How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Garvin said:
The issue is was no deal a possible outcome at the time of the referendum and the answer is a definite yes. .
No it isn't. The issue is you rewriting the narrative to make it appear that no deal was a leave goal all along & here you are rewriting a narrative from yesterday. Y^ou are, in short, the narrative rewriter & an unreliable witness. As well as a bit juvenile, but that appears normal with the inhabitants of your end of the pond.Brooking10 said:
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.
Agreed.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.
Apart from the hardcore remainiacs, I do feel there is an accord brewing amongst the more sensible.
I think we all have a growing respect for how Boris is conducting himself.
If that leads to no deal, so be it.
banjowilly said:
Garvin said:
The issue is was no deal a possible outcome at the time of the referendum and the answer is a definite yes. .
No it isn't. The issue is you rewriting the narrative to make it appear that no deal was a leave goal all along & here you are rewriting a narrative from yesterday. Y^ou are, in short, the narrative rewriter & an unreliable witness. As well as a bit juvenile, but that appears normal with the inhabitants of your end of the pond.You have continually stated that the leave campaign was based on a positive outcome - no s
t Sherlock! I have never claimed they didn’t or challenged those parts of your posts that contained this undeniable truth.I have stated that despite what was said by both sides in the run up to the referendum I formed my own opinion that no deal was a possible if not probable or desirable outcome and, if that came to pass, then so be it. Yes, I would prefer no deal to remaining. I would also prefer a reasonable deal to no deal.
I object when you try and tell me what I thought back then, that I could only have believed what the leave campaign said, no more, no less and when you dish out the insults you’re going to get it back in spades.
Back off, stop digging, you are just plain wrong.
Brooking10 said:
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.
Personal agendas Trev? 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.
Sorry chap you've lost me there. There was absolutely nothing adversarial about my question
whatsoever, despite you trying to make it so. It was a simple question that only required a simple answer, which for reasons known only to yourself , you declined to give. Quite why you think
a question re no deal is irrelevant is a bit of a strange stance imo.
If you are unhappy with the way I reply to you, you might want to bear in mind I only respond in kind.
You are not adverse from baiting others, as many of your posts show, but whinge when it's returned.
Seems like you preach moving on, but lack the practical will to do so.
Btw, what makes you think I'm banned from any thread?
Brooking10 said:
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.
Tbf, I thought that was what I was doing, up until your attack.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 Brooking10 on Sunday 25th August 17:44
But I for one am willing to do as you suggest above.
don'tbesilly said:
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?
Not bad, I would have added some detail around the threat, maybe go with "and strangle them in their sleep".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?
Start of the first sentence is a bit clunky as well.
amusingduck said:
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 ?
You had your chance, you failed.
Finally, an admission that no deal was not a leave objective.
The debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal - the govt should crack on despite having failing to secure this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective so critical to a successful Brexit and protecting the countries best interests that it is sufficient to warrant a rethink over the whole project.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some. Even if just an extension to try and “do it properly”.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
The debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal - the govt should crack on despite having failing to secure this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective so critical to a successful Brexit and protecting the countries best interests that it is sufficient to warrant a rethink over the whole project.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some. Even if just an extension to try and “do it properly”.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
Edited by DeepEnd on Sunday 25th August 18:46
DeepEnd said:
Finally, an admission that no deal was not a leave objective.
The debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal, should the govt crack on despite failing in this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective sufficient to warrant a rethink.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
Perhaps you can find a single post from any one who voted Leave who stated that leaving the EU without a deal was a stated objective back in 2016.The debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal, should the govt crack on despite failing in this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective sufficient to warrant a rethink.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
Many have stated it was a known outcome, but a stated objective was never the case.
You can of course prove me wrong, £50 to a charity of your choice would back up my strongly held belief, are you prepared to take the bet and back up:
DeepEnd said:
Finally, an admission that no deal was not a leave objective.
Money where your text is, prove me wrong?amusingduck said:
amusingduck said:
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 ?
You had your chance, you failed.
step 1) Theresa May
step 2) Boris Johnson
step 3) Jeremy Corbyn
The unholy trinity of ineptitude.
don'tbesilly said:
DeepEnd said:
Finally, an admission that no deal was not a leave objective.
The debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal, should the govt crack on despite failing in this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective sufficient to warrant a rethink.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
Perhaps you can find a single post from any one who voted Leave who stated that leaving the EU without a deal was a stated objective back in 2016.The debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal, should the govt crack on despite failing in this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective sufficient to warrant a rethink.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
Many have stated it was a known outcome, but a stated objective was never the case.
You can of course prove me wrong, £50 to a charity of your choice would back up my strongly held belief, are you prepared to take the bet and back up:
DeepEnd said:
Finally, an admission that no deal was not a leave objective.
Money where your text is, prove me wrong?I agree that no deal was not a leave objective which is exactly what I have typed. I don’t think anyone on either side has said it was an objective back in 2016 - that is what several posters have been suggesting (i.e. no deal was not an objective) the last few days isn’t it?
It is also worth highlighting that meeting an objective can also be construed as an “indicator of success”. Conversely, failure to meet an objective is an indicator of failure.
Edited by DeepEnd on Sunday 25th August 19:02
DeepEnd said:
Finally, an admission that no deal was not a leave objective.
The debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal - the govt should crack on despite having failing to secure this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective so critical to a successful Brexit and protecting the countries best interests that it is sufficient to warrant a rethink over the whole project.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some. Even if just an extension to try and “do it properly”.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
How strange DP , it seems you can answer questions put to others but not to yourself, or hasThe debate really is about whether - having failed to secure the clear objective of a great deal - the govt should crack on despite having failing to secure this key objective, and push through a no deal, or is the failure of that objective so critical to a successful Brexit and protecting the countries best interests that it is sufficient to warrant a rethink over the whole project.
Some leavers think no.
Some remainers think yes.
No one knows if the majority has swung as a result of this failure to meet a key objective.
It is such a key failed objective that a rethink does not seem unreasonable to some. Even if just an extension to try and “do it properly”.
Other disagree.
PS My guess would be the Nigel thread Goon. Try and post in it and we’ll see.
Edited by DeepEnd on Sunday 25th August 18:46
RR sent you?
banjowilly said:
Garvin said:
The issue is was no deal a possible outcome at the time of the referendum and the answer is a definite yes. .
No it isn't. The issue is you rewriting the narrative to make it appear that no deal was a leave goal all along & here you are rewriting a narrative from yesterday. Y^ou are, in short, the narrative rewriter & an unreliable witness. As well as a bit juvenile, but that appears normal with the inhabitants of your end of the pond.Garvin said:
a no deal Brexit was always a possibility when the referendum was held and nothing you or anyone else says will change that fact.
banjowilly said:
This is flat out untrue Go and find me a leave campaigner from 2016 who campaigned on this. I'll take one from Farage, Hannan, Johnson, Gove, Stewart or Hoey. Your pick. There is no mandate for no deal. We may get that, but you don't get to rewrite the campaign with a lie simply because it's been such a balls up as we predicted it would be that you now have to claim it was on the cards all along.
As said, you are a liar trying to twist the way the vote was set up to allow a no deal to be a possibility, to blurring that in to the argument it wasn't a stated goal of leave campaigners when you realised you'd f
ked-up. frisbee said:
amusingduck said:
amusingduck said:
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 ?
You had your chance, you failed.
step 1) Theresa May
step 2) Boris Johnson
step 3) Jeremy Corbyn
The unholy trinity of ineptitude.
Great plan? Though I don't see where the "ruin Brexit" part comes into it
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff