How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[banjowilly]

Starrting to think I'm not the thick one around here.

[Otis Criblecoblis]

banjowilly said:

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.

I do handle myself this way with the deliberately disengenuous people in life and people too thick to understand the basics. Bad me.
Next time understand possible outcomes of a vote when you go to the polls.

[anonymous-user]

andymadmak said:

Your whole argument seems to be ' how can the Brexiteers claim to be taking back control if they are willing to let some foreigners decide the final outcome'[

Yup, that hits the nail neatly on the head. You say you want to "take back control" and then immediately concede you're happy for the big decisions to be made by somebody else.

It makes no sense at all.

[DeepEnd]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

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.
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 fk 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.

The WA met the ballot paper definition of leave and nothing there was forbidden. Would you be happy with that? Or a Norway option?

[don'tbesilly]

Jimboka said:

I wonder if Johnson will deliver his Unicorn in the 30 days set out by Merkel & Macron?
Funny how it was seen as a glimmer of hope by him & his team !
Great that he was called out on it anyway, looking forward to seeing his solution

You thought 30 days was a deadline?

Where did you get that from?

Most took Merkel's comments for what they were, that it could/might be possible to come up with a solution in 30 days, I don't think 30 days was a definitive goal that is set in stone.
It won't work anyway, whatever Johnson comes up with wouldn't be acceptable to the EU and it's just another way to wind down the clock.

68 days left and little to suggest there will be a deal despite the rhetoric, it still looks like no deal is on the cards.

[Otis Criblecoblis]

DeepEnd said:

Oh look, still blaming remainers too, how quaint.

I said I was fine with the no deal consequence.
I'm pointing out to you that everything you moan about is a consequence of Remainers.

[Elysium]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

I do handle myself this way with the deliberately disengenuous people in life and people too thick to understand the basics. Bad me.
Next time understand possible outcomes of a vote when you go to the polls.

It does you no favours.

When I vote for my local MP, there is a possibility that he might turn out to be a useless fkwit.

That does not mean my vote provides a mandate for him to be one.

[Otis Criblecoblis]

Elysium said:

It does you no favours.

When I vote for my local MP, there is a possibility that he might turn out to be a useless fkwit.

That does not mean my vote provides a mandate for him to be one.

Poor anology in deflection there.
If he says something is a last ditch option and possible outcome and you vote for him, you've given him that mandate. That's what happened here.

[amusingduck]

rockin said:

andymadmak said:

Your whole argument seems to be ' how can the Brexiteers claim to be taking back control if they are willing to let some foreigners decide the final outcome'[

Yup, that hits the nail neatly on the head. You say you want to "take back control" and then immediately concede you're happy for the big decisions to be made by somebody else.

It makes no sense at all.

You think that dispute resolution is synonymous with "the big decisions to be made by somebody else"?!

[gooner1]

DeepEnd said:

The WA met the ballot paper definition of leave and nothing there was forbidden. Would you be happy with that? Or a Norway option?

Parliament disagreed with your assessment , more than once.

Did none of the 17m + Leave voters let you know? How rude of them not to pass on important information to someone who purports to know how they think.

[DeepEnd]

gooner1 said:

Parliament disagreed with your assessment , more than once.

Did none of the 17m + Leave voters let you know? How rude of them not to pass on important information to someone who purports to know how they think.

Parliament disagrees with Otis and his no deal argument too.

You don’t speak for the 17m.

There is no way they all think like you and Otis.

[Elysium]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

Elysium said:

It does you no favours.

When I vote for my local MP, there is a possibility that he might turn out to be a useless fkwit.

That does not mean my vote provides a mandate for him to be one.

Poor anology in deflection there.
If he says something is a last ditch option and possible outcome and you vote for him, you've given him that mandate. That's what happened here.

No it isn’t.

1. At the time of the referendum, it was conceivable that the finer details of our future trade arrangements might not be known when we left. The idea that we might somehow be unable to agree the most basic terms of withdrawal was not a possible outcome. What sort of fkwit would you need to be to screw that up?

2. The current version of no-deal, leaving without agreeing any exit terms, is not a ‘last ditch option’. It’s an escape route for Johnson that will allow him to give you some sort of Brexit on the 31st Oct, without solving any of the basic problems that made it difficult for us to get the withdrawal agreement we wanted. Those problems won’t go away, his failure to solve them will haunt us for at least the next decade.

Your argument might make a teeny bit more sense if you apply it to MPs decision to trigger article 50 before we had any agreement on our side about the sort of Brexit we wanted. That was the first point at which this current version of ‘no-deal’ became a possible outcome.

There were clues that we might have appointed fkwits to act on our behalf at that point, for example Mays use of the senseless phrase that Brexit means Brexit. Unfortunately, the Brexiteers were too swept up in the idea that May would lead them to victory to ask what the hell she was on about.

[crankedup]

rockin said:

andymadmak said:

Your whole argument seems to be ' how can the Brexiteers claim to be taking back control if they are willing to let some foreigners decide the final outcome'[

Yup, that hits the nail neatly on the head. You say you want to "take back control" and then immediately concede you're happy for the big decisions to be made by somebody else.

It makes no sense at all.

In my World ‘control’ is all about exercising choices, that is we, as a Nation exercise our choices. This, as opposed to being directed by forces outside of our, my ‘control’.

[crankedup]

From the tone of posts from our remainer friends it suggests that finally the reality of the U.K. leaving the E.U. has sunk in. I do hope that we are not going to be subjected to negative ‘told you so’ posts following every news item regarding our E.U. departure. It achieves abso.utely nothing whatsoever.

[anonymous-user]

DeepEnd said:

Parliament disagrees with Otis and his no deal argument too.

You don’t speak for the 17m.

There is no way they all think like you and Otis.

You sure about that?

Parliament voted into law no deal. Its the law that counts, not the moanings of MP's who didn't know what they were doing, asuming you think they didn't put no deal into law on purpose.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

From the tone of posts from our remainer friends it suggests that finally the reality of the U.K. leaving the E.U. has sunk in. I do hope that we are not going to be subjected to negative ‘told you so’ posts following every news item regarding our E.U. departure. It achieves abso.utely nothing whatsoever.

Its a cast iron guarantee the next downturn will be because Brexit. The fact the ROW is also in the st wont make a jot of difference to them.

[gooner1]

DeepEnd said:

Parliament disagrees with Otis and his no deal argument too.

You don’t speak for the 17m.

There is no way they all think like you and Otis.

But unlike you I don't assume I do.

I also don't assume to speak for or know how Otis thinks. HTH.

[Garvin]

crankedup said:

From the tone of posts from our remainer friends it suggests that finally the reality of the U.K. leaving the E.U. has sunk in. I do hope that we are not going to be subjected to negative ‘told you so’ posts following every news item regarding our E.U. departure. It achieves abso.utely nothing whatsoever.

Dream on. Experience since the referendum demonstrates that every problem is attributed to ‘the vote’ even when there is clearly no causation or even correlation. It will just get worse after Brexit.

Look on the bright side, such machinations will be an immense source of humour.

Remainers’ moanings will, however, count for nought as rejoining the EU will be a pipe dream. If the UK economy holds up then any campaign to rejoin an entity where we will have a net financial contribution will get laughed ‘out of court’. If our economy is so bad that we would attract a net financial benefit then why the hell would anyone think, with so many other counties contributing to a drain on EU resources, that Germany & France would want to fund the UK.

No, once we are out, we are out!

[Earthdweller]

Garvin said:

Dream on.

No, once we are out, we are out!

I think that is fair

If the UK booms and does very well outside there will be nothing to gain going back in, indeed the years of membership may come to be seen as folly

If the UK flounders then the costs and sacrifices to re-enter are likely to be so high as to make it unlikely and unpalatable for many .. the E.U. isn’t standing still, so expect monetary union, central taxation etc

There may not be an E.U. ( in its current form ) to rejoin

[Elysium]

jsf said:

DeepEnd said:

Parliament disagrees with Otis and his no deal argument too.

You don’t speak for the 17m.

There is no way they all think like you and Otis.

You sure about that?

Parliament voted into law no deal. Its the law that counts, not the moanings of MP's who didn't know what they were doing, asuming you think they didn't put no deal into law on purpose.

They also made it law that the Govt should have due regard for the phase 1 report agreed with the EU, which would require customs union and single market alignment between the EU and Northern Ireland. Something which is entirely incompatible with no-deal.

It is fairly clear that Parliament is opposed to no deal. The fact that the withdrawal act does not expressly prevent it is not an indication that they support it.

It will be interesting to see how they start to try to exert control over Johnson’s minority Govt.