How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Elysium said:
No idea what you are on about here. You seem to have invented the final bit about a vote again stance?
What is clear at this point is you don’t understand what a mandate is. You seem to think it includes anything that might possibly happen as a consequence of a vote, no matter how stupid or unlikely. Which is wrong.
Leaving with a decent deal was not a caveat in the vote. It's a blatant lie to suggest otherwise.What is clear at this point is you don’t understand what a mandate is. You seem to think it includes anything that might possibly happen as a consequence of a vote, no matter how stupid or unlikely. Which is wrong.
You confuse what politicians campaign on with the technical outcome of a vote in the way it is set up.
I'm not interpreting anyone's vote and made no claims of such. You are still unable to tell the difference in consequences of voting when it was very possible no deal was one of two options. How did you miss it when there was just the two ??
Garvin said:
Elysium said:
Do you think Brexit is going well - or does some small part of you wonder if leaving with ‘no-deal’ is something of a defeat?
I don’t see anyone here going into meltdown at the prospect that Brexit might happen. We’ve been waiting for it to happen for over three years. The issue is the continuing disastrous, reckless and incompetent way that it is being handled, the unnecessary problems that this is likely to cause us and Johnsons shameful use of no-deal as a way of bypassing the need to actually come up with a plan.
Rather than acknowledge any of that and perhaps admit people have good reason to be ‘a bit miffed’, you seem to prefer lumping everyone who disagrees with you into the vague category of ‘remainer’’. Then go to the trouble of posting here to explain how pleased you will be when they complain about the problems when we leave.
Brexit could have gone better, of that there is no doubt. However, I do not sit as the extremities of either end of the spectrum.I don’t see anyone here going into meltdown at the prospect that Brexit might happen. We’ve been waiting for it to happen for over three years. The issue is the continuing disastrous, reckless and incompetent way that it is being handled, the unnecessary problems that this is likely to cause us and Johnsons shameful use of no-deal as a way of bypassing the need to actually come up with a plan.
Rather than acknowledge any of that and perhaps admit people have good reason to be ‘a bit miffed’, you seem to prefer lumping everyone who disagrees with you into the vague category of ‘remainer’’. Then go to the trouble of posting here to explain how pleased you will be when they complain about the problems when we leave.
Do I think Brexit will be a disaster? No, a reasonable deal (no unicorns etc. required) would be ideal but I hold no fear over a no deal Brexit. Furthermore, despite the many outbursts to the contrary, a no deal Brexit was always a possibility when the referendum was held and nothing you or anyone else says will change that fact.
Do I think Remaining will be a disaster? No, but I am concerned about unrest breaking out as a democratic decision is overridden.
Personally, I am pretty well insulated from the effects of leaving or remaining, yes financially i’m alright Jack. My preference for leaving is not based on the economy or any financial effect, rather it is based in that I do not like the governance of the EU or it’s future direction, refusal to reform and I would prefer the UK to detach itself from an unsavoury entity.
Despite your denial there are plenty of Remainers here going into meltdown including yourself. Everyone here can see that for themselves. It is you that challenges Leavers and accuses them of moaning, not the other way round. That you won’t acknowledge it just means you are blinded by your ire. It is this I find humorous, particularly some of the, quite frankly hapless, ‘logic’ you post to try and support your view.
Furthermore anyone who continually supports disingenuous posters like Deepend will only increase my schadenfreude at their particular discomfort.
Some individuals here might well be significantly affected by Brexit but I believe that the vast majority of people won’t be in any significant way. Nothing has been posted in the last three years to quantify the level of ‘disaster’ accruing to Brexit. On the contrary, the financial projections all point to slightly less prosperity at worst. In other words I think a lot of people are worrying unnecessarily, that is my view and you just do not have the factual and quantifiable ammunition to persuade me otherwise.
That a small minority may be adversely affected in a significant way is no reason for going against the majority.
I post here because I enjoy a good argument, although sadly I do not always get one. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of posters on here who struggle with reasoned debate.
I dont think Brexit will be a disaster, but I can't see where it will bring us any upside either. To me, it seems like an utterly pointless act of self harm. The definition of a phyrric victory. I also agree with your assessment that some will be affected worse than others. In fact, I will also be relatively insulated from the downsides.
My specific beef with no-deal is that it is entirely unnecessary and effectively an admission of failure. Failure to have a vision for what we want from Brexit and confirmation of the incompetency of our political leaders.
I accused you of moaning, because of your apparent delight in the potential misfortune of others. Given that no-deal is a particularly naff way to deliver Brexit a bigger man might have more empathy for those people who struggle to 'get on board'. Crowing at other peoples concern or misfortunate is not a great trait.
Otis Criblecoblis said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
banjowilly said:
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.
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.Cameron and Co could have set out a blocking motion not to leave without a deal or a final vote in parliament or something else, but they didn't though.
Guess what ? Politicians on all sides don't campaign on the negative stuff , they tell you the good stuff. Your job as an adult ( if either of you are ) is the balance it out for yourself.
Coming on here and crying that they didn't tell you this is pathetic in the extreme.
Sorry, Remail bet the house and the whole in a blank cheque referendum, and lost !
There aren’t too many big words so take your time and I’m sure you’ll be alright....
Elysium said:
Garvin said:
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!
You are like two miserable old codgers down the pub moaning about the good old days.
As for the good old days, I remember when all that you see was green fields, now look at it full of poxy little modern slum boxes
Otis Criblecoblis said:
Elysium said:
No idea what you are on about here. You seem to have invented the final bit about a vote again stance?
What is clear at this point is you don’t understand what a mandate is. You seem to think it includes anything that might possibly happen as a consequence of a vote, no matter how stupid or unlikely. Which is wrong.
Leaving with a decent deal was not a caveat in the vote. It's a blatant lie to suggest otherwise.What is clear at this point is you don’t understand what a mandate is. You seem to think it includes anything that might possibly happen as a consequence of a vote, no matter how stupid or unlikely. Which is wrong.
You confuse what politicians campaign on with the technical outcome of a vote in the way it is set up.
I'm not interpreting anyone's vote and made no claims of such. You are still unable to tell the difference in consequences of voting when it was very possible no deal was one of two options. How did you miss it when there was just the two ??
You are accusing me of lying, whilst apparently failing to understand what I actually said?
As per the part of my post that you snipped from your quotation, you are clearly struggling to understand that a mandate does not include every possible outcome, no matter how stupid or unlikely, of a given vote.
Elysium said:
I didn't say it was a caveat. I said that the only clear mandate was to leave with a decent deal. That is less than the leave campaign promised and the least that the electorate should have expected from a moderately competent administration.
You are accusing me of lying, whilst apparently failing to understand what I actually said?
As per the part of my post that you snipped from your quotation, you are clearly struggling to understand that a mandate does not include every possible outcome, no matter how stupid or unlikely, of a given vote.
A large number of leave voters expected the EU to be intransigent fools when we voted to kick their gravy train in the bYou are accusing me of lying, whilst apparently failing to understand what I actually said?
As per the part of my post that you snipped from your quotation, you are clearly struggling to understand that a mandate does not include every possible outcome, no matter how stupid or unlikely, of a given vote.
ks. That puts the likelihood of no deal being the potential outcome rather high on the probability list.
It was also pretty bloody obvious it would take a strong head on the UK side to put enough pressure on the member state governments to get some sense out of the EU.
It's playing out as can be expected, now we don't have a doormat as our PM.
amusingduck said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
banjowilly said:
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.
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.Not you guys apparently, you needed to be told that?
The transparent moving the goalposts from that simple fact to "if you can't find me someone who campaigned specifically for no deal then it wasn't a possibility!" is both hilarious and typical. Schadenfreude indeed
A child could also understand the concept that campaigners promote the upsides and downplay the downsides. Apparently you guys thought they were writing a research paper, not trying to convince people that their option was best
That is an argument that has been repeated many times since the vote and, in particular, has been used to suggest that the EU will want to very quickly agree trading terms if we leave with no-deal.
Given that mutual interest in a deal, it becomes self-apparent that a colossal level of stupidity, recklessness and sheer f
kwittery must be required to get to a point where we feel compelled to leave with no terms agreed at all. Leaving with that kind of no-deal was not considered to be a possibility at the time of the referendum because:
1. None of us could imagine anyone being that stupid
2. It was, and still is, completely unnecessary
Elysium said:
I didn't say it was a caveat. I said that the only clear mandate was to leave with a decent deal. That is less than the leave campaign promised and the least that the electorate should have expected from a moderately competent administration.
.
This is drivel. Leave was a 'must have' thats what the vote said. With a decent deal is a 'nice to have' and couldnt be guaranteed as it requires agreement on both parties..
jsf said:
A large number of leave voters expected the EU to be intransigent fools when we voted to kick their gravy train in the bks.
That puts the likelihood of no deal being the potential outcome rather high on the probability list.
Pure speculation. You have no idea how many of the 17m thought this. ks. That puts the likelihood of no deal being the potential outcome rather high on the probability list.
Even with EU intransigence, the likelihood of is leaving with no deal should remain vanishingly low right? After all it is in their interest to agree a deal and we control the timescales.
jsf said:
It was also pretty bloody obvious it would take a strong head on the UK side to put enough pressure on the member state governments to get some sense out of the EU.
It's playing out as can be expected, now we don't have a doormat as our PM.
Johnson has adopted exactly the same strategy as May. Instead of trying to fix the problems with the deal, they both thought it better to make Parliament the enemy and blather on about no deal.It's playing out as can be expected, now we don't have a doormat as our PM.
The motivations differ slightly though, as May seemed to think it was a good stick to beat Parliament with, wheras Johnson sees it as a free pass to deliver Brexit without any hard work. He is lazy.
s2art said:
Elysium said:
I didn't say it was a caveat. I said that the only clear mandate was to leave with a decent deal. That is less than the leave campaign promised and the least that the electorate should have expected from a moderately competent administration.
.
This is drivel. Leave was a 'must have' thats what the vote said. With a decent deal is a 'nice to have' and couldnt be guaranteed as it requires agreement on both parties..
That's all well and good, but its not the only option. The 31st Oct 2019 is not a real deadline, it has been moved twice already, and it is unsurprisingly true that the EU would prefer us to leave with a deal.
So we should get to work solving the problem instead of copping out.
pgh said:
Elysium said:
Leaving with that kind of no-deal was not considered to be a possibility at the time of the referendum because:
1. None of us could imagine anyone being that stupid
2. It was, and still is, completely unnecessary
I trust you’ll be writing to the E.U. to remind them of this?1. None of us could imagine anyone being that stupid
2. It was, and still is, completely unnecessary
Anyway - I have had enough of this exitement.
I am off now so you can all have a happy weekend mithering about the EU.
Elysium said:
s2art said:
Elysium said:
I didn't say it was a caveat. I said that the only clear mandate was to leave with a decent deal. That is less than the leave campaign promised and the least that the electorate should have expected from a moderately competent administration.
.
This is drivel. Leave was a 'must have' thats what the vote said. With a decent deal is a 'nice to have' and couldnt be guaranteed as it requires agreement on both parties..
That's all well and good, but its not the only option. The 31st Oct 2019 is not a real deadline, it has been moved twice already, and it is unsurprisingly true that the EU would prefer us to leave with a deal.
So we should get to work solving the problem instead of copping out.
s2art said:
Elysium said:
s2art said:
Elysium said:
I didn't say it was a caveat. I said that the only clear mandate was to leave with a decent deal. That is less than the leave campaign promised and the least that the electorate should have expected from a moderately competent administration.
.
This is drivel. Leave was a 'must have' thats what the vote said. With a decent deal is a 'nice to have' and couldnt be guaranteed as it requires agreement on both parties..
That's all well and good, but its not the only option. The 31st Oct 2019 is not a real deadline, it has been moved twice already, and it is unsurprisingly true that the EU would prefer us to leave with a deal.
So we should get to work solving the problem instead of copping out.
The clue is in what Merkel and Macron said to Boris.
Elysium said:
s2art said:
Elysium said:
s2art said:
Elysium said:
I didn't say it was a caveat. I said that the only clear mandate was to leave with a decent deal. That is less than the leave campaign promised and the least that the electorate should have expected from a moderately competent administration.
.
This is drivel. Leave was a 'must have' thats what the vote said. With a decent deal is a 'nice to have' and couldnt be guaranteed as it requires agreement on both parties..
That's all well and good, but its not the only option. The 31st Oct 2019 is not a real deadline, it has been moved twice already, and it is unsurprisingly true that the EU would prefer us to leave with a deal.
So we should get to work solving the problem instead of copping out.
The clue is in what Merkel and Macron said to Boris.
Elysium said:
pgh said:
Elysium said:
Leaving with that kind of no-deal was not considered to be a possibility at the time of the referendum because:
1. None of us could imagine anyone being that stupid
2. It was, and still is, completely unnecessary
I trust you’ll be writing to the E.U. to remind them of this?1. None of us could imagine anyone being that stupid
2. It was, and still is, completely unnecessary
Anyway - I have had enough of this exitement.
I am off now so you can all have a happy weekend mithering about the EU.
Whilst you are enjoying whatever it is you are doing try not to mither on about the U.K.
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.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Otis Criblecoblis said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
banjowilly said:
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.
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.Cameron and Co could have set out a blocking motion not to leave without a deal or a final vote in parliament or something else, but they didn't though.
Guess what ? Politicians on all sides don't campaign on the negative stuff , they tell you the good stuff. Your job as an adult ( if either of you are ) is the balance it out for yourself.
Coming on here and crying that they didn't tell you this is pathetic in the extreme.
Sorry, Remail bet the house and the whole in a blank cheque referendum, and lost !
There aren’t too many big words so take your time and I’m sure you’ll be alright....
If you support liar morons, I might chalk you down as the same.
Tell me, when you voted that day, what blocked a no deal outcome ?
banjowilly said:
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.
Give it a break. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that a decent deal was never guaranteed. If you want someone to blame look to May, She screwed up the negotiation.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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff