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

[Ridgemont]

Elysium said:

Interesting:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/24/j...

The main question is why this has been leaked. It seems highly likely that it had come from Johnson’s team.

My conclusion is that Johnson and Cummings want to rack up pressure on Parliament to encourage them to derail no-deal during the first week of September.

I think they know that no-deal is going to be very difficult without Parliamentary support, particularly given the complexities around NI in the withdrawal act and the apparent need for direct rule.

I am becoming increasingly certain that their plan is to fight a people versus Parliament election before we leave. That means an extension of the 31st Oct 2019 deadline one way or another.

Hmm. I think you are overthinking it. Practically all roads lead to an election. That’s hardly a big reveal.
The only question is the timing.

[Garvin]

banjowilly said:

Garvin said:

It was clear to anyone with any capacity for thought and analysis that despite what anybody said at the time an acceptable deal could not in any way be absolutely guaranteed - I do not have to pick anyone on either side, I have my own mind. That you may have thought and been persuaded differently is OK with me, that was/is your prerogative.

I'm being told by a sponsor of Brexit that he knew exactly what he was voting for in 2016, that he knew how things would turn out & presumably is inviting me to search three years of posts confidently pointing out that the NI border was fully factored in his thought process & he'd also priced in two dead prime ministers & the revival of a borderline fascist & his £25 a pop party.

I mean, I admire the swagger but it's about as believable as putting a child in charge of a fighter jet. And then when I consider how you declined to offer a leave campaigner punting no deal. You know why? Because they all promised it would be great, a new dawn with all we have now & more. Not one of them mentioned rationing, stockpiling, Billions spent on mitigating the damage, channel chaos, prostrating ourselves before a messianic imbecile in the White house. None of that ever came up on the stump did it?

You & all the rest are rewriting the narrative because you have to. You have no choice now it's abundantly clear the only way this thing can be conjured into being is by forcing it through in the most damaging way possible. We all know this & weasel words that you knew & fully accepted it was an outcome when you voted is hilarious.

How was the dancing? Hopefully it helped clear your head of this bordering on incoherent rant. I see a lot of posters have, quite rightly, pulled this dirge apart already but I’ll add a few more points.

First paragraph. Difficult to tell whether this is aimed at me but I have to conclude it is. It doesn’t really matter because however one looks at it it is just a rant of pure codswallop. I never, and I’m not sure anyone else did either, told anyone I knew how things would turn out in forensic detail the way your 20/20 hindsight can now ‘reveal’. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with no deal being an obvious option at the time of the referendum. The paragraph is irrelevant to the debate.

Second paragraph. Reading between the general juvenile insults and ranty bits I agree I never offered anything - it wasn’t up to me to do so! I never believed all that the Leave campaign spouted during the run up to the election just as I didn’t believe all that the Remain campaign spouted. All that you state never ever came up from either side of the debate so apart from sheer butt hurt on your part what is the point of it? Again, this paragraph is irrelevant to the particular debate in hand.

Third paragraph. I am not rewriting anything. I don’t have to. Only the terminally stupid would not have considered no deal a viable option at the time. The only person trying to rewrite anything is you and your similarly minded incandescent with rage Remainer clan who are trying to tell me, and others, that I must have believed absolutely everything as ‘gospel’ that the Leave campaign said, nothing the Remain campaign said and that I couldn’t possibly have considered or believed that no deal was an option. In other words, I’m lying. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

I have no idea what personal catastrophe that a no deal Brexit will heap upon you but it must be pretty severe to drive such blind rage. In which case you have my commiserations and yet thanks for your sacrifice for the greater Brexit good.

[FiF]

Ridgemont said:

Elysium said:

Interesting:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/24/j...

The main question is why this has been leaked. It seems highly likely that it had come from Johnson’s team.

My conclusion is that Johnson and Cummings want to rack up pressure on Parliament to encourage them to derail no-deal during the first week of September.

I think they know that no-deal is going to be very difficult without Parliamentary support, particularly given the complexities around NI in the withdrawal act and the apparent need for direct rule.

I am becoming increasingly certain that their plan is to fight a people versus Parliament election before we leave. That means an extension of the 31st Oct 2019 deadline one way or another.

Hmm. I think you are overthinking it. Practically all roads lead to an election. That’s hardly a big reveal.
The only question is the timing.

Quite, another news report alleges that No10 has wargamed an election on Oct17, who knows.

The whole thing in reality is, for the likes of us anyway, a big don't know. Personally going to step back away as far as possible from the mithering and blowhard disingenuous witterings and watch what happens. Which looking at the standard of debate on here starting Friday is probably a safe move.

As others have commented, regardless of the result, leave or revoke, or another referendum, I'm setup ok, not just for me but dependents too, with more than enough reserves and flexibility to roll with any blows, though a Corbyn government would be patience testing regardless.

As said many times by others, including me, possibility of No Deal was considered in decision making, admittedly mistakes made in not predicting the sheer intensity of the bottom lip extension from losers, the collaborative efforts to wind the EU up to be even more difficult than expected, the sheer and unbelievable incompetence of the UK negotiation, and yes didn't give enough attention to the Irish border. Much rather not be here, points at Flexcit area, but we are where we are, the uncertainty is the worst place to be of all.

[Elysium]

Garvin said:

banjowilly said:

Garvin said:

It was clear to anyone with any capacity for thought and analysis that despite what anybody said at the time an acceptable deal could not in any way be absolutely guaranteed - I do not have to pick anyone on either side, I have my own mind. That you may have thought and been persuaded differently is OK with me, that was/is your prerogative.

I'm being told by a sponsor of Brexit that he knew exactly what he was voting for in 2016, that he knew how things would turn out & presumably is inviting me to search three years of posts confidently pointing out that the NI border was fully factored in his thought process & he'd also priced in two dead prime ministers & the revival of a borderline fascist & his £25 a pop party.

I mean, I admire the swagger but it's about as believable as putting a child in charge of a fighter jet. And then when I consider how you declined to offer a leave campaigner punting no deal. You know why? Because they all promised it would be great, a new dawn with all we have now & more. Not one of them mentioned rationing, stockpiling, Billions spent on mitigating the damage, channel chaos, prostrating ourselves before a messianic imbecile in the White house. None of that ever came up on the stump did it?

You & all the rest are rewriting the narrative because you have to. You have no choice now it's abundantly clear the only way this thing can be conjured into being is by forcing it through in the most damaging way possible. We all know this & weasel words that you knew & fully accepted it was an outcome when you voted is hilarious.

How was the dancing? Hopefully it helped clear your head of this bordering on incoherent rant. I see a lot of posters have, quite rightly, pulled this dirge apart already but I’ll add a few more points.

First paragraph. Difficult to tell whether this is aimed at me but I have to conclude it is. It doesn’t really matter because however one looks at it it is just a rant of pure codswallop. I never, and I’m not sure anyone else did either, told anyone I knew how things would turn out in forensic detail the way your 20/20 hindsight can now ‘reveal’. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with no deal being an obvious option at the time of the referendum. The paragraph is irrelevant to the debate.

Second paragraph. Reading between the general juvenile insults and ranty bits I agree I never offered anything - it wasn’t up to me to do so! I never believed all that the Leave campaign spouted during the run up to the election just as I didn’t believe all that the Remain campaign spouted. All that you state never ever came up from either side of the debate so apart from sheer butt hurt on your part what is the point of it? Again, this paragraph is irrelevant to the particular debate in hand.

Third paragraph. I am not rewriting anything. I don’t have to. Only the terminally stupid would not have considered no deal a viable option at the time. The only person trying to rewrite anything is you and your similarly minded incandescent with rage Remainer clan who are trying to tell me, and others, that I must have believed absolutely everything as ‘gospel’ that the Leave campaign said, nothing the Remain campaign said and that I couldn’t possibly have considered or believed that no deal was an option. In other words, I’m lying. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

I have no idea what personal catastrophe that a no deal Brexit will heap upon you but it must be pretty severe to drive such blind rage. In which case you have my commiserations and yet thanks for your sacrifice for the greater Brexit good.

I can't see any signs of blind rage?

All I see is one person, who says he thought no-deal might happen, but voted to leave anyway. One person, out of 17m, who is happy to assume everyone else felt the same as him, in order to get what he wants.

In which case, any leave voters who made their choice based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that the UK Govt would not be entirely incompetent are st out of luck.

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

[don'tbesilly]

Elysium said:

Garvin said:

banjowilly said:

Garvin said:

It was clear to anyone with any capacity for thought and analysis that despite what anybody said at the time an acceptable deal could not in any way be absolutely guaranteed - I do not have to pick anyone on either side, I have my own mind. That you may have thought and been persuaded differently is OK with me, that was/is your prerogative.

I'm being told by a sponsor of Brexit that he knew exactly what he was voting for in 2016, that he knew how things would turn out & presumably is inviting me to search three years of posts confidently pointing out that the NI border was fully factored in his thought process & he'd also priced in two dead prime ministers & the revival of a borderline fascist & his £25 a pop party.

I mean, I admire the swagger but it's about as believable as putting a child in charge of a fighter jet. And then when I consider how you declined to offer a leave campaigner punting no deal. You know why? Because they all promised it would be great, a new dawn with all we have now & more. Not one of them mentioned rationing, stockpiling, Billions spent on mitigating the damage, channel chaos, prostrating ourselves before a messianic imbecile in the White house. None of that ever came up on the stump did it?

You & all the rest are rewriting the narrative because you have to. You have no choice now it's abundantly clear the only way this thing can be conjured into being is by forcing it through in the most damaging way possible. We all know this & weasel words that you knew & fully accepted it was an outcome when you voted is hilarious.

How was the dancing? Hopefully it helped clear your head of this bordering on incoherent rant. I see a lot of posters have, quite rightly, pulled this dirge apart already but I’ll add a few more points.

First paragraph. Difficult to tell whether this is aimed at me but I have to conclude it is. It doesn’t really matter because however one looks at it it is just a rant of pure codswallop. I never, and I’m not sure anyone else did either, told anyone I knew how things would turn out in forensic detail the way your 20/20 hindsight can now ‘reveal’. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with no deal being an obvious option at the time of the referendum. The paragraph is irrelevant to the debate.

Second paragraph. Reading between the general juvenile insults and ranty bits I agree I never offered anything - it wasn’t up to me to do so! I never believed all that the Leave campaign spouted during the run up to the election just as I didn’t believe all that the Remain campaign spouted. All that you state never ever came up from either side of the debate so apart from sheer butt hurt on your part what is the point of it? Again, this paragraph is irrelevant to the particular debate in hand.

Third paragraph. I am not rewriting anything. I don’t have to. Only the terminally stupid would not have considered no deal a viable option at the time. The only person trying to rewrite anything is you and your similarly minded incandescent with rage Remainer clan who are trying to tell me, and others, that I must have believed absolutely everything as ‘gospel’ that the Leave campaign said, nothing the Remain campaign said and that I couldn’t possibly have considered or believed that no deal was an option. In other words, I’m lying. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

I have no idea what personal catastrophe that a no deal Brexit will heap upon you but it must be pretty severe to drive such blind rage. In which case you have my commiserations and yet thanks for your sacrifice for the greater Brexit good.

I can't see any signs of blind rage?

All I see is one person, who says he thought no-deal might happen, but voted to leave anyway. One person, out of 17m, who is happy to assume everyone else felt the same as him, in order to get what he wants.

In which case, any leave voters who made their choice based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that the UK Govt would not be entirely incompetent are st out of luck.

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

Many arguably all who voted Leave back in 2016 would have expected a deal of some description as opposed to no deal at all, however I don't think many would have expected what has transpired over the last three years, and I'd also guess many can see how we have ended up where we are, and can see why some want to use the failings of others to legitimise another vote to reverse the one made three years ago.

I can't write for anyone else but personally I couldn't give a monkeys about any promises or expectations made/perceived from three years ago by the Leave campaign, when the Govt and the MP's in the HoC don't give a monkeys about the vote made by 17.4 million people, they have treated the 17.4 million people with contempt.

You mentioned lies and con tricks, as above you don't need to look far for the guilty parties, and the guilty parties are predominantly those who were not members/participants in any Leave campaigns.

[banjowilly]

Elysium said:

I can't see any signs of blind rage?

Well, well, a false characterisation from a leaver, colour me surprised.


As soon as you ask anyone from the leave side to detail the plan, it falls apart. Every time. No deal is the only way they can continue to avoid the scrutiny. It really is that simple.

[Garvin]

Elysium said:

I can't see any signs of blind rage?

All I see is one person, who says he thought no-deal might happen, but voted to leave anyway. One person, out of 17m, who is happy to assume everyone else felt the same as him, in order to get what he wants.

In which case, any leave voters who made their choice based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that the UK Govt would not be entirely incompetent are st out of luck.

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

Of course you don’t see it . .. . . . because you are blinded by it. You make my point for me quite well.

Stop making things up. I have never assumed everyone else felt the same. Where have I ever stated this? Don’t bother looking, you won’t find it anywhere. I have given my overriding reason for voting leave and I accept that many voted for completely different reasons. Why do you try and rewrite any narrative you don’t agree with? It fools no one and just exhibits a weak and unsustainable position on your part.

st out of luck? Yes, unfortunately so.

It can well be a lie and a con trick. So what? Unfortunately that is immaterial to the argument that no deal was an option at the time of the referendum.

You are just angry and upset.

[Otis Criblecoblis]

banjowilly said:

Well, well, a false characterisation from a leaver, colour me surprised.


As soon as you ask anyone from the leave side to detail the plan, it falls apart. Every time. No deal is the only way they can continue to avoid the scrutiny. It really is that simple.

Yet ask you a simple question on what you went to the polls on and you run away ! Coward.

[jakesmith]

don'tbesilly said:

Many arguably all who voted Leave back in 2016 would have expected a deal of some description as opposed to no deal at all, however I don't think many would have expected what has transpired over the last three years, and I'd also guess many can see how we have ended up where we are, and can see why some want to use the failings of others to legitimise another vote to reverse the one made three years ago.

I can't write for anyone else but...

Let me stop you right there sonny Jim

Firstly your first bit is all about supposition and guess work. You have no way of looking into and understanding the thoughts and motivations of 17m people

Secondly. It was only after the vote passed that there started to be widespread discussion and news items around hard/soft/deal/no deal Brexit

For you to write that you believe 17m people voting leave understood the concepts or impact of leaving and definitely wanted a deal seems unlikely

I’m not saying that some didn’t or even that a lot didn’t but given that the reality of the situation is not even clear now, for you to write that a majority of voters had any idea of the ramifications, logistics, implications of leaving, Seems a bit of a stretch I’m afraid.

The bit about ‘I can’t write for anyone else’ is a bit more like it old bean. You’re writing about your views and expectations and projecting them onto everyone who voted the way you did.

[banjowilly]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

Yet ask you a simple question on what you went to the polls on and you run away ! Coward.

Do you have Tourettes? I wonder why it might be my interest in chatting with you, someone without sufficient willpower to stop themselves offering an insult in every single post? Jog on WC Fields.

[don'tbesilly]

jakesmith said:

don'tbesilly said:

Many arguably all who voted Leave back in 2016 would have expected a deal of some description as opposed to no deal at all, however I don't think many would have expected what has transpired over the last three years, and I'd also guess many can see how we have ended up where we are, and can see why some want to use the failings of others to legitimise another vote to reverse the one made three years ago.

I can't write for anyone else but...

Let me stop you right there sonny Jim

Firstly your first bit is all about supposition and guess work. You have no way of looking into and understanding the thoughts and motivations of 17m people

Secondly. It was only after the vote passed that there started to be widespread discussion and news items around hard/soft/deal/no deal Brexit

For you to write that you believe 17m people voting leave understood the concepts or impact of leaving and definitely wanted a deal seems unlikely

I’m not saying that some didn’t or even that a lot didn’t but given that the reality of the situation is not even clear now, for you to write that a majority of voters had any idea of the ramifications, logistics, implications of leaving, Seems a bit of a stretch I’m afraid.

Sonny Jim!

Just

How you have concluded what I wrote in any way resembles your response is beyond me, it really is laughable and not worth responding to, jog along Sonny.

[Blue62]

Elysium said:

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

That is a fair point and well put if I may say so. We were told that a deal would be achievable but I’m not sure how many actually believed that at the time, I certainly didn’t, though the thought of no deal was never raised at any point I can remember.

I don’t believe anyone who tries to convince me that they knew what they were getting into, they’re deluded. But one point I do accept is when they tell me that leaving was always going to be difficult and involve considerable pain, on that I fully agree.

[Otis Criblecoblis]

Elysium said:

I can't see any signs of blind rage?

All I see is one person, who says he thought no-deal might happen, but voted to leave anyway. One person, out of 17m, who is happy to assume everyone else felt the same as him, in order to get what he wants.

In which case, any leave voters who made their choice based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that the UK Govt would not be entirely incompetent are st out of luck.

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

Lets try the same simple question with you.
When you went to the polls that day, what ruled no deal out ?

[Otis Criblecoblis]

banjowilly said:

Otis Criblecoblis said:

Yet ask you a simple question on what you went to the polls on and you run away ! Coward.

Do you have Tourettes? I wonder why it might be my interest in chatting with you, someone without sufficient willpower to stop themselves offering an insult in every single post? Jog on WC Fields.

I thought you'd weasel and sure enough you did. Maybe one of the bigger boys will answer for you and you can jump on that ?

[don'tbesilly]

Blue62 said:

Elysium said:

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

That is a fair point and well put if I may say so. We were told that a deal would be achievable but I’m not sure how many actually believed that at the time, I certainly didn’t, though the thought of no deal was never raised at any point I can remember.

I don’t believe anyone who tries to convince me that they knew what they were getting into, they’re deluded. But one point I do accept is when they tell me that leaving was always going to be difficult and involve considerable pain, on that I fully agree.

It would have been easier to have just have written "I only ever believed anything in regards the referendum that fitted my own agenda", many/most will/ would have believed you.

[Elysium]

Garvin said:

Elysium said:

I can't see any signs of blind rage?

All I see is one person, who says he thought no-deal might happen, but voted to leave anyway. One person, out of 17m, who is happy to assume everyone else felt the same as him, in order to get what he wants.

In which case, any leave voters who made their choice based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that the UK Govt would not be entirely incompetent are st out of luck.

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

Of course you don’t see it . .. . . . because you are blinded by it. You make my point for me quite well.

Bonkers

Garvin said:

Stop making things up. I have never assumed everyone else felt the same. Where have I ever stated this? Don’t bother looking, you won’t find it anywhere. I have given my overriding reason for voting leave and I accept that many voted for completely different reasons. Why do you try and rewrite any narrative you don’t agree with? It fools no one and just exhibits a weak and unsustainable position on your part.

I am not making things up. See below:

Garvin said:

st out of luck? Yes, unfortunately so.

It can well be a lie and a con trick. So what? Unfortunately that is immaterial to the argument that no deal was an option at the time of the referendum.

You are just angry and upset.

So we get to the nub of it. You realise that leave voters have been conned and you don't care.

You should!

[Elysium]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

Elysium said:

I can't see any signs of blind rage?

All I see is one person, who says he thought no-deal might happen, but voted to leave anyway. One person, out of 17m, who is happy to assume everyone else felt the same as him, in order to get what he wants.

In which case, any leave voters who made their choice based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that the UK Govt would not be entirely incompetent are st out of luck.

No-deal is defeatist at the best of times, but when its being promoted by the people who told the voters that a deal with be easy, then it's also a lie and a con trick.

Lets try the same simple question with you.
When you went to the polls that day, what ruled no deal out ?

As I have said previously, ruling it out is irrelevant. The issue is that it is not mandated, because voters would reasonable expect Govt to exercise even a tiny degree of competence and because the people now promoting it are the same people who promised it would never happen in 2016.

But you are going to keep ignoring that simple answer and ask the same inane question over and over again in the belief that it constitutes intelligent debate.

[Elysium]

jakesmith said:

don'tbesilly said:

Many arguably all who voted Leave back in 2016 would have expected a deal of some description as opposed to no deal at all, however I don't think many would have expected what has transpired over the last three years, and I'd also guess many can see how we have ended up where we are, and can see why some want to use the failings of others to legitimise another vote to reverse the one made three years ago.

I can't write for anyone else but...

Let me stop you right there sonny Jim

Firstly your first bit is all about supposition and guess work. You have no way of looking into and understanding the thoughts and motivations of 17m people

Secondly. It was only after the vote passed that there started to be widespread discussion and news items around hard/soft/deal/no deal Brexit

For you to write that you believe 17m people voting leave understood the concepts or impact of leaving and definitely wanted a deal seems unlikely

I’m not saying that some didn’t or even that a lot didn’t but given that the reality of the situation is not even clear now, for you to write that a majority of voters had any idea of the ramifications, logistics, implications of leaving, Seems a bit of a stretch I’m afraid.

The bit about ‘I can’t write for anyone else’ is a bit more like it old bean. You’re writing about your views and expectations and projecting them onto everyone who voted the way you did.

Exactly, we do not know what was in the minds of 17m leave voters.

But .. lets look at the evidence:

1. Agreeing withdrawal terms is the most likely outcome of a decision to leave. Its the process outlined in the treaties and the one thing any competent Govt would be certain to prioritise

2. Boris Johnson, our new PM, who campaigned for the leave vote told us it would never happen

In summary, there is no clear mandate for any specific 'type' of Brexit. However, it is entirely reasonable to assume that voters expected Govt to act responsibly and quite unlikely that they intended to create a mandate for them to act like idiotic, reckless morons.

[jakesmith]

don'tbesilly said:

Sonny Jim!

Just

How you have concluded what I wrote in any way resembles your response is beyond me, it really is laughable and not worth responding to, jog along Sonny.

So you’re admitting you’re wrong then young man. It was you who said that all 17m voters would have wanted a deal. I say to you: don’t be silly.

[gooner1]

Elysium said:

As I have said previously, ruling it out is irrelevant. The issue is that it is not mandated, because voters would reasonable expect Govt to exercise even a tiny degree of competence and because the people now promoting it are the same people who promised it would never happen in 2016.

But you are going to keep ignoring that simple answer and ask the same inane question over and over again in the belief that it constitutes intelligent debate.

What degree of competence do you think the self same government displayed when it decided to
give the UK's voting public the option to leave the EU, while sharing the same view as yourself that
they "knew" what the voters thought and wanted?