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

[crankedup]

Brooking10 said:

jsf said:

Its certainly going to take a lot of effort to undo the damage caused by the losing side in a Democratic vote refusing to accept they lost.

This is interesting in my opinion. Despite my own vote I do feel strongly about democracy and that even if it’s too important for the people it’s important that we uphold it.

So who comprises this group, how does it manifest itself and what steps should they/it take in a post Brexit world to make reparation ?

In my humble opinion the first place for the beginning of a ‘one Nation, one heart’ approach will have to be the HoC. For such a divisive group of MPs to be serious about how we ‘rebuild’ they will have to lead by example. Can’t see that will happen, maybe the GE will be the catalyst?
Reality is that several decades will pass before the Nation is on the same songsheet, imo.

[gooner1]

Brooking10 said:

gooner1 said:

Brooking10 said:

gooner1 said:

You agree that in any dealings whatsoever that no deal is always an option then?

Eh ?

Not sure how to make it any clearer tbh, TREV.

I was questioning its relevance to that point of the conversation given it seemed entirely out of context.

Rightoooh.
So how about having a stab at answering now ?

[don'tbesilly]

frisbee said:

NoNeed said:

Brooking10 said:

jsf said:

Its certainly going to take a lot of effort to undo the damage caused by the losing side in a Democratic vote refusing to accept they lost.

This is interesting in my opinion. Despite my own vote I do feel strongly about democracy and that even if it’s too important for the people it’s important that we uphold it.

So who comprises this group, how does it manifest itself and what steps should they/it take in a post Brexit world to make reparation ?

They could turm their attention to the future arragement rather than preventing leave,at least that would have an air of good faith.

Nah, carrying on doing whatever we can to ruin Brexit will suit me fine.

You had your chance, you failed.

I believe it was you who was the clown who wanted to hunt down Brexiteers for no other reason than they were on the 'winning' side in the referendum (could be wrong).

Either way as a Remain voter you had forty odd years of history to sell why staying in the EU was the best way forward back in 2016, you failed miserably and spectacularly, suck it up loser

Am I doing this right?

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

Rightoooh.
So how about having a stab at answering now ?

Sure. Specifically what is the question ?

That in a generic separation negotiation a consensual deal is not always reached ?

[Troubleatmill]

Big Sigh

If all Leavers and Remainer just promised to quote Dr Liam Fox’s speech in full we could have saved about 30 pages.

We have some posters on here slippier than a fully greased up pig with the lies they misquote.


So. Everyone- Start with Dr Liam Fox’s statement in full please.

If that doesn’t answer why we could leave without a deal - please explain your workings.

[gooner1]

Brooking10 said:

Sure. Specifically what is the question ?

That in a generic separation negotiation a consensual deal is not always reached ?

Like I said, I don't think I can make the question any clearer for you Tevor.
Anyone else able to assist Trevor in his struggle to comprehend a fairly simple question and
aid his alleged wish to move the debate on?

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

Like I said, I don't think I can make the question any clearer for you Tevor.
Anyone else able to assist Trevor in his struggle to comprehend a fairly simple question and
aid his alleged wish to move the debate on?

Goon stop being obstructive for the sake of it.

I am asking you to clarify your question and am happy to answer it.

Is your question specifically about Brexit or bilateral negotiations in general ?

In any bilateral negotiation there is the possibility that an agreement won’t be reached.

Does that help answer ?

[amusingduck]

Troubleatmill said:

Big Sigh

If all Leavers and Remainer just promised to quote Dr Liam Fox’s speech in full we could have saved about 30 pages.

We have some posters on here slippier than a fully greased up pig with the lies they misquote.


So. Everyone- Start with Dr Liam Fox’s statement in full please.

If that doesn’t answer why we could leave without a deal - please explain your workings.

Never gonna happen

Still, it's a useful barometer to identify the posters who'll sacrifice their credibility to score a cheap point. That's way more useful

[gooner1]

Brooking10 said:

Goon stop being obstructive for the sake of it.

I am asking you to clarify your question and am happy to answer it.

Is your question specifically about Brexit or bilateral negotiations in general ?

In any bilateral negotiation there is the possibility that an agreement won’t be reached.

Does that help answer ?

Trevor, thanks for finally agreeing that no deal is always an option in any deal whatsoever.
Wasn't that hard really, was it.
I must say though, I find it hard that you question an enquirys relevance, before questioning it's meaning.

Still at least we can move on now.

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

Brooking10 said:

Goon stop being obstructive for the sake of it.

I am asking you to clarify your question and am happy to answer it.

Is your question specifically about Brexit or bilateral negotiations in general ?

In any bilateral negotiation there is the possibility that an agreement won’t be reached.

Does that help answer ?

Trevor, thanks for finally agreeing that no deal is always an option in any deal whatsoever.
Wasn't that hard really, was it.
I must say though, I find it hard that you question an enquirys relevance, before questioning it's meaning.

Still at least we can move on now.

I’m still unclear as to the point of the question and why it was aimed at me ?

[djc206]

gooner1 said:

Trevor, thanks for finally agreeing that no deal is always an option in any deal whatsoever.
Wasn't that hard really, was it.
I must say though, I find it hard that you question an enquirys relevance, before questioning it's meaning.

Still at least we can move on now.

If you think of it like a business deal then both sides have decided to try and trade or merge etc and if they fail to agree terms they just go back to the status quo. This is more like a divorce, one party has decided to leave against the wishes of the other and if they cannot agree a course of action it falls to the courts to divide the assets etc. No deal isn’t an option in a divorce because the courts always force something upon both parties. There is no court in this situation so there is no voice of reason banging the heads of the negotiators, the divorcees if you like, together.

But yes no deal was always the default and should never be and arguably can’t be removed from the table since it is the default.

[anonymous-user]

frisbee said:

Nah, carrying on doing whatever we can to ruin Brexit will suit me fine.

You had your chance, you failed.

This is the level of intelligence we have to deal with I'm afraid

[gooner1]

Brooking10 said:

gooner1 said:

Brooking10 said:

Goon stop being obstructive for the sake of it.

I am asking you to clarify your question and am happy to answer it.

Is your question specifically about Brexit or bilateral negotiations in general ?

In any bilateral negotiation there is the possibility that an agreement won’t be reached.

Does that help answer ?

Trevor, thanks for finally agreeing that no deal is always an option in any deal whatsoever.
Wasn't that hard really, was it.
I must say though, I find it hard that you question an enquirys relevance, before questioning it's meaning.

Still at least we can move on now.

I’m still unclear as to the point of the question and why it was aimed at me ?

I was just testing your quote re the debunking of myths.

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

I was just testing your quote re the debunking of myths.

Ok Goon.

When you go off down these blind alleys of yours I’m somehow reminded of the brothers Gallagher, soup and forks.

[gooner1]

Brooking10 said:

gooner1 said:

I was just testing your quote re the debunking of myths.

Ok Goon.

When you go off down these blind alleys of yours I’m somehow reminded of the brothers Gallagher, soup and forks.

Blind alley my triggered myopic friend ?

I even included your quote in the original question.
Still, as I previously stated, at least we can move on now for the benefit of others.

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

Blind alley my triggered myopic friend ?

I even included your quote in the original question.
Still, as I previously stated, at least we can move on now for the benefit of others.

What are you wittering about man ?

The whole “ triggered” thing is standard trolling.

The blind alley about “no deal” in generic negotiations seems to be something that only you think is relevant and something you bought up to be deliberately adversarial about.

The more you prosecute these personal agenda of yours the greater likelihood you’ll end up being banned from another thread.

However if you want to stay in the weeds, fill your boots.

[NoNeed]

Brooking10 said:

The whole “ triggered” thing is standard trolling.

As is gammon, a deliberately inflammatory remark, but you say that is ok.

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

As is gammon, a deliberately inflammatory remark, but you say that is ok.

Held my hand up for that if I remember rightly many posts back

Look it’s clear this thread needs a bit of a reset

We can carry on in the current vein or accept that things could have been expressed better on all sides and try and discuss the future rather than dwell on the past.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 25th August 17:44

[Garvin]

Brooking10 said:

I’m struggling with you how can’t (or more probably won’t) comprehend the underlying point Banjo is making here and resorting to triumphalist playground talk.

There’s no mandate for No Deal because thanks to idiot Cameron there’s no mandate for any structure of departure merely the overarching concept of exit itself.

That we voted to leave is the simplest of truisms.

Everything thereafter is speculation, preference, and non-ratified assumption.

As long as Banjoboy keeps dishing it out he will have to take it. I know you’re struggling because ‘mandate’ isn’t the issue under debate in those posts. The issue is was no deal a possible outcome at the time of the referendum and the answer is a definite yes. It’s undeniable apart from those who struggle with simple comprehension.

Now if you want to debate whether the vote gave a ‘mandate’ for that option then carry on. My view is yes it did based on the statements made at the time, the subsequent speeches of May and the voting through of A50. Now show how it didn’t if that is your belief.

[banjowilly]

Banjoboy? Are you 12? It's Mr Willy to you, Gavin.