise through the planned divergence no matter how good a sound bite it is to say “well we won’t build a border, your problem”. It’s a bit childish really but I realise it appeals to some.
The EU may well stone wall now and see if some grown ups can take the steering wheel in Sept.
jakesmith said:
I'm a remain voter and haven't been convinced by the leave arguments however the BBC's approach these last few days in particular is nothing short of a disgrace. They are blatantly fear-mongering with every other story about something that will run out or whatever.
Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
Nothing happened at the change of the century because companies planned for up to a year before and ensured their systems were checked and changed where required. The fact you saw no issue was largely due to preparation and a dose of good luck.Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
pgh said:
pgh said:
I enjoyed the part where a mutual legally binding commitment on border infrastructure was proposed. I'm sure the EU will rush to this, just like they did with ex-pat rights...
DeepEnd said:
I thought the border commitment was cheeky. <snip> It’s a bit childish really but I realise it appeals to some.
You really can't help yourself can you?!Why the snip, you lose the full context?
Nickgnome said:
Surely as a successful single guy, team manager or some such thing you would have put in place insurance against inability to work, assuming your company did not provide it.
Well you can appreciate all you want but it seems you will never know.
I had plenty of savings, so didn't starve. Well you can appreciate all you want but it seems you will never know.
DeepEnd said:
...
I thought the border commitment was cheeky, I suspect that was aimed at your typical brexit ultra. It is not practical to ignore border issues that arise through the planned divergence no matter how good a sound bite it is to say “well we won’t build a border, your problem”. It’s a bit childish really but I realise it appeals to some.
The EU may well stone wall now and see if some grown ups can take the steering wheel in Sept.
There are no grown ups in Parliament. That has been proven over the last 3yrs. It seems like you're using the tag to denigrate people who you disagree with I thought the border commitment was cheeky, I suspect that was aimed at your typical brexit ultra. It is not practical to ignore border issues that arise through the planned divergence no matter how good a sound bite it is to say “well we won’t build a border, your problem”. It’s a bit childish really but I realise it appeals to some.
The EU may well stone wall now and see if some grown ups can take the steering wheel in Sept.
All three parties have said there will be no harder border infrastructure on that border. So it's not just the UK being "childish".
In the circumstances, I'm not seeing why it's a major issue either with pragmatism both ways. Especially if there's agreement to work towards a technological solution in time.
People from both countries will still be moving freely. And it will take time for standards to diverge. Even when they do, what is the real impact? If the UK/EU are really concerned about the "pollution" of their wider entities with hooky goods, then both could do something elsewhere to address that. But is that really going to happen?
Do we really see Eire citizens buying chlorinated chicken (;)) until it's coming out of their ears and transporting truck loads of the stuff to the other 26 nations? And if they do...how are they going to get it there (through the UK...so why not just smuggle from here onto the Continent if there's such demand?).
Realistically the jeopardy remains on the island of Ireland.
Will that cause issues internationally with other bordering nations/WTO? Perhaps a little childishly, that's not a problem for the UK
However I cannot see the WTO upholding challenges to that arrangement when the primary reason for them is security/peace related.If all three have said nothing harder will be implemented, where are the insurmountable impracticalities?
Murph7355 said:
There are no grown ups in Parliament. That has been proven over the last 3yrs. It seems like you're using the tag to denigrate people who you disagree with
All three parties have said there will be no harder border infrastructure on that border. So it's not just the UK being "childish".
In the circumstances, I'm not seeing why it's a major issue either with pragmatism both ways. Especially if there's agreement to work towards a technological solution in time.
People from both countries will still be moving freely. And it will take time for standards to diverge. Even when they do, what is the real impact? If the UK/EU are really concerned about the "pollution" of their wider entities with hooky goods, then both could do something elsewhere to address that. But is that really going to happen?
Do we really see Eire citizens buying chlorinated chicken (;)) until it's coming out of their ears and transporting truck loads of the stuff to the other 26 nations? And if they do...how are they going to get it there (through the UK...so why not just smuggle from here onto the Continent if there's such demand?).
Realistically the jeopardy remains on the island of Ireland.
Will that cause issues internationally with other bordering nations/WTO? Perhaps a little childishly, that's not a problem for the UK However I cannot see the WTO upholding challenges to that arrangement when the primary reason for them is security/peace related.
If all three have said nothing harder will be implemented, where are the insurmountable impracticalities?
It’s the “not our problem” bit that’s childish, correct. All three parties have said there will be no harder border infrastructure on that border. So it's not just the UK being "childish".
In the circumstances, I'm not seeing why it's a major issue either with pragmatism both ways. Especially if there's agreement to work towards a technological solution in time.
People from both countries will still be moving freely. And it will take time for standards to diverge. Even when they do, what is the real impact? If the UK/EU are really concerned about the "pollution" of their wider entities with hooky goods, then both could do something elsewhere to address that. But is that really going to happen?
Do we really see Eire citizens buying chlorinated chicken (;)) until it's coming out of their ears and transporting truck loads of the stuff to the other 26 nations? And if they do...how are they going to get it there (through the UK...so why not just smuggle from here onto the Continent if there's such demand?).
Realistically the jeopardy remains on the island of Ireland.
Will that cause issues internationally with other bordering nations/WTO? Perhaps a little childishly, that's not a problem for the UK
However I cannot see the WTO upholding challenges to that arrangement when the primary reason for them is security/peace related.If all three have said nothing harder will be implemented, where are the insurmountable impracticalities?
It’s not the stuff of serious international diplomacy is it.
Nickgnome said:
jakesmith said:
I'm a remain voter and haven't been convinced by the leave arguments however the BBC's approach these last few days in particular is nothing short of a disgrace. They are blatantly fear-mongering with every other story about something that will run out or whatever.
Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
Nothing happened at the change of the century because companies planned for up to a year before and ensured their systems were checked and changed where required. The fact you saw no issue was largely due to preparation and a dose of good luck.Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
For Brexit, personally, I am taking some precautions, as I believe it may have a direct impact.
Mike
mike9009 said:
Nickgnome said:
jakesmith said:
I'm a remain voter and haven't been convinced by the leave arguments however the BBC's approach these last few days in particular is nothing short of a disgrace. They are blatantly fear-mongering with every other story about something that will run out or whatever.
Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
Nothing happened at the change of the century because companies planned for up to a year before and ensured their systems were checked and changed where required. The fact you saw no issue was largely due to preparation and a dose of good luck.Firstly it is reminiscent of Y2K where literally nothing happened. Secondly - we are talking likely very short term disruption of a few bits & bobs. Quite why Corbyn thinks we will in some way be better off with him, a Marxist, in charge and a possibly even greater constitutional crisis as a democratically made decision is ignored, I do not understand. Shame on the BBC and shame on Corbyn. Thank you.
For Brexit, personally, I am taking some precautions, as I believe it may have a direct impact.
Mike
Some people made a fortune out of making things 'Y2K proof' whereas in reality they were just selling snake oil
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
I remember the best one being peddled about was that planes would just drop out of the sky lol
Some people made a fortune out of making things 'Y2K proof' whereas in reality they were just selling snake oil
There was a huge amount of hardware and software sold to mitigate the Y2K issues, which were real. The whole world had an IT upgrade at the same time and that drove economic activity.Some people made a fortune out of making things 'Y2K proof' whereas in reality they were just selling snake oil
The company i worked for at the time supplied some major high street retailers IT systems, we were very busy for the two years prior.
Without the preparation work and changes, systems would have fallen over.
jsf said:
There was a huge amount of hardware and software sold to mitigate the Y2K issues, which were real. The whole world had an IT upgrade at the same time and that drove economic activity.
The company i worked for at the time supplied some major high street retailers IT systems, we were very busy for the two years prior.
Without the preparation work and changes, systems would have fallen over.
Some would.The company i worked for at the time supplied some major high street retailers IT systems, we were very busy for the two years prior.
Without the preparation work and changes, systems would have fallen over.
Many others wouldn't.
y2k was hugely over-hyped for a lot of areas.
DeepEnd said:
It’s the “not our problem” bit that’s childish, correct.
It’s not the stuff of serious international diplomacy is it.
Nor is "the UK need to come up with a solution solo as it was their decision to break our perfect arrangement". Or "we're not going to discuss the WA whatsoever as we agreed it with Theresa/Olly" It’s not the stuff of serious international diplomacy is it.
Nickgnome said:
I’ve just read up on it. At best he is being disingenuous. Spanish companies buy British registered vessels, which is equivalent to buying a British company and the the British government try to legislate away their trade.
Hardly surprising the ECJ Ruled against the UK. We were lucky it wasn’t the yanks suing us.
You are wrong again, unsurprisingly. They already owned the boats in Spain. The Spanish fishing boat owners set up a shell company in the UK wholly owned by them. They then re-registered their Spanish boats to their new British company, sailed them to British waters, but still based and operating from their same home Spanish ports, and helped themselves to the UK quota. Neither the boats nor the fish ever came near a British port. But the British fleet was stuck in port because the UK quota had already been hoovered up by Spaiin.Hardly surprising the ECJ Ruled against the UK. We were lucky it wasn’t the yanks suing us.
The UK would have had no objection to those same boats fishing in British waters under their original Spanish flags, and catching fish deducted from the quota allocated to Spain, leaving the UK quota for genuine British boats.
The question was what UK industry has ever been adversely affected by being a member of the EU, and that is one example. The subsequent suggestion that the UK voluntarily gave its quota away is wrong.
Edited by hutchst on Tuesday 20th August 05:42
hutchst said:
You are wrong again, unsurprisingly. They already owned the boats in Spain. The Spanish fishing boat owners set up a shell company in the UK wholly owned by them. They then re-registered their Spanish boats to their new British company, sailed them to British waters, but still based and operating from their same home Spanish ports, and helped themselves to the UK quota. Neither the boats nor the fish ever came near a British port. But the British fleet was stuck in port because the UK quota had already been hoovered up by Spaiin.
The UK would have had no objection to those same boats fishing in British waters under their original Spanish flags, and catching fish deducted from the quota allocated to Spain, leaving the UK quota for genuine British boats.
The question was what UK industry has ever been adversely affected by being a member of the EU, and that is one example. The subsequent suggestion that the UK voluntarily gave its quota away is wrong.
The important bit you missed out is that the UK quota owners sold them for a quick buck. The UK would have had no objection to those same boats fishing in British waters under their original Spanish flags, and catching fish deducted from the quota allocated to Spain, leaving the UK quota for genuine British boats.
The question was what UK industry has ever been adversely affected by being a member of the EU, and that is one example. The subsequent suggestion that the UK voluntarily gave its quota away is wrong.
Edited by hutchst on Tuesday 20th August 05:42
The UK government chose to let this happen, other EU states don’t - we had full sovereignty over that decision.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/c...
Brexit won’t change any of this, unless you want to get the nation sued by the new quota owners and further damage the UK’s trustworthiness.
Do these facts change your view on post brexit fishing opportunities and who is responsible for the current situation?
Edited by DeepEnd on Tuesday 20th August 07:35
mike9009 said:
I must admit I (foolishly) stockpiled a little insulin around the end of March this year. And I will also stockpile a little come October. I would be in serious trouble after a couple of days without it and most of the insulin comes from the EU.
Matt Hancock does not fill me with confidence to avoid it......
Just for info the head of Novo Nordisk in the UK was on the news this morning and mentioned something about them stockpiling 18 weeks worth.Matt Hancock does not fill me with confidence to avoid it......
Hope that's of some reassurance.
Murph7355 said:
There are no grown ups in Parliament. That has been proven over the last 3yrs. It seems like you're using the tag to denigrate people who you disagree with
All three parties have said there will be no harder border infrastructure on that border. So it's not just the UK being "childish".
In the circumstances, I'm not seeing why it's a major issue either with pragmatism both ways. Especially if there's agreement to work towards a technological solution in time.
People from both countries will still be moving freely. And it will take time for standards to diverge. Even when they do, what is the real impact? If the UK/EU are really concerned about the "pollution" of their wider entities with hooky goods, then both could do something elsewhere to address that. But is that really going to happen?
Do we really see Eire citizens buying chlorinated chicken (;)) until it's coming out of their ears and transporting truck loads of the stuff to the other 26 nations? And if they do...how are they going to get it there (through the UK...so why not just smuggle from here onto the Continent if there's such demand?).
Realistically the jeopardy remains on the island of Ireland.
Will that cause issues internationally with other bordering nations/WTO? Perhaps a little childishly, that's not a problem for the UK However I cannot see the WTO upholding challenges to that arrangement when the primary reason for them is security/peace related.
If all three have said nothing harder will be implemented, where are the insurmountable impracticalities?
You are quite right about the jeapardy remaining on the island of island .. it will not infect the greater E.U. All three parties have said there will be no harder border infrastructure on that border. So it's not just the UK being "childish".
In the circumstances, I'm not seeing why it's a major issue either with pragmatism both ways. Especially if there's agreement to work towards a technological solution in time.
People from both countries will still be moving freely. And it will take time for standards to diverge. Even when they do, what is the real impact? If the UK/EU are really concerned about the "pollution" of their wider entities with hooky goods, then both could do something elsewhere to address that. But is that really going to happen?
Do we really see Eire citizens buying chlorinated chicken (;)) until it's coming out of their ears and transporting truck loads of the stuff to the other 26 nations? And if they do...how are they going to get it there (through the UK...so why not just smuggle from here onto the Continent if there's such demand?).
Realistically the jeopardy remains on the island of Ireland.
Will that cause issues internationally with other bordering nations/WTO? Perhaps a little childishly, that's not a problem for the UK
However I cannot see the WTO upholding challenges to that arrangement when the primary reason for them is security/peace related.If all three have said nothing harder will be implemented, where are the insurmountable impracticalities?
If the UK land bridge isn’t used it’s over 700km from Dublin port the nearest French port at Cherbourg
The amount of goods that go north/south are insignificant in the big scheme and smuggling has gone on since borders were first invented !
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:mike9009 said:
I must admit I (foolishly) stockpiled a little insulin around the end of March this year. And I will also stockpile a little come October. I would be in serious trouble after a couple of days without it and most of the insulin comes from the EU.
Matt Hancock does not fill me with confidence to avoid it......
Just for info the head of Novo Nordisk in the UK was on the news this morning and mentioned something about them stockpiling 18 weeks worth.Matt Hancock does not fill me with confidence to avoid it......
Hope that's of some reassurance.
According to yellowhammer leak - quoted via wiki as I can’t access the times:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowha...
States two oil refineries may close with job losses - anyone know which are referred to and why? There are also sources rubbishing the “it’s just worst case” coming from No10 and saying these are basic, most likely outcomes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowha...
States two oil refineries may close with job losses - anyone know which are referred to and why? There are also sources rubbishing the “it’s just worst case” coming from No10 and saying these are basic, most likely outcomes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff