Anti-Brexit scaremongering .... [Archive] - Debate Policy

Drummond

08-25-2018, 05:29 PM

Im not talking about the sperm nonsense, that’s just the most clickbaitable part of the papers so ofcourse it leads the headlines - I’m talking about the likes of businesses being advised to hire customs brokers, or that value consignment relief will be cut?

Is it just individual members of the public who receive 'scare' stories, designed to sway them ? Why would it be ?

No - it adds to the basis for scaring people, if actual businesses can be persuaded to believe that they must see Brexit as a bad thing. Then they can add to the mix, can't they, and momentum is built.

So far as I'm concerned ... I do think that we'll go through a 'teething troubles' period, because quitting the EU will have major consequences. However, I think it all comes down to adjustment. Those who do lose their nerve, will lose out in the long run. Those who don't will know a better future.

See it this way, Noir. We might have had preferential trading terms with businesses across Europe, as EU members. We will lose those terms once we exit. BUT ... we'll still have a trading relationship, regardless.

This involves trade with just ONE THIRD of the planet's potential marketplace. Locked into the EU, we were actually prohibited from making free trade deals with the other two thirds !! Ah, but, LEAVE the EU, and the brakes come off. We know 'new' freedoms. We can start trading as WE like !!

As I see it, businesses can stay on the bandwagon, or stupidly fall off of it. But, that bandwagon will gain speed, will make progress, plenty of newcomers will join it (not least the US !!) ... and, frankly, in the fullness of time, we'll know much greater prosperity.

Be patient, Noir. Patience --- let it be your watchword. Eventually, with the exception of diehard 'Remoaners', it'll be smiles all round.

Noir

08-26-2018, 12:20 AM

Is it just individual members of the public who receive 'scare' stories, designed to sway them ? Why would it be ?

These are government issued guidelines to U.K. businesses.

Drummond

08-26-2018, 04:35 PM

These are government issued guidelines to U.K. businesses.

... in the event of the EU continuing with their stroppiness. Yes ?

A part of the 'let's scrap Brexit, or at least, have a second Referendum' momentum has to do with convincing people that continuing along our present path is just too problematic. Its message is to say 'We're better off in Europe. Continuing to quit it has far too many issues for us to continue as we are'.

In other words ... surrender to the will of a bully.

That, Noir, may be your choice. IT IS NOT MINE.

Noir

08-26-2018, 04:48 PM

Is there any presentation of information you could conceive that would convince you that Brexit is a poor idea?

Drummond

08-26-2018, 08:04 PM

Is there any presentation of information you could conceive that would convince you that Brexit is a poor idea?

Doubtful, Noir. It's a classic case of prognostication versus reality.

I'm aware that various businesses, even a couple of 'think tanks', to say nothing of stories about how our Government is preparing for 'the worst' once we leave (especially in a no-deal scenario, of course) .. might all argue the 'Brexit = Armageddon' scenario. Doubtless there are many on the Left, yourself included (?) who've bought into all that.

To all of this, I'd say two things:

1. There was a time when we not only managed just fine without any propping-up from an entity the equivalent of the EU, but we even thrived on our own efforts, even to the extent of creating an Empire !! Noir, we're far from helpless. Teething troubles are to be expected, for a while. But, once we establish our new and expanded trading and business infrastructure, then thrive we will !!

2. Bear in mind that prognosticating is no substitute for reality. No matter how 'educated' the basis for it may be, nonetheless, something unforeseen may happen to render calculations and expectations worthless. We saw a major example in recent history .. the 2008 crash.

Who saw that crash coming ? What financial model foresaw its consequences in advance ?

See my point ? There's no telling what we have to come. Prognosticate your guts out ... even invoke, if you can, Office for National Statistics data (ONS) to help you ... the people who produce National Accounts data. It ultimately makes no difference. Reality, Noir, isn't known UNTIL IT HAPPENS.

You'll just have to wait for Brexit kicking in, then wait a while longer for the dust to settle, before you know for sure what our long-term future is. Probably it won't be known with certainty until the next decade is well underway.

Be patient. And, a tip: be optimistic....

================================================== =====================================

In the meantime ... who's in the mood for the latest, puerile (and ever-desperate), scare story ? Yep, another one .... get this ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45301966

Next year's Grand National could look very different if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the British Horseracing Authority warns.

Crashing out of the EU would potentially have a huge impact on Irish trainers and Irish horses.

And it could see the end of the Tripartite Agreement system which allows horses to be easily moved between the UK, France and Ireland.

['We're doomed. Doomed, I tell ye ...']

Scraping the bottom of the barrel, much ??

Noir

08-27-2018, 03:06 AM

That’s fine - you’re in a position were you are happy to state that more or less nothing could convince you that Brexit is a poor idea. I don’t think that’s a great way to approach the topic. But you do you.

Drummond

08-27-2018, 07:26 AM

Glad you appreciate my position, Noir.

REALITY .. nothing trumps it. Prognstications have limits ! It's too early for anyone to conclude that the UK won't thrive after Brexit, and as of now there's no reason at all to conclusively assume it. After all, none of the doom-mongers can possibly predict just how our future trading across the world will go !!

Noir, being a Leftie, you need people to question. You need presumptions you disagree with to be undermined. I understand that ! But in this case, you simply need to wait and see what unfolds, in due time.

Noir

08-27-2018, 07:52 AM

Do you think it’s possible that the U.K. will struggle, and the effect of Brexit will be a net negative?

Drummond

08-27-2018, 08:29 AM

To begin with, and as I've said, there will be teething troubles. This is only to be expected with a re-jigging of our very viability as a 'standalone' Nation State involved (.. something we were increasingly ceasing to be, as an EU member tied into EU diktats !).

In the longer term, that'll change. We'll settle in to the new order. And most importantly ... free of the EU, we'll be free to negotiate, in detail, our OWN trade deals, for OURSELVES. We are robbed of that freedom, at present.

I lack any reason at all to think that our efforts at this will fail !!! Perhaps if you can provide your own reasons, you'll do so ?

But considering that most of the world's potential trading partners will be accessible to us, in a way they currently FAIL to be, courtesy of control-freaking EU strictures ... why WOULD we be worse off ??

Reality, of course, has yet to kick in. Bear that in mind.

Drummond

08-27-2018, 08:56 AM

.... Aha. ANOTHER scare story ... seems that one per day is judged to be too few .. ?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1008916/Brexit-news-no-deal-Britain-EU-planes-grounded-Theresa-May

PRIME Minister Theresa May has been warned planes could be grounded across the UK if Britain leaves the EU without a one-off air deal as concerns grow about life after Brexit.

If Britain has to rely on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, UK air traffic control would not be given the rights it needs to operate.

This would mean Britain would need an overall agreement to ensure air traffic can function as normal, according to the Institute of Economic Affairs.

The majority of UK-based airlines would be stripped of their operating licenses for the 27 EU countries, if there was no agreement in place with the EU’s Single Aviation Market (SAM).

As some agreements had also been made through the EU, planes would also not be able to fly in airspace over these areas.

These countries include the United States, Canada and Switzerland.

Julian Jessop, the IEA’s chief economist, said: “If there are no alternative arrangements in place, it would be as bad as the worst fears suggest: planes would not be allowed out to fly.”

But the report did say the government would still have some opportunity to arrange a solution.

Theresa May is in overall charge of our Brexit process .. on the UK side, of course.

But she was known to have a personal viewpoint which wanted us to remain within the EU ....

Noir

08-27-2018, 11:45 AM

why WOULD we be worse off ??

I am asking ‘could’ not ‘would’

I think we could be better off, or we could be worse off. Do you think we COULD be worse off after Brexit long term?

Drummond

08-27-2018, 05:49 PM

Anything's possible, Noir, theoretically. But considering the extent of potential out there, to trade with many new countries and businesses ... I really doubt we'll suffer, long-term. The likelihood is we'll prosper to a much greater extent than now.

As matters stand, the EU actually forbids us to strike up new, finalised, trade deals outside of the EU !!! When we get free of them, the brakes will be off.

Then, our real journey to prosperity can begin in earnest, Noir.

By the way, in case you've forgotten, the US President has offered us lucrative trade. Of course, until Brexit begins in earnest, we cannot enter into that trade. But the US will be one valuable trading source, once the EU stops interfering in our affairs !

We live in exciting times.

Noir

08-28-2018, 03:32 AM

Okay, so since you can just about consider that we could be worse off - how long do you think it is acceptable for us to be “patient” for for things to be better, months, years?

Drummond

08-28-2018, 09:00 AM

It's interesting that you are asking me all of these questions. Can I take it that you're accepting I'm a better 'authority' on such things than you are ?

[I suppose it's understandable. The Left's grasp of competent economic management is at best pathetic ... judging by the messes Labour keeps making of the UK economy, every time it's in Government ...]

Well ... even as Mrs May's travels to African nations is proving, she's working even now to create the basis for future new trade opportunities. How soon will those kick in ? How about the deals President Trump is eager to make with us ?

Overall .. it has to be expected that the sudden wrench away from the EU will have short-term detrimental effects, simply because it IS a wrench. Economic effects ... it'd take weeks for the differences in business activity to become apparent, much less quantifiable with any clarity. We're talking months just to get a clear picture on that. Then, there's the effect of new trading partners. Months again to even record its effects ... I understand that official National Account reports are compiled quarterly.

For the full re-jig to be comprehensibly felt on any standalone permanent basis ... one year plus (would other foreign Companies set up factories here ? How long would it take ? How long before the jobs market feels the effect and employment figures improve ?) So ... effects to feed properly through, I'd say another year or 2.

HOWEVER .. there's another factor. UNCERTAINTY, AND MARKET JITTERS. We saw just after the Referendum result just how volatile stocks and shares were, how confidence in UK economies can make shares plummet overnight, with our entire economy affected within days. Yes .. the Left may take delight in instituting a wrecking bout of propaganda.

In fact .. I think we're seeing something of that, even now. All these scare stories are popping up, NOW, because of the crucial stage of negotiations .. and because EU intransigence makes it look likely that there'll be no deal. Enter 'Remoaners' on to the scene, to hype things up, making it look like we're all about to go down the plughole ...

So, you ask me how long it'll take for things to get better. Well, just how much of a wrecking spree will the anti-leaving side indulge in ??

YOU tell ME.

We will need years for the dust to settle and adjustments to our trading capabilities to fully take effect.

The very best scenario is for everyone to stop fighting the democratically arrived-at Brexit result, get behind it, stop the scaremongering, and go from there. This will, of course, shorten our recovery time.

Then, our new Golden Age can and will be properly experienced.

Noir

08-28-2018, 09:22 AM

It's interesting that you are asking me all of these questions. Can I take it that you're accepting I'm a better 'authority' on such things than you are ?

I have no idea what you are an authority in. So unless you were to state such authority I take yours as only an opinion.

We will need years for the dust to settle and adjustments to our trading capabilities to fully take effect.

So you’re prepared for years of ‘teething trouble’ any considerations for those who would struggle through those years?

Drummond

08-28-2018, 03:03 PM

Well, Noir, you've still worked hard to get my opinions ! You must value them ... :rolleyes:

Noir, as for the 'teething troubles' issue, this is surely unavoidable. Any major change of the type we must go through can't help but cause them.

Can I point out that I wasn't the only one who voted in the Referendum ? In excess of seventeen MILLION people voted for Brexit. What they did not vote for, was its opposite .. remaining chained to the EU, having our affairs increasingly run for us by Brussels, and having completely open borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come here from any EU country.

I prefer that we run our own affairs. If that involves teething troubles, then it does.

I also prefer that we have our Golden Age. One we'll be denied if forced to do things the EU way.

'Sorry' ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Drummond

08-28-2018, 03:12 PM

Aha. Today's scare story !!

Courtesy of the ever-Leftie Guardian newspaper:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/britons-in-eu-could-lose-access-to-uk-bank-accounts-under-no-deal-brexit?CMP=share_btn_fb

Consumers would face slower and more costly credit card payments when they buy EU products, and British citizens living abroad could lose access to payments from their bank accounts, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the government has warned.

The Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, insisted he was “confident that a good deal is in our sights” as he launched 24 “technical notices” in Westminster on Thursday morning, telling businesses and the public how to prepare if no deal was reached.

He said the government’s priority was to ensure continuity but the 24 technical notices – the first batch of more than 80 due over the summer – underline the potential impact on daily life if Britain leaves without a deal in place next March.

With UK banks likely to lose access to EU payments systems, the financial services paper warns: “Customers (including business using these providers to process euro payments) could face increased costs and slower processing times for euro transactions. The cost of card payments between the UK and EU will likely increase.”

Customers of UK banks living in the EU “may lose the ability to access lending and deposit services, and insurance contracts”, the paper says.

Businesses are warned that if the UK leaves without a deal, “the free circulation of goods between the UK and EU would cease”.

... and so it carries on ....

Teething troubles, indeed, IF this is true (a big 'if'). But with all such phenomena, we'd find ways to fix our difficulties. Other non-EU countries manage perfectly well, as, in time, so will we.

Drummond

08-28-2018, 03:13 PM

Aha. Today's scare story !!<br><br>Courtesy of the ever-Leftie Guardian newspaper:<br><br>https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/britons-in-eu-could-lose-access-to-uk-bank-accounts-under-no-deal-brexit?CMP=share_btn_fb<br><br>
Consumers would face slower and more costly credit card payments when they buy EU products, and British citizens living abroad could lose access to payments from their bank accounts, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the government has warned.<br><br>The Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, insisted he was “confident that a good deal is in our sights” as he launched 24 “technical notices” in Westminster on Thursday morning, telling businesses and the public how to prepare if no deal was reached.<br><br><div>He said the government’s priority was to ensure continuity but the 24 technical notices – the first batch of more than 80 due over the summer – underline the potential impact on daily life if Britain leaves without a deal in place next March.</div><div><br></div>With UK banks likely to lose access to EU payments systems, the financial services paper warns: “Customers (including business using these providers to process euro payments) could face increased costs and slower processing times for euro transactions. The cost of card payments between the UK and EU will likely increase.”</div><br></div><div>Customers of UK banks living in the EU “may lose the ability to access lending and deposit services, and insurance contracts”, the paper says.</div><div><br></div>Businesses are warned that if the UK leaves without a deal, “the free circulation of goods between the UK and EU would cease”.<br><br>... and so it carries on ....<br><br>Teething troubles, indeed, IF this is true (a big 'if'). But with all such phenomena, we'd find ways to fix our difficulties. Other non-EU countries manage perfectly well, as, in time, so will we.</div>

Drummond

08-28-2018, 09:32 PM

Aha. Today's scare story !!<br><br>Courtesy of the ever-Leftie Guardian newspaper:<br><br>https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/britons-in-eu-could-lose-access-to-uk-bank-accounts-under-no-deal-brexit?CMP=share_btn_fb<br><br><br><br>... and so it carries on ....<br><br>Teething troubles, indeed, IF this is true (a big 'if'). But with all such phenomena, we'd find ways to fix our difficulties. Other non-EU countries manage perfectly well, as, in time, so will we.</div>

Apologies for the above. I've had difficulties with editing and reproducing quoted text.

Try this, instead:

Today's scare story !! Courtesy of the ever-Leftie Guardian newspaper:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/britons-in-eu-could-lose-access-to-uk-bank-accounts-under-no-deal-brexit?

Consumers would face slower and more costly credit card payments when they buy EU products, and British citizens living abroad could lose access to payments from their bank accounts, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the government has warned.

The Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, insisted he was “confident that a good deal is in our sights” as he launched 24 “technical notices” in Westminster on Thursday morning, telling businesses and the public how to prepare if no deal was reached.

He said the government’s priority was to ensure continuity but the 24 technical notices – the first batch of more than 80 due over the summer – underline the potential impact on daily life if Britain leaves without a deal in place next March.

With UK banks likely to lose access to EU payments systems, the financial services paper warns: “Customers (including business using these providers to process euro payments) could face increased costs and slower processing times for euro transactions. The cost of card payments between the UK and EU will likely increase.”

Customers of UK banks living in the EU “may lose the ability to access lending and deposit services, and insurance contracts”, the paper says.

Businesses are warned that if the UK leaves without a deal, “the free circulation of goods between the UK and EU would cease”.

LongTermGuy

08-28-2018, 10:04 PM

Polish Lawmaker Dominik Tarczynski Calls For Burqa Ban, No Saudi Mosques in Europe!!! :cool:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dls48iBXoAAB5M0.jpg
`Polish Lawmaker Backs Burqa Ban, No Saudi Mosques in Europe Until Poland Can Build Cathedral in Saudi Arabia`

`He suggested the relationship between the West and the Islamic world was currently unbalanced, citing a mosque which Saudi Arabia’s theocratic regime wants to construct in the Polish capital of Warsaw as an example.

“We’re happy to have it once they agree for Poland to build a cathedral in Saudi Arabia,” he said.

“It’s very simple, either we are equal, we are partners, we are the same human beings — or they feel they are better than others,” he declared.`

https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/28/polish-lawmaker-burqa-ban-no-saudi-arabia-mosques-europe-build-cathedrals/

Drummond

08-29-2018, 07:53 AM

Noir

08-29-2018, 10:33 AM

Well, Noir, you've still worked hard to get my opinions ! You must value them ... :rolleyes:

Welcome to the concept of a forum.

In excess of seventeen MILLION people voted for Brexit.

That they did, and without any clear path forward or expectation of what the end result would be. Which is fine as long as you don’t think about it.

Drummond

08-29-2018, 11:03 AM

Welcome to the concept of a forum.

Thank you !! I value your welcome enormously ! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

That they did, and without any clear path forward or expectation of what the end result would be. Which is fine as long as you don’t think about it.

Seventeen million people are fools, is that your point ?

What was voted for, was perfectly clear ... do you want to be in the EU, or to quit it ? The result was equally clear ... TO QUIT IT.

The 'niceties' of the process was up to politicians to work out. But regardless, the mandate exists ... to quit.

Hopefully the EU will suffer a collective brainstorm, and negotiate a good deal. If (of course !) they don't, then we quit, regardless.

All of this is clear. Any residual problems, fudges etc, are of politicians' making.

Noir

08-29-2018, 11:40 AM

Seventeen million people are fools, is that your point ?

No more foolish that the 16 million who voted to remain, no doubt.

What was voted for, was perfectly clear ... do you want to be in the EU, or to quit it ? The result was equally clear ... TO QUIT IT.

The 'niceties' of the process was up to politicians to work out. But regardless, the mandate exists ... to quit.

Which is exactly my point, the decision was made without consideration of the path to the destination would be, or the result of that path.

I am more concerned about the path, than the destination.

Drummond

08-30-2018, 02:19 AM

No more foolish that the 16 million who voted to remain, no doubt.

Definitely LESS foolish, in my estimation.

Isn't it foolish to increasingly sign away your very autonomy (!!) to a foreign power, in the HOPE that all the laws and strictures they insist upon inflicting will work in your favour ?

Isn't it particularly foolish to have an island nation forced to maintain permanently open borders to the inhabitants of literally dozens of other nations ?? Do we have infinite room, infinite resources ?

No .. Brexit is an act of remedial sanity. What's more, a straight electoral majority voted for it. They had that right, just as they have the right to see the vote respected, heeded, fully acted upon.

Which is exactly my point, the decision was made without consideration of the path to the destination would be, or the result of that path.

I am more concerned about the path, than the destination.

I think what you really mean (.. but probably won't admit ..) is that very few foresaw just how disgustingly uncooperative and bullying the EU side was going to be throughout these so-called 'negotiations'. We've struggled to get any decent agreements from them. We've struggled to such an extent that we may HAVE to walk away, minus a deal.

You really care LESS about the 'destination' ? Really ? I find that rather hard to believe. I put it to you that you want to see actions taken that will delay or wreck completely our transition to full Brexit ... a 'YES/NO' filter to completion in the hands of Parliament, perhaps ? Something done on our side that derails further progress to finalisation, thereby overturning the electorally-expressed Will of the People ?

Thanks to the EU, most of the two years allotted to getting Brexit 'done & dusted' has been wasted. We're now in a rush to finalise things. What a time, then, to want further potentially delaying elements to emerge !!

NO. We must get this DONE, MINUS FURTHER INTERFERENCE.

CSM

08-30-2018, 06:32 AM

Learning a lot reading this thread.

Noir

08-30-2018, 06:51 AM

Isn't it foolish to increasingly sign away your very autonomy (!!) to a foreign power, in the HOPE that all the laws and strictures they insist upon inflicting will work in your favour ?

As oppose to being separate from the ‘foreign power’ wherein it’s in their interests to work against you?

Isn't it particularly foolish to have an island nation forced to maintain permanently open borders to the inhabitants of literally dozens of other nations ?? Do we have infinite room, infinite resources ?

Whereas it is in no way foolish for the U.K. to demand they control there own immigration, and then have no proposal for how they are going to control immigration at their only land boarder.

I think what you really mean (.. but probably won't admit ..) is that very few foresaw just how disgustingly uncooperative and bullying the EU side was going to be throughout these so-called 'negotiations'. We've struggled to get any decent agreements from them. We've struggled to such an extent that we may HAVE to walk away, minus a deal.

I think a lot of people foresaw the problems caused by leaving - they called themselves ‘The Remain Campaign’

You really care LESS about the 'destination' ? Really ? I find that rather hard to believe.

That’s understandable, given you care more about the destination than the path.

Drummond

08-30-2018, 07:59 AM

As oppose to being separate from the ‘foreign power’ wherein it’s in their interests to work against you?

What do you propose ? That we remain a part of them, then, so they can continue to increasingly dominate us ... when they've already proven their willingness to act against our interests ??

Whereas it is in no way foolish for the U.K. to demand they control there own immigration, and then have no proposal for how they are going to control immigration at their only land boarder.

The word is still 'BORDER'.

Well, quite. We control as WE choose. Try to get used to the idea !

Perhaps it'll take a 'no deal' scenario before the EU finally gets to grip with that concept.

I think a lot of people foresaw the problems caused by leaving - they called themselves ‘The Remain Campaign’

I call them 'sellouts'. People who somehow think we have no right to our own autonomy.

That’s understandable, given you care more about the destination than the path.

The destination matters greatly. It does, after all, define our entire future !! Our entire future is a teensy bit more important than the machinations that led up to it !!!

Noir

08-30-2018, 08:44 AM

What do you propose ? That we remain a part of them, then, so they can continue to increasingly dominate us ... when they've already proven their willingness to act against our interests ??

I propose a stance of fighting for your autonomy within the system itself, and if leaving the system is preferred then the roadmap should be clear and public. We got neither.

The word is still 'BORDER'.

Well, quite. We control as WE choose. Try to get used to the idea !

Perhaps it'll take a 'no deal' scenario before the EU finally gets to grip with that concept.

Are you aware what the British government guidelines are for businesses that expect to trade etc with Ireland in the event of a ‘no deal’?

I call them 'sellouts'. People who somehow think we have no right to our own autonomy.

Call them as you please, but accept atleast that it was the Remain side that were spouting how difficult the leaving process would be.

The destination matters greatly. It does, after all, define our entire future !! Our entire future is a teensy bit more important than the machinations that led up to it !!!

Not if getting to the destination cripples the country along the way (I know I know - Doomsday Naysayers etc).

Drummond

08-30-2018, 10:02 AM

I propose a stance of fighting for your autonomy within the system itself, and if leaving the system is preferred then the roadmap should be clear and public. We got neither.

Are you serious ??

The whole direction the EU is taking is one of chipping AWAY at autonomy !! Laws are always being passed in their version of a Parliament, laws meant to supersede more 'local' ones in force in individual Nation States. Add to that the 'independent' workings of their Human Rights commission ....

Good God. Have you no conception of the everyday workings of the EU ?? Why do you think they have an EU Parliament, if it isn't to exercise control over their Member States ??

Are you aware what the British government guidelines are for businesses that expect to trade etc with Ireland in the event of a ‘no deal’?

No, nor do I much care. No doubt it's all meant to meet a 'worst case' scenario. Besides, since southern Ireland will remain an EU State, no doubt they'll dream up ways to be awkward that haven't even been thought of yet.

The EU Parliament may in any case think up new restrictive practices that Ireland will be expected to obey ....

Call them as you please, but accept atleast that it was the Remain side that were spouting how difficult the leaving process would be.

.... and, they still are. What's the title of this thread, h'mm ?

In any case, the Remain side was all about keeping us being dictated to by the EU. Perhaps the 'Remain' side understood what control freaks the EU are .. ?

Not if getting to the destination cripples the country along the way (I know I know - Doomsday Naysayers etc).

There we have it .. proof of how much you DO care about the 'destination', after all.

Quite.

I'm reminded of Hitler's takeover of other European countries. Does it occur to you that your argument is an equivalent of telling Resistance fighters not to fight ? Consider the chaos they might cause !!!

Noir

08-30-2018, 10:19 AM

No, nor do I much care.

Great.

Drummond

08-30-2018, 11:06 AM

Great.

Glad you approve.

At the end of the day, Noir, Brexit will happen. It can happen with a deal. It can happen without one. Whether or not we get one depends on the EU reversing course, and - finally - treating us fairly and decently.

If they don't ... and, given that our side does no more crawling !!! ... then, we walk.

The EU can FINALLY behave, and act decently, even if it is rather late in the day for them. It's their choice.

Noir

10-02-2018, 11:51 AM

Drummond - as you’re about, thoughts on the Conservative party conference, and whether or not the ‘Chequers agreement’ should be their Brexit pursuit?

You’re welcome to ignore the Northern Ireland border issue which is becoming clearer by the day.

Drummond

10-02-2018, 07:41 PM

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) - as you’re about, thoughts on the Conservative party conference, and whether or not the ‘Chequers agreement’ should be their Brexit pursuit?

You’re welcome to ignore the Northern Ireland border issue which is becoming clearer by the day.

I've not been watching it ... though I'll watch Mrs May's speech tomorrow. I have my recorder set up to record it, as well.

I hear that Boris had harsh words to say about the Chequers agreement, in his own 'rival' venue, earlier today. I think he's right. The Chequers plan is too much of a sellout to the EU, ensuring a clean break with the EU does not happen by the end of March, 2019.

People didn't vote for fudge deals back in June 2016 .. they wanted OUT of the EU. No 'if's, buts, or maybes'. Whatever deal is struck, should ensure such an outcome, when it's due, without any qualifying failure to achieve that end in its entirety.

In reality ... 'Chequers', fudge though it is, also illustrates just how disgustingly intransigent the EU side has been. 'Chequers' was Mrs May's attempt to get a good deal, in the face of an acknowledgment of the EU's conduct thus far. It boggles the mind that the EU doesn't appreciate it in those terms.

We've been shown scant respect from the EU side, which needs to change, very quickly. If it doesn't, not only should we threaten to walk out minus a deal, but we SHOULD do so.

In that event, all of the EU's attempts to extort money from us should be rebuffed. If we're to pay them anything, it should be in payment for SOMETHING ... and not a reward for unceasing arrogance from the EU side.

Noir

10-03-2018, 02:45 AM

Based on that - would you support Chequers over No Deal, or do you think No Deal is superior to Chequers?

Drummond

10-03-2018, 07:52 AM

Based on that - would you support Chequers over No Deal, or do you think No Deal is superior to Chequers?

A deal is better than no deal. Chequers is, to an extent, an effort to appease the EU .. and one the EU was way too arrogant to appreciate.

But, is Chequers a step too far ? Boris certainly thinks so.

My view is that Chequers is a poor deal. I don't like it much. I favour the EU saying 'yes' to it, rather than us walking out minus a deal ... JUST. It's a close call, though.

I believe that the EU should appreciate our efforts. They don't, though. It'd be nice if that were to change. I don't think it will.

I think we're heading towards 'no deal'. I think the EU's disgusting belligerence, their refusal to actually NEGOTIATE (which invariably involves all those concerned giving something, to get something, which the EU hasn't done at all) is causing talks to head towards a collapse.

You know yourself that Mrs May talked of talks reaching near-stalemate ... an 'impasse', using her word. It's for the EU to drop its arrogance and finally negotiate, IF in fact we now have enough time for it.

I don't think that'll happen.

Without that change, we'll have to walk away minus a deal. It'll be right that we do so.

Noir

10-03-2018, 08:05 AM

But, is Chequers a step too far ? Boris certainly thinks so.

Not just Boris - Davis, Leadsom, Fox, Gove, Grayling, Javid, and some 40+ other members ERG have intimidated that if the Chequers agreement was put to parliament they would nit dupport it.

Given it does not seem clear chequers would even make it past our own legislature, why should the EU support it?

Drummond

10-03-2018, 12:21 PM

Not just Boris - Davis, Leadsom, Fox, Gove, Grayling, Javid, and some 40+ other members ERG have intimidated that if the Chequers agreement was put to parliament they would nit dupport it.

Given it does not seem clear chequers would even make it past our own legislature, why should the EU support it?

[... not sure about 'nit dupport'. Never mind ...]

Interesting 'logic' in play, here ! I must surely infer from your post that you think the EU is required to see things, just as British Brexiteers do !!

The mind boggles. Can you really not see what's wrong with that picture ??

I've already explained 'why' the EU should've been, at least, receptive to the Chequers proposal. Because, obviously, it represents a negotiating position which has elements favouring the EU. Because it represents a move forward, instead of perpetuated stagnation.

That's why.

The EU didn't even see fit to give a detailed rebuttal to it. Just an 'it won't work' declaration.

I don't think the EU ever will offer us any deal we can accept ... very possibly, they'll end up offering nothing (blaming us, of course, not them ...).

At this rate, our walking away is a matter of 'when', not 'if'.

Noir

10-03-2018, 01:14 PM

[... not sure about 'nit dupport'. Never mind ...]

A typo, so I’ll take a second run at it.

Boris, Davis, Leadsom, Fox, Gove, Grayling, Javid, and some 40+ other members ERG have intimidated that if the Chequers agreement was put to parliament they would not support it.

Why should the EU want to agree to a deal that looks unlikely to make it through our legislative process?

Drummond

10-03-2018, 03:25 PM

A typo, so I’ll take a second run at it.

Boris, Davis, Leadsom, Fox, Gove, Grayling, Javid, and some 40+ other members ERG have intimidated that if the Chequers agreement was put to parliament they would not support it.

Why should the EU want to agree to a deal that looks unlikely to make it through our legislative process?

I'm very sure that the EU really DO think that our legislative process is everything to do with them ... that, Noir, is a part of the problem !!

It's ultimately not their business. Their remit is (or is supposed to be) that they negotiate with our negotiators, and then, if any deal is struck, we do with that deal what we will.

Parliament, if it really insists on having its say, then has its chance to damage or destroy the viability of what the negotiators come back with. It'll be interesting to see if they really do turn their role into one of vandalism instead of verification, and render all our negotiation efforts (such as they ever were !) useless.

Then ... what else can we do, but just walk away minus any executable deal ? Give up on Brexit altogether, and just grossly insult the Will of the People, and direct democratic process itself .. ??

The Left will no doubt like that. A lot.

Noir

10-30-2018, 03:46 AM

Then ... what else can we do, but just walk away minus any executable deal ? Give up on Brexit altogether, and just grossly insult the Will of the People, and direct democratic process itself .. ??

The Left will no doubt like that. A lot.

What we will do most likely is walk away without a deal, and be worse off, because that’s what the direct democratic process demands.

In the meantime, I hear that the Conservatives are finally starting to take seriously the problem they’ve created for themselves by giving a smidge of power to the DUP. Who’d of thunk ^,^;

Noir

11-10-2018, 04:45 AM

More good news on Brexit as Dominic Raab (Brexit Secretary of State, who took over from David Davis last summer) made these comments at a technology conference

“We want a bespoke arrangement on goods which recognises the particular geographic economic entity that is the United Kingdom. We are - and I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this but if you look at the U.K. and you look at how we trade goods - we are particularly reliant on the Dover to Calais crossing.“

So a round of applause is clearly in order for the Brexit secretary who’s just realised Dover-Calais is an important trade route. Bravo!

Noir

11-15-2018, 06:10 AM

Drummond

11-15-2018, 09:37 AM

What we will do most likely is walk away without a deal, and be worse off, because that’s what the direct democratic process demands.

In the meantime, I hear that the Conservatives are finally starting to take seriously the problem they’ve created for themselves by giving a smidge of power to the DUP. Who’d of thunk ^,^;

I think that very recent events have proven you completely wrong, eh, Noir ?

A deal has been struck !!

I also think that Mrs May's deal, if anything, REMOVES power from the DUP .. as it defies what they'd ideally seek.

Of course, they can choose to not prop up the Conservatives in Commons voting .. but then, this is an 'old' power that they've had for quite some time.

Drummond

11-15-2018, 09:54 AM

Poor Raab, only a few days after learning about how important the Dover-Calais he’s decided to resign as Brexit secretary. I wonder if he’d of taken the position at all if he’d of known from the start?

Though of course what actually got him was the Northern Ireland border issue, which has yet more victims to claim.

... umm, yes .. that was embarrassing, from Raab.

Still, he's redeemed himself, in my eyes. He's taken a principled stand against what he sees to be a poor deal, and resigned; as did Davis, before him.

My thinking ... IF my understanding is correct, Mrs May has walked away with a deal that to some extent has us hamstrung. Apparently, we'll be stuck in a form of customs union which will still prevent us from forming trade agreements outside of the EU 'orbit'. Also ... IF this is correct ... exactly when we can leave this arrangement will not be a decision the UK can unilaterally arrive at.

I don't find any of that acceptable. If Mrs May has agreed to all of this, she's been bullied into it by the EU's insufferable intransigence. She said it herself: the choices were 'this deal', 'no deal', or (shockingly) 'No Brexit at all !'. I find it particularly offensive that Mrs May can be bullied into all this, and yet she, in turn, takes on a bullying tone in trying to railroad everyone here into accepting her deal.

My belief: Mrs May should go through a leadership challenge, be deposed, and her replacement goes to the EU and demands a better deal. If we don't get one, WE WALK, minus a deal ... and the EU gets no more funding from us of any description.

Brexit was supposed to be about freeing us from EU strictures. We should be free to trade with whoever the hell we want to !! How DARE the EU still - and with us no longer (by the time this deal is fully in force) actually being members of it !! - STILL DICTATE WHO WE MAY OR MAY NOT TRADE WITH !!! :mad:

Our clinging to any version of a customs union makes us look pathetic, as if we're telling the world: the UK has insufficient confidence in itself to find our own way in the world. Well ... if this is Theresa May's mindset, the sooner she's kicked out, the better.:mad::mad:

Noir

11-15-2018, 10:13 AM

I think that very recent events have proven you completely wrong, eh, Noir ?

A deal has been struck !!

I also think that Mrs May's deal, if anything, REMOVES power from the DUP .. as it defies what they'd ideally seek.

Of course, they can choose to not prop up the Conservatives in Commons voting .. but then, this is an 'old' power that they've had for quite some time.

I tell you for a fact the DUP will eat glass rather than agree to to what May has proposed, and no the ‘old’ power you’re referring to was given a few months over a year ago, personally I don’t consider that “Old”

Noir

11-15-2018, 10:20 AM

... umm, yes .. that was embarrassing, from Raab.

Still, he's redeemed himself, in my eyes. He's taken a principled stand against what he sees to be a poor deal, and resigned; as did Davis, before him.

So you can forgive him his complete non-understanding of one of the most basic concepts in Brexit because he doesn’t agree with policy that he help negotiate??

My belief: Mrs May should go through a leadership challenge, be deposed, and her replacement goes to the EU and demands a better deal. If we don't get one, WE WALK, minus a deal ... and the EU gets no more funding from us of any description.

Brexit was supposed to be about freeing us from EU strictures. We should be free to trade with whoever the hell we want to !! How DARE the EU still - and with us no longer (by the time this deal is fully in force) actually being members of it !! - STILL DICTATE WHO WE MAY OR MAY NOT TRADE WITH !!! :mad:

Yes we will almost certainly have a leadership challenge, and the new leader and their cabinet will have how long to negotiate a new deal? And how will they propose to settle the DUP? and how has any of this convinced Europe that we need to come out of this deal any better than they are?

Folly, waste, and inevitable failure.

Drummond

11-15-2018, 10:26 AM

I tell you for a fact the DUP will eat glass rather than agree to to what May has proposed, and no the ‘old’ power you’re referring to was given a few months over a year ago, personally I don’t consider that “Old”

Whether it's 'old' or not is relative. 'It's been around for a while' ... perhaps we can agree on that much ?

I don't blame the DUP one bit. It's a lousy deal, and deserves to fail. If, as seems true, the EU won't agree to anything better (because they're insufferably arrogant, dictatorial control freaks), we should then walk away minus a deal.

In the short term, it'd create a measure of hardship (but won't be as bad as most people insist it will). In the longer term, our new-found status as a worldwide free trader will usher us into a new, far more lucrative, 'golden age'.

Unless I'm much mistaken, the EU doesn't have many more years of stability left to it. On the principle that 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link', the poorer economies within it will one day put the Euro under intolerable strain. I think it'll implode; and the EU's authority, its cohesiveness, will unravel as a result.

We'll be the cork that floats in the ocean, riding out the storm, while others sink under the burden of ruined economies.

Drummond

11-15-2018, 10:36 AM

So you can forgive him his complete non-understanding of one of the most basic concepts in Brexit because he doesn’t agree with policy that he help negotiate??

For taking a principled stand, when it mattered ... against a backdrop of the control freaks within the EU who've decisively shaped this whole scenario ? Absolutely. YES.

Yes we will almost certainly have a leadership challenge, and the new leader and their cabinet will have how long to negotiate a new deal? And how will they propose to settle the DUP? and how has any of this convinced Europe that we need to come out of this deal any better than they are?

Yes, isn't that part of the point ? Labour have rambled on for some time, saying that if any deal can't be agreed at our end, we should go back and get another one. They've touted themselves as being fit and able to do so !!

All fantasist stuff, of course ... helping to prove their unfitness for High Office (unless, of course, the REAL point was to encourage conditions which helped make Brexit itself unrealisable, therefore, something to be ditched, and to hell with the electorate .. ??).

It wouldn't take long for Mrs May's replacement to demand a better deal. How long the EU take to start conceding to us, is THEIR problem. They did, after all, create the basis for such a mess.

And if there is insufficient time, then, we walk ... heads held high, making sure the world understands how abominably we've been treated.

Folly, waste, and inevitable failure.

... of the EU's making ! They've had more than TWO YEARS to treat us better than this !

Noir

11-15-2018, 10:59 AM

For taking a principled stand, when it mattered ... against a backdrop of the control freaks within the EU who've decisively shaped this whole scenario ? Absolutely. YES.

Yes, isn't that part of the point ? Labour have rambled on for some time, saying that if any deal can't be agreed at our end, we should go back and get another one. They've touted themselves as being fit and able to do so !!

All fantasist stuff, of course ... helping to prove their unfitness for High Office (unless, of course, the REAL point was to encourage conditions which helped make Brexit itself unrealisable, therefore, something to be ditched, and to hell with the electorate .. ??).

It wouldn't take long for Mrs May's replacement to demand a better deal. How long the EU take to start conceding to us, is THEIR problem. They did, after all, create the basis for such a mess.

And if there is insufficient time, then, we walk ... heads held high, making sure the world understands how abominably we've been treated.

... of the EU's making ! They've had more than TWO YEARS to treat us better than this !

What bad sportsmanship by the EU for acting on the interests of their 27 countries, rather than ours, eh?

...and by your account the EU has spent the last 2 years absolutely battering our various secretaries, ministers, and negotiators that have had to deal with them that has ended up leaving us with such a bad deal, eh?

Drummond

11-15-2018, 11:04 AM

What bad sportsmanship by the EU for acting on the interests of their 27 countries, rather than ours, eh?

...and by your account the EU has spent the last 2 years absolutely battering our various secretaries, ministers, and negotiators that have had to deal with them that has ended up leaving us with such a bad deal, eh?

They were supposed to negotiate with us. Most of the time they refused to, simply telling us what we must NOT expect.

Negotiators are meant to do just that. The EU chose arrogance over negotiating in good faith. That is the truth of the matter.

Noir

11-15-2018, 11:41 AM

They were supposed to negotiate with us. Most of the time they refused to, simply telling us what we must NOT expect.

Negotiators are meant to do just that. The EU chose arrogance over negotiating in good faith. That is the truth of the matter.

Of course - do you know what the DUP said during the negotiations? (I may of posted it before in the thread but if not)- ‘This is a game of who blinks first, and we’ve cut off our eyelids’ sure sounds like they were ready to negotiate, yeah?

I remember (you may too) about being told how desperate the EU would be to be on good terms with the U.K. That we were so powerful and important and the EU would be begging us for a deal, some oaf even said it would be the easiest trade deal in history (or something to that effect), and that it was the ‘remoaners’ and people who were ‘talking Britain down’ who were coming out with sentiments like ‘maybe we won’t be able to force the hand of 27 other nations, maybe they will be in a stronger position than us...’ you remember those times right?

Drummond

11-15-2018, 09:24 PM

Of course - do you know what the DUP said during the negotiations? (I may of posted it before in the thread but if not)- ‘This is a game of who blinks first, and we’ve cut off our eyelids’ sure sounds like they were ready to negotiate, yeah?

I remember (you may too) about being told how desperate the EU would be to be on good terms with the U.K. That we were so powerful and important and the EU would be begging us for a deal, some oaf even said it would be the easiest trade deal in history (or something to that effect), and that it was the ‘remoaners’ and people who were ‘talking Britain down’ who were coming out with sentiments like ‘maybe we won’t be able to force the hand of 27 other nations, maybe they will be in a stronger position than us...’ you remember those times right?

Not quite in those terms, Noir, no .. I don't.

Yes, there was optimism that the EU would treat us decently. There was a misplaced assumption that we were seen as a friendly power, one that had been a good EU member. There was illusion to the effect that we'd at least receive respect, be treated accordingly.

As we've seen, there has been NONE of that, AT ALL.

If these last 2+ years have shown us anything, Noir, it is that the EU is not a reputable entity. They are NOT our 'friends', and presumably never have been. Why, they kicked things off by demanding many billions of pounds from us, before any talks even 'started'. Even when they did 'start', we didn't find ourselves negotiating. Rather, the EU just told us what they'd never budge on.

Our one great significance to the EU is what we contribute in revenues demanded of us ... and what did the EU do, but launch into a massive demand for money, at the outset ! The EU has long considered it our duty to help bankroll them. In return, we have the 'pleasure' of being dictated to, our rights as a sovereign nation stunted or even nullified.

Brexit is meant to put an end to ALL of that. Which means that any deal we reach with them BETRAYS the Referendum result, if it compromises what the pro-Brexit side voted to receive.

This is why Mrs May needs to leave her job ... in disgrace. The deal she says she believes in, DOES betray the Referendum's outcome.

Noir

11-16-2018, 07:12 AM

Drummond

11-16-2018, 09:48 AM

Again there is a lot of ‘look what we did for the EU’ ‘We bankrolled them’ and in essence ‘we were important’...

I saw a clip of a German satirical program a while ago that was filmed before the Brexit vote, and just watching the German audience laugh at the idea that the U.K. was demanding more from the EU, and that if we got what we wanted we prize to be won was us staying in the EU really hit home in a way that I don’t think it’s possible to replicate via British media.

Indeed ... we've massively bankrolled them, in past years. Why do you think the demand for a 'divorce settlement' was as massive as it was, and demanded of us so speedily ? BECAUSE THE EU DIDN'T WANT TO BE OUT OF POCKET, BECAUSE OF OUR LEAVING THEM, FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO COME !!

You might find this instructive. Open the link. Look at the graph. Note particularly the positioning of the 'crosses', denoting 'Net Contributions'. Ours is the second highest of all the EU countries accounted for.

Note also that we always give more to the EU than we get back from them ...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-eu-members-net-contributions-and-net-funding-2016-12?r=US&IR=T

As for your German satirical programme (you used the American spelling, not the British one ? Interesting ..) .. aren't you just making my overall point for me ? The Germans, along with the EU more generally, have no respect for us. They deride us. Little wonder that Mrs May returned from her meeting with EU leaders so angry that she even gave public voice to it, in her media 'summary of progress', a few weeks ago.

The EU changed its tune - a little - after her broadcast. As well they might ... despite their disrespect, the EU still want us to be willing to pay their extortion demands, once everything (- they arrogantly hope -) is settled to THEIR, not OUR, satisfaction.

As for the future ... 'we live in interesting times'. Mrs May is telling us the truth in saying that the deal we have is the only one the EU will settle on. So, what does that mean for any 'no' vote the Commons delivers to Mrs May's Government ?

The EU is way too arrogant to alter its thinking for our sake. The 'option' for deal tweaking or other reconsiderations is purely imaginary ... dreamed up by an arrogant Labour Party, somehow believing that at this stage the EU would show them, or anybody on our side of the fence, any deference whatever.

A 'no' vote will kill off any deal-based Brexit.

We will have - according to Mrs May's 'about-face', just now emerging - TWO options.

1. Crash out of the EU, minus any deal
2. Forget leaving the EU entirely !

Option 2 is much preferred by the EU, of course. Contempt for us or not, they WANT OUR CONTINUED FUNDING !! Additionally, the EU convinces its Member States of the impossibility of their leaving the EU themselves ... a lesson much-prized by any protection racket run anywhere on the planet.

I suspect that the voting Public throughout the UK will feel total disgust (leading to violence in the streets ??) at the dismissal of their democratic expectations. Few would place trust in future Referenda, and any Government's willingness to see decisions from them through to the end.

Option 1 is one which will disadvantage us in the short term. However, with the newly-won freedom to, yes, actually trade with anyone we want (!!!) .. something the disgusting EU is still determined to stamp on !! ... in the long term, we'll prosper. Massively so.

Noir

11-19-2018, 11:39 AM

Another outstanding interview to add to this list today -

British government minister Rory Stewart decides to make up some statistics when being interviewed by Emma Barnett because reasons (:

——

Stewart : “I think the game that The Brexiters are playing at the moment are extremely dangerous, they’re not being honest with people about the risks they are taking, and what they are basically doing is radically increasing the risks of us crashing out with no plan and no deal, and that will be catastrophic for our economy and it will create huge divisions within British society.
One of the advantages of this deal to be honest and one of the reasons why 80% of the British public support this deal is because-“

Barnett: “80% of the British public support this deal...the draft deal, how on earth do we know that yet?

Stewart: “Okay okay lemme back on that - my sense is - let me get the language right on this - My sense is that if we have an opportunity to explain this the vast majority of the British public would support this deal

Barrett: “Where did 80% come from ?”

Stewart: “Im producing a number to try and illustrate what I believe.”

Noir

11-22-2018, 07:46 AM

Leaked Brexit declaration regarding fisheries, pls excuse me while I have a hearty laugh ^,^

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181122/7dda1706642f558123dc9ccf614ae58d.jpg

Gunny

11-22-2018, 08:42 PM

Indeed ... we've massively bankrolled them, in past years. Why do you think the demand for a 'divorce settlement' was as massive as it was, and demanded of us so speedily ? BECAUSE THE EU DIDN'T WANT TO BE OUT OF POCKET, BECAUSE OF OUR LEAVING THEM, FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO COME !!

You might find this instructive. Open the link. Look at the graph. Note particularly the positioning of the 'crosses', denoting 'Net Contributions'. Ours is the second highest of all the EU countries accounted for.

Note also that we always give more to the EU than we get back from them ...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-eu-members-net-contributions-and-net-funding-2016-12?r=US&IR=T

As for your German satirical programme (you used the American spelling, not the British one ? Interesting ..) .. aren't you just making my overall point for me ? The Germans, along with the EU more generally, have no respect for us. They deride us. Little wonder that Mrs May returned from her meeting with EU leaders so angry that she even gave public voice to it, in her media 'summary of progress', a few weeks ago.

The EU changed its tune - a little - after her broadcast. As well they might ... despite their disrespect, the EU still want us to be willing to pay their extortion demands, once everything (- they arrogantly hope -) is settled to THEIR, not OUR, satisfaction.

As for the future ... 'we live in interesting times'. Mrs May is telling us the truth in saying that the deal we have is the only one the EU will settle on. So, what does that mean for any 'no' vote the Commons delivers to Mrs May's Government ?

The EU is way too arrogant to alter its thinking for our sake. The 'option' for deal tweaking or other reconsiderations is purely imaginary ... dreamed up by an arrogant Labour Party, somehow believing that at this stage the EU would show them, or anybody on our side of the fence, any deference whatever.

A 'no' vote will kill off any deal-based Brexit.

We will have - according to Mrs May's 'about-face', just now emerging - TWO options.

1. Crash out of the EU, minus any deal
2. Forget leaving the EU entirely !

Option 2 is much preferred by the EU, of course. Contempt for us or not, they WANT OUR CONTINUED FUNDING !! Additionally, the EU convinces its Member States of the impossibility of their leaving the EU themselves ... a lesson much-prized by any protection racket run anywhere on the planet.

I suspect that the voting Public throughout the UK will feel total disgust (leading to violence in the streets ??) at the dismissal of their democratic expectations. Few would place trust in future Referenda, and any Government's willingness to see decisions from them through to the end.

Option 1 is one which will disadvantage us in the short term. However, with the newly-won freedom to, yes, actually trade with anyone we want (!!!) .. something the disgusting EU is still determined to stamp on !! ... in the long term, we'll prosper. Massively so.Your posts are very informative. Does the US Democratic party run the EU? Sounds like it.

Drummond

11-23-2018, 10:04 AM

Your posts are very informative. Does the US Democratic party run the EU? Sounds like it.

I'm sure that they wish they did !

In any case: Obama was so friendly towards them as to - do you recall this ? - try and skew our Referendum vote in the EU's favour. Remember his telling the UK that if we voted to leave the EU, we could forget doing trade deals with the US ? We were told we could expect to go to the back of the queue for such deals, if we voted in a way he didn't approve of.

This didn't go down too well with Brits, as you can imagine. I think we looked upon him less favourably as a result of his clear intention to interfere with our democratic decision.

President Trump's approach couldn't be more different. He's pleased with the Referendum vote, and is keen to forge new and close trading ties with the UK ... IF ... we rid ourselves of the EU entirely.

Drummond

11-23-2018, 10:05 AM

Leaked Brexit declaration regarding fisheries, pls excuse me while I have a hearty laugh ^,^

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181122/7dda1706642f558123dc9ccf614ae58d.jpg

I have to agree .. it's pathetic. A result of the EU's outrageous stagnation over the last two years ?

Gunny

11-23-2018, 06:30 PM

I'm sure that they wish they did !

In any case: Obama was so friendly towards them as to - do you recall this ? - try and skew our Referendum vote in the EU's favour. Remember his telling the UK that if we voted to leave the EU, we could forget doing trade deals with the US ? We were told we could expect to go to the back of the queue for such deals, if we voted in a way he didn't approve of.

This didn't go down too well with Brits, as you can imagine. I think we looked upon him less favourably as a result of his clear intention to interfere with our democratic decision.

President Trump's approach couldn't be more different. He's pleased with the Referendum vote, and is keen to forge new and close trading ties with the UK ... IF ... we rid ourselves of the EU entirely.I vaguely recall Obama saying such. He was about as anti-American and our allies as it gets so it isn't surprising.

That also reinforces my point that was I the UK, I'd jump ship NOW while Trump is the US President. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to make a deal with the UK just to thumb the EU in the eye if nothing else.

Noir

11-24-2018, 03:55 AM

I have to agree .. it's pathetic. A result of the EU's outrageous stagnation over the last two years ?

A result of the fact that our negotiations have lead to awful deals, because we are negotiating from such a weak position.

We now know the Northern Ireland border and fisheries have been botched - looking forward to see what other deals our elite Brexit negotiating team have been able to make (:

Gunny

11-24-2018, 08:36 AM

Noir

11-24-2018, 09:01 AM

Negotiating from a "weak position" is in your head. Negotiating "in good faith" is the right and proper way to do things. Unfortunately, the EU is not. In such a circumstance, the kid gloves come off and you shove it up the EU's backside. The strength of the EU is they have you believing they are strong.

Okay so - The pro-Brexit euro-skeptic party went into negotiations with the group they described as a faceless, bureaucratic, unaccountable, power-centric Europeans. And their excuse for walking away with a bad deal (which plenty of Tories are trying to play of as a good deal would you believe) is because those dastardly Europeans were too mean?

Drummond

11-24-2018, 10:52 AM

A result of the fact that our negotiations have lead to awful deals, because we are negotiating from such a weak position.

We now know the Northern Ireland border and fisheries have been botched - looking forward to see what other deals our elite Brexit negotiating team have been able to make (:

DID we negotiate from 'a weak position' .. ? I disagree.

We may not have had a very great deal to bargain with. But don't discount the importance, to the EU, of (for example) the future of EU citizens choosing to live and work, after Brexit, within the UK. And ... most importantly ... we are a prime contributor to EU coffers. Why do you think their very first move was to demand £100 billion pounds from us ??

We could've used that to insist upon a good deal .. saying you'll not even get the £39 million agreed upon unless we get a good deal.

But, no. Mrs May cared too much about getting ANY deal (I think that the very act of getting one was something she thought the history books would praise her over, possibly even present-day UK citizens, incredibly !!). So, she conceded ... too much.

Such was her personal pride, put before all else.

I very much doubt Parliament will ratify the deal.

Drummond

11-24-2018, 11:13 AM

A result of the fact that our negotiations have lead to awful deals, because we are negotiating from such a weak position.

We now know the Northern Ireland border and fisheries have been botched - looking forward to see what other deals our elite Brexit negotiating team have been able to make (:

You're too eager to blame our side for 'botched' terms. I remind you of what you should already well know ... an inordinate amount of time was wasted, BY THE EU, in doing NO negotiating. When they weren't demanding money, they were busily telling us what they definitely would not budge on.

Negotiation involves (to whatever degree) a measure of give and take. For most of this last 2 years, the EU has concentrated on 'take' to the cost of any willingness to 'give' anything at all.

You want to apportion blame. Yes ? OK, then. The lion's share should go, without question, to the EU ... who've blackmailed, bullied, demanded, laid down the law .. ANYTHING but negotiate in good faith.

Noir, whether or not you'll admit it, you know I'm right. The EU's 'negotiating' conduct (& I think deliberately, tactically so, throughout all this time) has been disreputable in the extreme.

Noir

11-24-2018, 01:29 PM

Gunny

11-24-2018, 02:32 PM

“The bad, mean, dastardly side made demands and bullied us out of making a good deal”

A generic quote covering the history of time whenever one side is strong, the other weak, and the strong win the day.

The side that holds the power makes the demands, the side that doesn’t pleads for more and if they’re lucky get it, apparently we weren’t lucky, so no deal it is.When the side that "holds power" is a paper tiger and so arrogant that it believes its own hype won't be reasonable you walk on them. What are they going to do? Get mad? Call the UK names?

Let me guess ... those European nations that can't even keep out or control a bunch of ME refugees are going to use force? Like WWII? They aren't going to do anything but whine and cry. Probably threaten anyone offering to deal with the UK; which, in case you haven't noticed would just make Trump's day if not year.

Shouldn't let fear drive you so much, Noir. Really unbecoming.

Noir

11-24-2018, 02:59 PM

When the side that "holds power" is a paper tiger and so arrogant that it believes its own hype won't be reasonable you walk on them. What are they going to do? Get mad? Call the UK names?

A ‘paper tiger’ that the U.K. Brexit team capitulated under (don’t take my word for it - I’m sure Drummond would be happy to tell you how bad every aspect of this deal we know about is)

As to ‘what will they do’. Take the U.K. fisheries for example, as they are outlined in the leaked text above, the EU will stop allocation of fishing quotas for the U.K. in EU waters, and the U.K. would then do the same for the EU in U.K. waters, guess who comes of worse in that exchange?

Gunny

11-24-2018, 03:15 PM

A ‘paper tiger’ that the U.K. Brexit team capitulated under (don’t take my word for it - I’m sure Drummond would be happy to tell you how bad every aspect of this deal we know about is)

As to ‘what will they do’. Take the U.K. fisheries for example, as they are outlined in the leaked text above, the EU will stop allocation of fishing quotas for the U.K. in EU waters, and the U.K. would then do the same for the EU in U.K. waters, guess who comes of worse in that exchange?So THAT's what you're afraid of. This time :rolleyes: You would have to defend your Rights AND fend for yourselves. Something no good socialist like you is up to.

Even if you don't want to get your balls back, Noir, it appears others do. I realize you prefer being a live, mediocre slave to a dead patriot, but not everyone feels that way.

Black Diamond

11-24-2018, 03:25 PM

Gunny

11-24-2018, 03:29 PM

Secede bumper sticker on his HD 2500.:cool:You've seen my truck ....

Noir

11-24-2018, 03:46 PM

So THAT's what you're afraid of. This time :rolleyes: You would have to defend your Rights AND fend for yourselves. Something no good socialist like you is up to.

Even if you don't want to get your balls back, Noir, it appears others do. I realize you prefer being a live, mediocre slave to a dead patriot, but not everyone feels that way.

Lul, I’m not afraid of it in the slightest - but people who make their living from killing fish are (and probably with good reason if they want to continue making their loving killing fish) - and this is only from what’s been leaked, once the full document is public then the real laughter begins.

But remember- the U.K. government are saying this is a good deal, so it’s okay because it’s good that we’re still going to be bound to the share the of the quota the EU allocates the U.K., right?

Gunny

11-24-2018, 04:10 PM

Drummond

11-24-2018, 07:00 PM

Lul, I’m not afraid of it in the slightest - but people who make their living from killing fish are (and probably with good reason if they want to continue making their loving killing fish) - and this is only from what’s been leaked, once the full document is public then the real laughter begins.

But remember- the U.K. government are saying this is a good deal, so it’s okay because it’s good that we’re still going to be bound to the share the of the quota the EU allocates the U.K., right?

You've forgotten what you posted, HERE, Noir ... ?? >>>

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?63990-Anti-Brexit-scaremongering&p=918594#post918594

Granted that the typos make it harder reading than it needed to be. Talking of typos ...

Your prejudices are showing .. it seems. Is your wording 'if they want to continue making their loving killing fish' .. your intended wording ? I doubt that anyone catching fish in our waters 'kills' them because they 'love' doing it. There's a market for that fish, and they are in business to supply that market. It's a living .. and for many involved in it, it'll be the only living they've ever known. Towns are dominated, financially, by the need to see that trade succeed.

Along come the EU, DEMANDING .. NOT ASKING, DEMANDING ... to fish in our waters. Typical of the contempt they all have for us. I say ... we don't owe them a damned thing. To hell with their 'demands'.

Unfortunately, our leaders are too spineless to concede this.

As for your more general point, and your other post (the one I've given us all a link to) ... you, Noir, must well know that Mrs May's deal is deeply unpopular. We all do, on this side of the Pond. There have been Cabinet resignations over it ... including, two past chief negotiators, namely, Davies and Raab. THIS YOU KNOW, NOIR. OUR NEWS BROADCASTS HAVE BEEN DOMINATED BY ALL OF THE DIVISIONS CREATED, FOR WEEKS.

Drummond

11-24-2018, 07:16 PM

DO note: Both Drummond and I have stated more than once that the current deal is not a good one. That would be the reason for this discussion, no?

Again, I will point out that Europe putting quotas on whoever for whatever is only as good as those who bow to its wishes. If the UK chooses to fish and enforce its international territorial waters and not pay the EU, too bad. Matter of fact, seems to me that if the UK enforced its territorial waters AGAINST EU fishing, it wouldn't be the UK losing out. The EU knows that.

Point is, y'all are being bullied by words and allowing it to happen. Now you're just arguing over a bad deal that everyone on the UK end agrees is a bad deal but won't come together to fix it. Dumb.

Yes - the EU have done a lot of bullying. For our part, we've done a lot of caving in to it. Doing so has caused no end of trouble.

We are a major financial contributor to the EU, one the EU would rather not lose. I think we could've done a lot more to use that as leverage to demand respect, and a deal good enough to reflect such respect. What we did, though, thanks to Mrs May's ego, was to concede whatever we had to, in order to strike a balance between a compromised Brexit and all the arrogance the EU has demonstrated throughout.

Tomorrow, a meeting will happen in Brussels where all 27 EU members will endorse their acceptance of our deal (.. it still has to be ratified by the UK Parliament, though, which is highly unlikely). Tonight, Mrs May summarily caved in to the Spanish, over Gibraltar. Spain wanted 'a greater say' in Gibraltarian affairs, despite the fact that Gibraltar is UK territory, one which also took part in the 2016 Referendum, voting heavily to quit the EU !!

Mrs May (details are sketchy, as yet) agreed to Spain's demand. This they did because Spain threatened to veto the deal, tomorrow, unless we capitulated.

So, we did. Or more precisely, desperate to push the deal through, Mrs May capitulated.

It only took her a few hours to do so.

This says it all. I think Mrs May, by this point, would do anything and everything it took to appease her way to having her 'done deal'.

It's at times like these I miss Margaret Thatcher. Rather than appease an inch, I think she'd have given the EU's negotiators (and anybody else within range) a good 'handbagging' for trying what they have ....

Noir

11-24-2018, 07:19 PM

Along come the EU, DEMANDING .. NOT ASKING, DEMANDING ... to fish in our waters. Typical of the contempt they all have for us. I say ... we don't owe them a damned thing. To hell with their 'demands'.

Unfortunately, our leaders are too spineless to concede this.

The “demand” made by the EU is that if we want to fish in EU countries waters, we have to allow the EU countries to fish in our waters. Do you think that is unreasonable?

As for your more general point, and your other post (the one I've given us all a link to) ... you, Noir, must well know that Mrs May's deal is deeply unpopular. We all do, on this side of the Pond. There have been Cabinet resignations over it ... including, two past chief negotiators, namely, Davies and Raab. THIS YOU KNOW, NOIR. OUR NEWS BROADCASTS HAVE BEEN DOMINATED BY ALL OF THE DIVISIONS CREATED, FOR WEEKS.

Yes, you will find a common theme throughout my posts about the results of Brexit - they are unpopular and overall laughable, as they were always going to be because common sense.

Drummond

11-24-2018, 07:54 PM

The “demand” made by the EU is that if we want to fish in EU countries waters, we have to allow the EU countries to fish in our waters. Do you think that is unreasonable?

Yes, I do. Why does an agreement leading us to be able to fish in EU waters, NECESSITATE that we grant the EU the very same access to our waters ? Why must we defer to the EU's preference in the matter ?

Granted ... it sounds like an equitable arrangement. But this business of DEMANDING parity of access is a matter (or, SHOULD BE) one of freedom to agree if we choose to, and not any moralistic arm-twisting. They are our waters, after all.

[Besides, is equality really the issue ? What's the scope of our water's territory, compared with that of the EU, beyond our waters ? What are fish stocks like ? Critically ... how can it be fair for our management of fish stocks to be OUT of our control, as it would be, if any EU's boats fished exactly as they chose, out of our vetoing control ?]

So, no ... we should expect fairness of our own interests. Your suggestion of automatic, compulsory parity of arrangements, grants us none of that.

Yes, you will find a common theme throughout my posts about the results of Brexit - they are unpopular and overall laughable, as they were always going to be because common sense.

.. because common sense, WHAT, Noir ?

You make the mistake of blaming our own people, and not being nearly critical enough of the EU. Fact is, the EU have treated us abominably.

Gunny

11-24-2018, 08:08 PM

Yes - the EU have done a lot of bullying. For our part, we've done a lot of caving in to it. Doing so has caused no end of trouble.

We are a major financial contributor to the EU, one the EU would rather not lose. I think we could've done a lot more to use that as leverage to demand respect, and a deal good enough to reflect such respect. What we did, though, thanks to Mrs May's ego, was to concede whatever we had to, in order to strike a balance between a compromised Brexit and all the arrogance the EU has demonstrated throughout.

Tomorrow, a meeting will happen in Brussels where all 27 EU members will endorse their acceptance of our deal (.. it still has to be ratified by the UK Parliament, though, which is highly unlikely). Tonight, Mrs May summarily caved in to the Spanish, over Gibraltar. Spain wanted 'a greater say' in Gibraltarian affairs, despite the fact that Gibraltar is UK territory, one which also took part in the 2016 Referendum, voting heavily to quit the EU !!

Mrs May (details are sketchy, as yet) agreed to Spain's demand. This they did because Spain threatened to veto the deal, tomorrow, unless we capitulated.

So, we did. Or more precisely, desperate to push the deal through, Mrs May capitulated.

It only took her a few hours to do so.

This says it all. I think Mrs May, by this point, would do anything and everything it took to appease her way to having her 'done deal'.

It's at times like these I miss Margaret Thatcher. Rather than appease an inch, I think she'd have given the EU's negotiators (and anybody else within range) a good 'handbagging' for trying what they have ....Didn't the EU come after Thatcher? Not that I've paid a lot of attention, but I pre-date the EU. Whenever it was, I thought it was a bad idea. Seems to me the UK went full-circle after Thatcher and elected a total wuss.

If Parliament has not agreed to anything, that's where to start IF anything is to be done. I wouldn't give the EU a thing and I'd certainly tell Spain to go pound sand. What I don't get is what is May doing? She's certainly not making anyone in your government happy. So why bother if it's going to be shot down?

I'm all for BREXIT. I really can't find anything logical about the way the UK (May) is going about it. It's like she's signing the Treaty of Versailles.

Drummond

11-24-2018, 09:01 PM

Didn't the EU come after Thatcher? Not that I've paid a lot of attention, but I pre-date the EU. Whenever it was, I thought it was a bad idea. Seems to me the UK went full-circle after Thatcher and elected a total wuss.

If Parliament has not agreed to anything, that's where to start IF anything is to be done. I wouldn't give the EU a thing and I'd certainly tell Spain to go pound sand. What I don't get is what is May doing? She's certainly not making anyone in your government happy. So why bother if it's going to be shot down?

I'm all for BREXIT. I really can't find anything logical about the way the UK (May) is going about it. It's like she's signing the Treaty of Versailles.

You're right. Mrs Thatcher was pro-the EEC, as it was back then ... when it was just a trading confederation. As I recall, the means by which it mutated from that to become the power-grabbing colossus known as the EU, was the Maastricht Treaty, post-dating Mrs Thatcher's Premiership by just a year or 2; signed by John Major.

I can't imagine, had Mrs T somehow managed to stay on, that she'd have maintained any pro-EU stance. She never did anything that I'm aware of to facilitate our part in the EU at all.

Spain posed us a difficulty, though. They could've vetoed the Agreement, tomorrow, which would have caused chaos all round. Welcome chaos, from my point of view ... but chaos nonetheless. Mrs May obviously thought it had to be staved off .. I'm guessing at any cost, from her point of view.

I think what underpins all of this is a lack of confidence in the UK's ability to thrive in the wider world market. Mrs May might want the UK to attain some independence, but as a would-be Remainer herself, she believes we have a need to be tied to the EU 'marketplace', with all that membership provides us with. She lacks confidence in our ability to 'go it alone'.

I think this is nonsense. Yes, short-term hardship would've been likely. In the longer term, we'd have thrived, and big-time ... especially thanks to any deals which Donald Trump's America would have happily agreed with us.

As for 'what is Mrs May doing' ... I think she's trapped into continuing with her present course. She wants to be seen as the 'only PM' who could've delivered a deal, and she knows, and has said, that any alternative to it is a non-starter. Lack of time, and a lack of willingness from the EU to consider an alternative, all commits her to her present course.

Bottom line: just as she's been bullied into this fudge of a deal by the EU, so she in turn is bullying anyone she can into going along with her. Her ego just won't let her deviate from her present path, even if it'll all fall apart in Parliament.

She's probably hoping and praying for last minute about-turns from MP's, to give her a ratifying majority. It isn't impossible ... not quite ... just highly unlikely, as the DUP have turned against her, and the opposition Labour Party insist they'll oppose it because it doesn't meet their 'six tests' for acceptance.

Gunny

11-24-2018, 10:02 PM

You're right. Mrs Thatcher was pro-the EEC, as it was back then ... when it was just a trading confederation. As I recall, the means by which it mutated from that to become the power-grabbing colossus known as the EU, was the Maastricht Treaty, post-dating Mrs Thatcher's Premiership by just a year or 2; signed by John Major.

I can't imagine, had Mrs T somehow managed to stay on, that she'd have maintained any pro-EU stance. She never did anything that I'm aware of to facilitate our part in the EU at all.

Spain posed us a difficulty, though. They could've vetoed the Agreement, tomorrow, which would have caused chaos all round. Welcome chaos, from my point of view ... but chaos nonetheless. Mrs May obviously thought it had to be staved off .. I'm guessing at any cost, from her point of view.

I think what underpins all of this is a lack of confidence in the UK's ability to thrive in the wider world market. Mrs May might want the UK to attain some independence, but as a would-be Remainer herself, she believes we have a need to be tied to the EU 'marketplace', with all that membership provides us with. She lacks confidence in our ability to 'go it alone'.

I think this is nonsense. Yes, short-term hardship would've been likely. In the longer term, we'd have thrived, and big-time ... especially thanks to any deals which Donald Trump's America would have happily agreed with us.

As for 'what is Mrs May doing' ... I think she's trapped into continuing with her present course. She wants to be seen as the 'only PM' who could've delivered a deal, and she knows, and has said, that any alternative to it is a non-starter. Lack of time, and a lack of willingness from the EU to consider an alternative, all commits her to her present course.

Bottom line: just as she's been bullied into this fudge of a deal by the EU, so she in turn is bullying anyone she can into going along with her. Her ego just won't let her deviate from her present path, even if it'll all fall apart in Parliament.

She's probably hoping and praying for last minute about-turns from MP's, to give her a ratifying majority. It isn't impossible ... not quite ... just highly unlikely, as the DUP have turned against her, and the opposition Labour Party insist they'll oppose it because it doesn't meet their 'six tests' for acceptance.What I think is glaringly obvious, or should be, the less ties the UK keeps with the EU the better off the UK will be on its own. May handicapping the UK with all these promises to the EU is guaranteeing disaster with each and every concession.

I mentioned the Treaty of Versailles for a reason. The treaty was untenable on the part of the Germans. From what I can see and you are saying, I'd just scrap any agreement made to date and start over. I of course would start over by telling the EU to pound sand. There's their deal. Considering there are far more pilomatic people than me in Parliament :), I'm sure a more tenable plan can be reached, but the end result has to be "We are leaving. This is your deal. Don't agree to it and we're leaving anyway."

Whatever happened with that vote of no confidence for May? Does it mean anything? She may be saying her way or no way but it looks to me like she's just working her way into getting sidelined. What a mess.

John Major was the guy I was thinking of. Talk about giving away the farm then begging for eggs at the gate ...

aboutime

11-24-2018, 10:43 PM

Noir

11-25-2018, 04:42 AM

Yes, I do. Why does an agreement leading us to be able to fish in EU waters, NECESSITATE that we grant the EU the very same access to our waters ? Why must we defer to the EU's preference in the matter ?

Amazing.

U.K. - We want our fishers to be able to fish in EU waters

EU - Okay, in which case we want EU fishers to be able to fish in U.K. waters

U.K. - No, that is unreasonable, we have a perfectly reasonable request that we will be able to fish in your waters, but you will not be able to fish in ours

EU - ...if you don’t allow us to fish in your waters, we won’t allow you to fish in ours.

U.K. - What?! How dare you, why are you making these demands! Why must we allow you to fish in our waters just so we can fish in yours? Isn’t it our sovereign right to both deny you access to our waters, and help ourselves to yours? This is typical of the EU’s failure to want to negotiate a fair deal for the U.K.

Etc etc,

Drummond why exactly do you believe the U.K. should be able to say fish in Spanish waters, while denying Spanish farmers the right to fish in British waters - why would the Spanish accept that?

Noir

11-25-2018, 04:51 AM

Whatever happened with that vote of no confidence for May? Does it mean anything?

The vote of no confidence hasn’t happened, because despite *everything* the 1922 committee haven’t received letters from 15% of the Tory MPs calling for a leadership election. So apparently as of right now 86%+ of Mays MP think she’s the best person to lead the party, and country. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Drummond

11-25-2018, 10:26 AM

Amazing.

U.K. - We want our fishers to be able to fish in EU waters

EU - Okay, in which case we want EU fishers to be able to fish in U.K. waters

U.K. - No, that is unreasonable, we have a perfectly reasonable request that we will be able to fish in your waters, but you will not be able to fish in ours

EU - ...if you don’t allow us to fish in your waters, we won’t allow you to fish in ours.

U.K. - What?! How dare you, why are you making these demands! Why must we allow you to fish in our waters just so we can fish in yours? Isn’t it our sovereign right to both deny you access to our waters, and help ourselves to yours? This is typical of the EU’s failure to want to negotiate a fair deal for the U.K.

Etc etc,

Drummond why exactly do you believe the U.K. should be able to say fish in Spanish waters, while denying Spanish farmers the right to fish in British waters - why would the Spanish accept that?

We ASK. But, EU countries, DEMAND. There is a difference.

My point about fish stocks (which you've ignored ?) is a valid one. How can we tolerate foreign fishing, over which we'd exercise zero control, coming along and depleting stocks, as THEY chose to do ?? One, doing that would be irresponsible in the extreme, and two, depleted stocks would damage the viability of our own fisheries businesses.

The EU could argue the same, of course. Which is why our approach is less arrogant than theirs. [Incidentally, doesn't this in itself make a nonsense of the 'free movement across borders' EU imperative ? Each country has, surely, a right to control its territorial interests !!]

Talking of foreign arrogance, to say nothing of sheer disrespect and disreputable greed .. even the BBC featured a story about the Dutch, last evening (perhaps you viewed it ?). Turns out that their boats fish in our waters, get the fish they want, clear off to the Netherlands with it, then they sell it back to the UK (for a profit, but of course) for our consumption. How about that, eh ... the Dutch selling us OUR OWN fish, back to us !!

'Enjoy' this link Noir:

http://britishseafishing.co.uk/cornelis-vrolijk/

High_Plains_Drifter

11-25-2018, 10:58 AM

but people who make their living from killing fish...
"killing fish"... pfft... http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/belly-laugh.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

If you can't tell someone is a slow leak leftist snowflake by looking at them, just wait until they open their mouth.

Drummond

11-25-2018, 11:14 AM

The vote of no confidence hasn’t happened, because despite *everything* the 1922 committee haven’t received letters from 15% of the Tory MPs calling for a leadership election. So apparently as of right now 86%+ of Mays MP think she’s the best person to lead the party, and country. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It looks, now, as though the mandatory 48 letters minimum won't be reached. Still, there's no certainty about that. More letters may be sent. It's still an ongoing matter.

Besides, Noir, you surely can't be naive enough to imagine that any Conservative MP not sending one of those letters is unreservedly happy with Mrs May. Some will have lingering doubts. How do you know that pressure isn't being brought to bear, behind the scenes, to stem further revolts ?

Consider also the breakneck speed with which Mrs May is working to get Brexit 'done & dusted'. Leadership challenges take time to bring about. We've gone from 'will the 48 letters arrive ?', to an EU-ratified deal, to a public letter to all of us, pleading for popular support for the deal .. all this, happening within ONE SINGLE WEEK !!

Oh, Mrs May is worried, Noir. She knows the whole situation is a precarious one for her, here back in the UK. Everything points to her being acutely aware of that !

aboutime

11-25-2018, 08:38 PM

https://www.setquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/It-is-better-to-keep-your-mouth-closed-and-let-people-think-you-are-a-fool-than-to-open-it-and-remove-all-doubt.-Mark-Twain.jpg

Drummond

11-28-2018, 10:18 PM

Wow.

Now that there's a fierce battle being waged for the 'hearts and minds' of anyone who'd oppose Theresa May's deal, this in the run-up to the all-important (hoped-for) ratification of the deal in the UK Parliament in 2 weeks ... 'Project Fear' has been re-animated with a vengeance. From Mark Carney, a warning from the Bank of England that our GDP would nosedive, making our economy contract, if we end up with no deal with the EU.

Ah, but now, we have even THIS ......

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425479/Michael-Gove-backed-hearing-UK-run-drinking-water-DAYS-No-Deal.html?fbclid=IwAR1_7ZS4-m8OaCEBad0LBV3M_tA3eVHURoZfQvnSSdjbOhZxkbhwai8Fyl8

Britain would run out of clean drinking water within days of a no-deal Brexit in a doomsday scenario that convinced Michael Gove to back Theresa May’s deal.

Whitehall disaster planners have warned Ministers that leaving the EU without a deal could spark a national crisis as crucial chemicals used in water purification are imported to the UK from Europe.

The deliveries risk getting caught in weeks of border chaos if Britain quits the EU next March without the Prime Minister’s deal with Brussels being approved by MPs.

The vital chemicals are timed to arrive ‘just in time’ and cannot be stockpiled as they are too volatile, meaning water plants would have to turn off the taps as soon as they ran out or risk poisoning millions.

Offices and schools would close and hospitals plunged into chaos.

Everyone knows that we had no water fit to drink, before tying ourselves to Europe. Well ... don't they ??

This is 'Project Fear' sinking to a new low. There is literally NO depth the 'powers-that-be' won't sink to, to see to it that Mrs May's sellout deal succeeds.

aboutime

11-28-2018, 10:35 PM

Wow.

Now that there's a fierce battle being waged for the 'hearts and minds' of anyone who'd oppose Theresa May's deal, this in the run-up to the all-important (hoped-for) ratification of the deal in the UK Parliament in 2 weeks ... 'Project Fear' has been re-animated with a vengeance. From Mark Carney, a warning from the Bank of England that our GDP would nosedive, making our economy contract, if we end up with no deal with the EU.

Ah, but now, we have even THIS ......

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425479/Michael-Gove-backed-hearing-UK-run-drinking-water-DAYS-No-Deal.html?fbclid=IwAR1_7ZS4-m8OaCEBad0LBV3M_tA3eVHURoZfQvnSSdjbOhZxkbhwai8Fyl8

Everyone knows that we had no water fit to drink, before tying ourselves to Europe. Well ... don't they ??

This is 'Project Fear' sinking to a new low. There is literally NO depth the 'powers-that-be' won't sink to, to see to it that Mrs May's sellout deal succeeds.

Did Mrs. May have a secret affair with Obama? No wonder Obama's other Half/male/female, Michelle always has such a scowl on her face! Sounds like Madam May attended the American, Democrat party DNC training school for convincing voters that Kool-aid from cesspool's can be used to appease Anti-Brexit idiots.
By the way. Why doesn't May seek out the U.S.A. for the chemicals needed for purification?
Just wondering?

Drummond

11-28-2018, 11:10 PM

Did Mrs. May have a secret affair with Obama? No wonder Obama's other Half/male/female, Michelle always has such a scowl on her face! Sounds like Madam May attended the American, Democrat party DNC training school for convincing voters that Kool-aid from cesspool's can be used to appease Anti-Brexit idiots.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:

By the way. Why doesn't May seek out the U.S.A. for the chemicals needed for purification?
Just wondering?

Interesting point.

... Well. Since we're discussing the outcome of a 'no deal' Brexit, in that scenario, nothing would prevent her doing exactly that. She DOES have four months to make arrangements ... and significantly longer if in fact the chemicals needed could be stockpiled (.. or ARE being, even now).

It's not as though a 'no deal' Brexit kills off trade with the EU in any case. We'd still trade with the EU, still buy what we needed, just on terms not quite as 'cozy' as they were when we were a member of their trading club. What we'd be doing, at minimum, was arranging a stopgap between our need for them, and the end of a temporary delay of supply at the EU end of things.

Of course, we might just decide that the EU had become too unreliable to trade with ... in which case, it's the EU's loss, and the US's gain.

'Project Fear' will, of course, reflect none of this.

aboutime

11-29-2018, 04:48 PM

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:

Interesting point.

... Well. Since we're discussing the outcome of a 'no deal' Brexit, in that scenario, nothing would prevent her doing exactly that. She DOES have four months to make arrangements ... and significantly longer if in fact the chemicals needed could be stockpiled (.. or ARE being, even now).

It's not as though a 'no deal' Brexit kills off trade with the EU in any case. We'd still trade with the EU, still buy what we needed, just on terms not quite as 'cozy' as they were when we were a member of their trading club. What we'd be doing, at minimum, was arranging a stopgap between our need for them, and the end of a temporary delay of supply at the EU end of things.

Of course, we might just decide that the EU had become too unreliable to trade with ... in which case, it's the EU's loss, and the US's gain.

'Project Fear' will, of course, reflect none of this.

I worry that the U.K. will become the victim of the EU in all kinds of trade. What laws are in place to prevent the EU from overcharging for all goods, oil, medicine, food, water chem's if they become the EXTORTIONISTS they appear to be???
Our president know's all about how the EU operates, and he can help the U.K. and Madam May to overcome all of the threats of extortion from the EU in an instant.

Somebody only needs to ask since....AS I RECALL. Great Britain and Israel are TWO of our greatest ALLIES. And we NEVER let our Allies fend for themselves. Unless Obama is in office.

Drummond

11-30-2018, 07:54 AM

I worry that the U.K. will become the victim of the EU in all kinds of trade. What laws are in place to prevent the EU from overcharging for all goods, oil, medicine, food, water chem's if they become the EXTORTIONISTS they appear to be???
Our president know's all about how the EU operates, and he can help the U.K. and Madam May to overcome all of the threats of extortion from the EU in an instant.

Somebody only needs to ask since....AS I RECALL. Great Britain and Israel are TWO of our greatest ALLIES. And we NEVER let our Allies fend for themselves. Unless Obama is in office.

I appreciate your sentiment very much. Thank you, Aboutime. :salute:

You make an excellent case. Nothing prevents EU-based companies from charging what they like, if previous rules allowing us preferential treatment no longer apply. The only answer would be for us to seek out an alternative source of what we need.

The only 'wriggle room' we'd have is to say to one company, 'We have a better deal open to us from a competitor of yours. Which would mean nothing, if companies decided between them to single us out for extortionate prices, perhaps agreeing between themselves to do so.

This is why your suggestion of going to the US is an ideal answer, assuming of course that they'd assist us in a trade (as I'm sure they would) which was far fairer.

Noir

12-07-2018, 12:31 PM

Drummond

12-08-2018, 08:07 AM

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/a7329a4f3664fa44c2f459874d1ad92b.jpg

Would you look at that, pure scandal!
Can’t wait till we’re rid out the EU and £1.40 can be rightly split among the 14 categories above it!

(Not my tax figures, a friends.)

Indeed, Noir - I sympathise.

Multiply that by the MILLIONS paying that tax .. and, for what ? To be dictated to by a foreign power (or in fact, a couple of dozen of them ?).

Try thinking about any potential pooling of all that tax revenue, into other worthwhile causes. Maybe a couple of hospitals could be built, that wouldn't exist otherwise ?

I'm sure there are various worthwhile schemes, or causes, that'd be grateful for the financial assistance such additional revenue would give them. Who are you to want to begrudge them that money .. for the 'pleasure', instead, of paying extra into MEP's already hefty salaries ?

Noir

12-08-2018, 09:19 AM

Try thinking about any potential pooling of all that tax revenue, into other worthwhile causes. Maybe a couple of hospitals could be built, that wouldn't exist otherwise ?

Why yes! Just think my friend could of added an extra £1.40 to the £685 spent on welfare, and an extra £1.40 to the £573 spent on health, and an extra £1.40 to the £369 spent on state pensions etc etc!

All all we would have to give up for that £1.40 in each category over the year is access to the single market, a voice in the European Parliament, and any funding that we receive back in kind. What a bargain!

Noir

12-08-2018, 09:24 AM

Drummond

12-09-2018, 09:49 AM

Also I’m sure you’re aware we don’t actually use tax revenue to build hospitals, instead we loan out the costs as PFIs that we can then pay interest on (though the debt itself is not on state books) to private companies who make a fortune of the projects while the hospitals themselves are left penniless.

Sadly Europe isn’t the blame for that one - successive U.K. governments are.

Yes, well, I'm sure you'd rather not blame the EU for anything, and the UK for everything, eh ?

No matter. Once we're rid of our EU shackles, you'll be thrilled at how well we manage our OWN affairs, as WE choose, instead of having them dictated to us ....

Noir

12-09-2018, 10:01 AM

Yes, well, I'm sure you'd rather not blame the EU for anything, and the UK for everything, eh ?

No matter. Once we're rid of our EU shackles, you'll be thrilled at how well we manage our OWN affairs, as WE choose, instead of having them dictated to us ....

I’ll happily blame the U.K. government for their faults - and of course the EU for theirs. As you brought up hospitals I thought it only reasonable to bring up the problematic way in which we have funded them, which was not by the way you suggested.

I see May is striding from defeat to defeat, with about as much charisma as a lead pipe - yet is still the unchallenged leader of the conservative party, amazing.

Drummond

12-09-2018, 10:09 AM

I’ll happily blame the U.K. government for their faults - and of course the EU for theirs. As you brought up hospitals I thought it only reasonable to bring up the problematic way in which we have funded them, which was not by the way you suggested.

I see May is striding from defeat to defeat, with about as much charisma as a lead pipe - yet is still the unchallenged leader of the conservative party, amazing.

Oh, I think she'll be challenged, but when she's at her weakest, when the need for that challenge is beyond reasonable dispute. You see, the Conservatives prefer not to compound difficult situations with un-needed chaotic complications. Better to wait for better times. As in, soon ... no doubt.

... but, I'm intrigued ....

... You'll happily blame the EU for their faults ?? Really ??!? Now, Noir, this I really MUST put to the test !! So, a challenge of my own ... reply to this with a post that lists the EU's various faults !!

Go on ... DO IT. Don't duck this.

Noir

12-09-2018, 10:30 AM

Oh, I think she'll be challenged, but when she's at her weakest, when the need for that challenge is beyond reasonable dispute. You see, the Conservatives prefer not to compound difficult situations with un-needed chaotic complications. Better to wait for better times. As in, soon ... no doubt.

“Better to wait for better times”
I could not adequately describe how hearty a chuckle that like drew out of me, pure gold.

... but, I'm intrigued ....

... You'll happily blame the EU for their faults ?? Really ??!? Now, Noir, this I really MUST put to the test !! So, a challenge of my own ... reply to this with a post that lists the EU's various faults !!

Go on ... DO IT. Don't duck this.

Sure - Too bureaucratic, not transparent in policy or process, poor implementation of international court rulings, unnecessary formation of executive, poor responses to financial crisis, very slow to modernise law in the digital space (ie net neutrality, Patents etc), poor protections and representation for smaller countries...the list goes on, and on.

Drummond

12-09-2018, 01:17 PM

“Better to wait for better times”
I could not adequately describe how hearty a chuckle that like drew out of me, pure gold.

Noir. You KNOW better times are ahead.

Mrs May can't - surely - last too much longer. She'll be replaced by somebody tougher, more uncompromising. That replacement, if worthy of his / her job, will toughly challenge the EU to offer us something better in a future deal. If they do, then, they do (... but it'd be out of character for them, so I very much doubt it). If they don't ... we get out of the EU minus a deal, initially saving ourselves 39 billion pounds. We'll go full pelt to get other deals from whatever country will give us good and worthy ones (e.g, the US !!! :salute:).

Teething troubles from initial exit over with ... we'll prosper, probably like never before. So, yes, Noir. BETTER TIMES.

Sure - Too bureaucratic, not transparent in policy or process, poor implementation of international court rulings, unnecessary formation of executive, poor responses to financial crisis, very slow to modernise law in the digital space (ie net neutrality, Patents etc), poor protections and representation for smaller countries...the list goes on, and on.

By God. You did it ! Well done.

So, OK. From your list ... I must assume that, when we rid ourselves of that pathetic, dictatorial, stultifyingly slow & grossly inefficient waste of space otherwise known as the EU ... you'll be cheering at least as loudly as I will be ...

... YES ? ...

Noir

12-09-2018, 02:37 PM

Noir. You KNOW better times are ahead.

Mrs May can't - surely - last too much longer. She'll be replaced by somebody tougher, more uncompromising. That replacement, if worthy of his / her job, will toughly challenge the EU to offer us something better in a future deal. If they do, then, they do (... but it'd be out of character for them, so I very much doubt it). If they don't ... we get out of the EU minus a deal, initially saving ourselves 39 billion pounds. We'll go full pelt to get other deals from whatever country will give us good and worthy ones (e.g, the US !!! :salute:).

Teething troubles from initial exit over with ... we'll prosper, probably like never before. So, yes, Noir. BETTER TIMES.

By God. You did it ! Well done.

So, OK. From your list ... I must assume that, when we rid ourselves of that pathetic, dictatorial, stultifyingly slow & grossly inefficient waste of space otherwise known as the EU ... you'll be cheering at least as loudly as I will be ...

... YES ? ...

I could list 20 things wrong with the house I’m renting - do you think the best decision would be to tear up my tenancy agreement and make myself homeless?

Drummond

12-10-2018, 06:45 PM

I could list 20 things wrong with the house I’m renting - do you think the best decision would be to tear up my tenancy agreement and make myself homeless?

This argument can't apply. The UK isn't 'making itself homeless' ... UNLESS ... you're arguing that the UK is an entity whose 'home' must be to be governed, dominated, by some sort of 'higher power' ... ?

You overstate your case.

If you, say, had a building society account, which gave an unsatisfactory interest rate level for your savings, and into the bargain insisted upon draconian rules for the account you were expected to be subject to .. and you found there were alternative banks out there offering you the chance of better terms for those savings, with a greater degree of autonomy over their fate .. wouldn't you rather 'tear up the building society account', and move to get a better deal ? Wouldn't it make more sense to do that ?

Russ

12-10-2018, 08:39 PM

Drummond and Noir,

I should probably already know this, but could you explain the difference between the deal and no-deal Brexits? I understand that one involves UK getting a deal from the EU, but what is the deal that is being sought?

Thanks - Russ

I did read it, thanks. But, unless you're suggesting that we Brits are incapable of making up for any 'shortfall' ... I fail to understand ...

My thoughts on a no-deal Brexit are simple. A decent deal is to be preferred. However, I seriously doubt that the control-freaking EU, which has done its damndest throughout to make negotiations anything between very difficult and completely impossible, will allow a decent deal.

If we have to walk away minus a deal, then, we do. I'm totally sure that it's EU intransigence (I'm being diplomatic !) which will force that outcome on us. Not a great outcome, to be sure, but better than knuckling under to hostile control freaks, determined to rob us of our autonomy.

We will do what we must, as a proud and independent People, Noir.

Drummond

12-11-2018, 10:31 AM

Drummond and Noir,

I should probably already know this, but could you explain the difference between the deal and no-deal Brexits? I understand that one involves UK getting a deal from the EU, but what is the deal that is being sought?

Thanks - Russ

Well, Russ .. we have 'a deal' with the EU, agreed by both sides .. but, in order to be brought into being as a working arrangement, it must first be ratified by our Parliament. Mrs May's difficulty is that there is far too much resistance to its acceptance to allow that to happen. Without ratification, the deal fails.

As to what it is .. see ..

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/chequers-deal-brexit-plan-agreement-what-explained-theresa-may/

Agriculture and trade The UK and EU agrees a “common rulebook for all goods including agri-foods”, with British ministers committing in a treaty to ongoing harmonisation with EU rules when necessary to provide for frictionless trade at ports and the border with Ireland. The UK Parliament would have the ability to choose not to incorporate future rules, but accepts there would be “consequences” for trade. “Regulatory flexibility” for services, with the UK recognising neither side will enjoy “current levels of access” to each other’s markets.

UK-EU agreements .. a common rulebook on state aid would be agreed, preventing either side from subsidising their own industries. The UK will commit to maintaining high environmental, climate change, social, employment and consumer protection standards. A joint institutional framework to oversee UK-EU agreements, with the UK agreeing to pay “due regard” to EU case law in areas where the common rulebook applies.

Access to European single market .. a “facilitated customs agreement” would remove the need for customs checks by treating the UK and EU “as if a combined customs territory”. The UK would apply EU’s tariffs and trade policy on goods intended for the bloc but would control its own tariffs and trade for the domestic market. The trade tariffs plan will be phased in as both sides complete the necessary preparations.

Benefits from the plan, according to the Government, include: Frictionless access for goods, protecting supply chains the just-in-time model used by major manufacturers such as carmakers. Avoiding the need for a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland or within the UK. Allowing the UK to have an independent trade policy, with the potential to join countries including Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada in Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Ending free movement “giving the UK back control over how many people enter the country”. Ending “vast annual payments” to the EU budget, although “appropriate contributions” will still be made for joint programmes in specific areas.

What do the Tories think of the plan? The Chequers plan has divided the Tory party to say the least. Former Brexit minister Steve Baker has warned the party faces a “catastrophic split” if the Prime Minister presses ahead with the proposals. And former Brexit Secretary David Davis has said there is a “rock-solid core” of around 40 Tory MPs who are prepared to vote down the deal in the House of Commons.

There you have it.

In many ways, Mrs May's Chequers deal is apparently 'a good deal' as such. HOWEVER .. it potentially fails in one crucial area, which has to do with the future of a 'frictionless border', between Northern Ireland (UK) and the Republic of Ireland (EU-aligned territory), so, arguably, is actually NOT a good deal, after all. Each side wants its trade rights protected, but the problem with the current frictionless border is, how do customs and security checks from UK to EU and EU to UK territories work, under such an arrangement ?

Nobody's found an answer to that yet.

Enter the now-infamous 'Backstop' arrangement. It provides for continuation for the status quo for - as yet, effectively (.. as it turns out) - AN EFFECTIVELY UNDETERMINED PERIOD. How ? By preserving common Customs arrangements, as they now exist, with us both part of the EU, subject to the same rules.

The problem is that for as long as this 'backstop' is in force, the UK cannot be said to be free of EU rules, which means that Brexit isn't applied to all aspects of the UK. Effectively, our exit from the EU won't be total until it ends.

Critics of the backstop couldn't see how we, the UK, could pull out of that arrangement unilaterally ... given that no solution to the trade situation was found, allowing for a full Brexit. The Government had had legal advice on the matter submitted to it ... WHICH THEY REFUSED TO PUBLISH, SO THAT PARLIAMENT COULD SCRUTINISE IT ... until they were forced to, in Parliament. So, after being forced to ... it emerged that the UK, in the view of our own legal experts, would have no power to unilaterally end the backstop just when they chose to. BOTH sides had to agree to do so ... giving the EU potential power to lock us into it INDEFINITELY.

... thus ... we'd never be fully rid of the EU, until the EU permitted us to be ... if they ever did !

Where we now stand on this is that the vote on the Chequers deal was postponed, at the last minute, yesterday (because Mrs May knew that Parliament would never ratify the deal as it stands). She's now speaking to her EU counterparts to get assurances as to exactly how the backstop would be used, if it came to it, by the EU side. She wants to return with assurances that'll satisfy Parliament and allow for ratification.

Whether she'll get what she's after is highly debatable ... as the EU refuses to renegotiate any part of the deal.

See also ....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/brexit-what-is-the-irish-backstop-and-why-does-it-matter.html

Put briefly ... a 'no deal' scenario, by total comparison, is one where all trading perks with the EU end, and we in many ways close our border to the EU. Businesses would have to trade on comparatively disadvantageous 'WTO' rules.

That said ... at least, we WOULD be free of EU domination in our affairs.

Noir

12-12-2018, 03:29 AM

You see, the Conservatives prefer not to compound difficult situations with un-needed chaotic complications. Better to wait for better times.

Well apparently the “better times” we were waiting for was yesterday :laugh:

A vote of no confidence has been triggered and will take place this evening.

Drummond

12-12-2018, 10:06 AM

Well apparently the “better times” we were waiting for was yesterday :laugh:

A vote of no confidence has been triggered and will take place this evening.

Your first sentence was as inaccurate as it gets.

OK, you're fundamentally anti-Conservative ... naturally, I get that. But for all of Mrs May's faults, given a straight choice, I'd back her any day against the likes of Corbyn. Because what you seem to not be grasping is that, out of all this mess, Corbyn's agenda is to seize power for himself and his Party any way he can.

Yes, the Conservatives are moving at breakneck speed to get the vote on Mrs May's continued leadership over and done with VERY quickly .. I've never, ever, before seen them move as quickly as this. It's not surprising, though, as the contest acts as a distraction to the more fundamentally vital issue of Brexit.

That said: I want Mrs May gone and replaced by someone tougher, more uncompromising. I want that replacement to re-approach the EU and insist on better terms for our withdrawal from the EU. I want that Conservative-led Government to be prepared to enact a 'no deal' exit, should the EU still refuse to meaningfully cooperate with us.

pete311

12-12-2018, 10:10 AM

We'll go full pelt to get other deals from whatever country will give us good and worthy ones (e.g, the US !!! :salute:).

I don't know what basis you have for such a wishful opinion. The UK will then be negotiating from a place of desperation and weakness. You think other countries are just going to rescue you, play fair and be nice to you? No, they will smell blood and wring out everything you have. The UK has no valuable resources! You think importing goods from the US is cheaper than uh the EU? Seriously? All just wishful thinking and it is unlikely to unfold as simply as you make it and if it doesn't then you've just made a very serious gamble on the selfish basis of wanting to be a true island in a global economy.

Drummond

12-12-2018, 10:41 AM

I don't know what basis you have for such a wishful opinion. The UK will then be negotiating from a place of desperation and weakness. You think other countries are just going to rescue you, play fair and be nice to you? No, they will smell blood and wring out everything you have. The UK has no valuable resources! You think importing goods from the US is cheaper than uh the EU? Seriously? All just wishful thinking and it is unlikely to unfold as simply as you make it and if it doesn't then you've just made a very serious gamble on the selfish basis of wanting to be a true island in a global economy.

Wow. You really hate the thought of an autonomous UK, don't you, Pete ? Is it because the EU represents a stage in increasing globalisation, and you hate to see any nation act to reject it ?

The EU represents - for all of its lofty thinking about being a major global player - a MINORITY of nations across the world who trade. By getting away from the suffocating and monstrously arrogant dictatorship known as the EU (... whose lawyer only this week encouraged us to understand that we could unilaterally ditch Brexit, if only we opted to !) ... we get to, instead, open ourselves up to trade with the GREATER MAJORITY of nations out there who want to do business with us.

As matters stand, the UK's membership of the EU forbids us to enter into independent trade agreements with any of that bigger marketplace. That cannot be in the UK's long-term interests.

Cheapness of goods, and trade generally ... you assume a lot. Deals NOT struck, are already being judged by you ? Seriously ? But in any case, even if you were making a valid point, you are still overlooking the massive contributions we make, annually, to EU coffers just because we are 'in their club'. Who's to say that, once we're freed of that obligation, the net balance won't be to our greater advantage ?

As to the UK's ability to trade ... Pete, do you imagine that we've nothing to trade ? Does the EU, then, forever 'bale us out' as a 'charity', by supplying us with its goods, gaining no meaningful trade in return ??

See ....

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

Read it for yourself.

We have a workforce. Companies can (and have, in appreciable numbers) based factories here.

And Pete ... swallow this fact, if you can. The UK are world leaders, and have been for a long time, in IT and telecommunications expertise. In this day and age of cyber warfare, cyber criminality ... the world would be much the poorer without our contributions. Our GCHQ complex in Cheltenham was, in times past, listening in to the old Soviet Union and sharing its findings with, not least, the US's Intelligence services and Government. Today, they're principally engaged in IT security activities, and the Western world in general still vitally needs their input.

11838

I suggest to you that a complex this extensive doesn't consist of people who've no other reason for existence than to sit around drinking tea all day ....

... and I also suggest that GCHQ's expansion into Manchester has a point to it ...

https://www.governmenteuropa.eu/gchq-new-intelligence-and-security-facility-manchester/86415/

UK intelligence agency GCHQ will open a new intelligence and security facility in Manchester in 2019, as part of the UK’s wider counter-terror strategy.

The new intelligence and security facility will work alongside the UK’s other intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6. The Manchester centre will join GCHQ’s main headquarters in Cheltenham, and additional offices in Bude and Scarborough.

The announcement follows a number of recent plans to expand the UK’s counter-terror capabilities. This includes the creation of a National Cyber Security Centre, which opened in London last year, and the recent unveiling of a new chemical weapons defence centre to be established at Porton Down.

What has GCHQ said about the new facility?

Fleming said that Manchester was an ideal site for the new intelligence and security facility, in part because of the resilience and strength the city had shown in response to the terrorist bombing attack which took place there last year.

He added that opening a new centre in Manchester will allow GCHQ to take advantage of a whole new pool of talented and technologically skilled workers, which he argued would be “vital to the future success” of the agency.

So, Pete, don't underrate what we have to offer. You'd be a fool to do so.

NightTrain

12-12-2018, 11:08 AM

pete311

12-12-2018, 12:03 PM

So, Pete, don't underrate what we have to offer. You'd be a fool to do so.

Exactly, it's a service based economy. The US doesn't need your technology or intel services. So what exactly could you offer us in trade?

Drummond

12-12-2018, 12:43 PM

Exactly, it's a service based economy. The US doesn't need your technology or intel services. So what exactly could you offer us in trade?

I'm sure the US has a great technological lead of its own. Do you need our intel services ? I honestly don't know. Who's to say that the UK doesn't make advances of its own, which other powers such as yours don't interweave into yours ?

I'm not at all sure that interdependence doesn't play a far more vital part in making progress than you imagine.

Mull this one over ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee OM KBE FRS FREng FRSA FBCS (born 8 June 1955), also known as TimBL, is an English engineer and computer scientist, best known as the inventor of the World Wide Web ...

So ... there's a lesson for you. Peoples' advances aren't limited to one country .. they DO interweave. Acknowledge the UK's leading role in this process ... why don't you ?

As for what we offer you in trade, well ... ask Donald Trump. HE thinks there's a basis for lucrative trade, and this within his greater framework of an 'America First' trading environment !!

Care to explain that one, Pete ?

pete311

12-12-2018, 01:28 PM

I'm sure the US has a great technological lead of its own. Do you need our intel services ? I honestly don't know. Who's to say that the UK doesn't make advances of its own, which other powers such as yours don't interweave into yours ?

I'm not at all sure that interdependence doesn't play a far more vital part in making progress than you imagine.

Mull this one over ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

So ... there's a lesson for you. Peoples' advances aren't limited to one country .. they DO interweave. Acknowledge the UK's leading role in this process ... why don't you ?

As for what we offer you in trade, well ... ask Donald Trump. HE thinks there's a basis for lucrative trade, and this within his greater framework of an 'America First' trading environment !!

Care to explain that one, Pete ?

You are still basing the future of your country on wishful thinking. Do you know how trading works? You're going to offer us the WWW? We already got that thank you. What else you got?

Gunny

12-12-2018, 01:42 PM

Exactly, it's a service based economy. The US doesn't need your technology or intel services. So what exactly could you offer us in trade?Another opportunity to f*ck the EU. That's a fair trade.

Any bad day for socialism is a good day for the rest of the World :)

CSM

12-12-2018, 01:45 PM

You are still basing the future of your country on wishful thinking. Do you know how trading works? You're going to offer us the WWW? We already got that thank you. What else you got?

Hmmmm.... it appears the biggest exports to the US from the UK are mechanical and pharmaceutical products ( worth 6.6 billion pounds) and cars ( worth 7.4 billion pounds): https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44802666

Also: http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-exports/

Interesting stuff.

I never did understand why any country would subvert it's own sovereignty for the sake of trade but I wasn't born in Europe either. Seems to me that the EU has not worked out so well for some countries (Greece and Italy for example).

Noir

12-12-2018, 05:28 PM

That said: I want Mrs May gone and replaced by someone tougher, more uncompromising. I want that replacement to re-approach the EU and insist on better terms for our withdrawal from the EU. I want that Conservative-led Government to be prepared to enact a 'no deal' exit, should the EU still refuse to meaningfully cooperate with us.

Well the Conservative party don’t want Mrs May gone - as she wins her vote of confidence and will remain prime minster, trebles all round!

Drummond

12-12-2018, 07:30 PM

You are still basing the future of your country on wishful thinking. Do you know how trading works? You're going to offer us the WWW? We already got that thank you. What else you got?

What do you mean, 'going to' .. ? We already DID. Didn't you read what I posted ?

My point is, never underestimate British capabilities.

You talk about wishful thinking. OK, let me mirror yours. Yours is that the UK continues to suck on the teat of EU dependency. Well ... the 2016 Referendum proved that a majority of voters here were better than that, wanting our nation to be better than that.

The United Kingdom existed long before the EU did. We not only survived in the world, we thrived. That, Pete, isn't an example of 'wishful thinking', but proven, historic FACT.

Who are you to say we can't do so again ? And, considering our leading role in IT expertise, you already know from that example that we're both innovative and eminently adaptable to future world challenges.

pete311

12-12-2018, 10:08 PM

What do you mean, 'going to' .. ? We already DID. Didn't you read what I posted ?

My point is, never underestimate British capabilities.

You talk about wishful thinking. OK, let me mirror yours. Yours is that the UK continues to suck on the teat of EU dependency. Well ... the 2016 Referendum proved that a majority of voters here were better than that, wanting our nation to be better than that.

The United Kingdom existed long before the EU did. We not only survived in the world, we thrived. That, Pete, isn't an example of 'wishful thinking', but proven, historic FACT.

Who are you to say we can't do so again ? And, considering our leading role in IT expertise, you already know from that example that we're both innovative and eminently adaptable to future world challenges.

So that is your brexit plan? Just hoping you can invent some shit to sell?

Drummond

12-13-2018, 12:30 AM

So that is your brexit plan? Just hoping you can invent some shit to sell?

Good God. I really wonder why I'm arguing with you.

A lot of our trade is service-based. Some, however, is not.

Yes. We are an innovative nation. Yes, we can invent and trade in goods coming from those inventions. But suggesting that this is the entirety of the total worth of our trade is simply nonsense. No country could survive under the terms you're suggesting apply to us, not even one imprisoned within EU strictures. We're not a backwater economy ... far from it.

Yes, I can tell you that there are aspects of your daily life that you, and other parts of the world, owe to the UK's existence. The Internet, for one. The basis for the original television industry, for another (who was television's inventor ? Where did he come from ? Check it out !).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird

John Logie Baird FRSE (13 August 1888 – 14 June 1946) was a Scottish engineer, innovator, one of the inventors of the mechanical television, demonstrating the first working television system on 26 January 1926, and inventor of both the first publicly demonstrated colour television system, and the first purely electronic colour television picture tube.

In 1928 the Baird Television Development Company achieved the first transatlantic television transmission. Baird's early technological successes and his role in the practical introduction of broadcast television for home entertainment have earned him a prominent place in television's history.

Baird was ranked number 44 in the BBC's list of the 100 Greatest Britons following a UK-wide vote in 2002 ...

But the EU isn't a charity. They export to us, we export back to them. We have to be a viable trading partner for that to even be possible.

So if we can trade with them ... why NOT with other countries ? Why would Trump see any use in considering us as a trading partner ?

Pete ... wake up. Your doubting that we have anything worthwhile to trade is sheer nonsense, because if it wasn't, then we'd not even exist. We MUST trade, to have a viable economy, and yes, comparatively speaking, we have such an economy !!

So don't be tiresome. Your inferences defy logic. If we're a viable trading partner with the EU, we can be with anybody.

Noir

01-15-2019, 07:24 AM

A big day of sorts, as the governments Brexit plan is put to the vote in the House of Commons. It already lost a vote in the Lords (by a large margin) but it’s the commons vote that will matter.

Drummond

01-15-2019, 10:06 AM

A big day of sorts, as the governments Brexit plan is put to the vote in the House of Commons. It already lost a vote in the Lords (by a large margin) but it’s the commons vote that will matter.

Yes. Of course. Pretty much everyone thinks (as do I) that the Commons won't ratify 'The Deal'. As you probably know, Noir, that'd mandate Mrs May to come up with an alternative plan of action within three days.

This is all an enormous mess, with its origin coming from the EU's absolute refusal to give us a deal which our own people can accept.

The one thing I totally agree with Mrs May on, is her stating that not supporting the Brexit process (i.e, cancelling it) would be widely seen as a betrayal of democracy. The Conservatives, if they ever took such a step and revoked Article 50, wouldn't be forgiven for a VERY long time.

Some even question whether the Conservative Party could be a viable political force in British politics, were that to happen.

I see their point -- unfortunately.

KarlMarx

01-15-2019, 02:43 PM

The Left refuses to negotiate with the other side? Why does that sound familiar?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drummond

01-15-2019, 03:42 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?65212-Sounds-Like-The-UK-Might-Face-A-Government-Shutdown-Of-It-s-Own&p=925294#post925294

aboutime

01-15-2019, 05:33 PM

Exactly, it's a service based economy. The US doesn't need your technology or intel services. So what exactly could you offer us in trade?

Once again. Thank You, for being so willing to demonstrate your actual Ignorance, and stupidity on subjects you absolutely have no knowledge about.

You are proving the rumors here in the U.S., about our failing Education system, from a 1st hand demonstration, provided by None-other-than "YOU!" Thank You.
Remember. YOU do have the right to remain Quiet. But we all thank you for abusing that right.

Noir

01-16-2019, 03:52 AM

So for a brief summary of the past few weeks and days in brexit-

May delayed parliament voting on the Brexit bill because she thought she would lose.
The Tory party filed a motion of no confidence in May to replace her as party leader, which she won.
The Brexit bill was finally put to the house, and failed with a remarkable and historic margin.
Labour have filed for a vote of no confidence in the Tory government, which May will almost certainly win today.
After which she has a further 2 days to come up with a new Brexit bill to put to a parliamentary vote...

Drummond

01-16-2019, 12:07 PM

So for a brief summary of the past few weeks and days in brexit-

May delayed parliament voting on the Brexit bill because she thought she would lose.

... and thought she could use time gained to tip the voting balance in her favour. Yes.

As it turned out, not only did she fail, but one EXTRA MP on her own side voted against Mrs May's deal !!

The Tory party filed a motion of no confidence in May to replace her as party leader, which she won.

Pretty easily, too. She now can't be challenged as Leader for almost another entire year.

The Brexit bill was finally put to the house, and failed with a remarkable and historic margin.

That 'margin' being bigger than anybody expected ... no doubt even Labour. Yes.

Labour have filed for a vote of no confidence in the Tory government, which May will almost certainly win today.

She should do, yes.

Just goes to show how desperate for power Corbyn is. He'll try anything to seize it, regardless of how slim the chances are of success.

After which she has a further 2 days to come up with a new Brexit bill to put to a parliamentary vote...

I've been hearing anything from three days (one used up already) to next Monday, which would allow a further five days, including today.

Noir

01-16-2019, 02:37 PM

Just goes to show how desperate for power Corbyn is. He'll try anything to seize it, regardless of how slim the chances are of success.

I don’t know what exactly it is you expect of him - the executive are dreadful, truly dreadful, and on the back of the worst commons defeat by a long way, and with Tory infighting abound, he’s suppose to sit there and do nothing? Especially given it’s more than likely that a general election would topple this minority government?

Drummond

01-16-2019, 03:24 PM

I don’t know what exactly it is you expect of him - the executive are dreadful, truly dreadful, and on the back of the worst commons defeat by a long way, and with Tory infighting abound, he’s suppose to sit there and do nothing? Especially given it’s more than likely that a general election would topple this minority government?

Mrs May has herself addressed what Corbyn can do: he and his Party can start acting in the country's interests, be constructive ... not try for all he's worth to grab power !!

What cross-Party contact has there been on any of this ? Mrs May is still trying to work out what coherent policies Corbyn's side has, that address today's realities !

Mrs May has (as expected) fended off Corbyn's 'No Confidence' motion, and actually quite comfortably. So, with that over and done with, Corbyn can stop his hostility and start to work WITH Government, to find what basis they can have to work together towards a solution Parliament can work with.

.. Fat chance ... I know. But Corbyn could TRY to be constructive, and put aside his power-mania.

Given that none of this happens to any useful extent, I think that we'll have to crash out minus a deal. A second Referendum, whilst not rejected outright by Labour .. they're not keen on having one (they were never in favour of the first one ! Besides, how do we find the time to organise it ??). Mrs May is determined not to cancel the Brexit process .. nor, according to Andrea Leadsome, to ask for a Brexit delay beyond March.

All this adds up to me, short of miracles of attitude and approach appearing from both the EU and the likes of Corbyn, to .... a hard Brexit, on 29th March, at 11pm !!

Noir

01-16-2019, 05:11 PM

Mrs May has (as expected) fended off Corbyn's 'No Confidence' motion, and actually quite comfortably.

Maybe we have different definitions of “quite comfortably” only being saved by 10MPs votes (which she paid £1 billion for) doesn’t spring to my mind as quite comfortably.

Drummond

01-16-2019, 06:33 PM

Maybe we have different definitions of “quite comfortably” only being saved by 10MPs votes (which she paid £1 billion for) doesn’t spring to my mind as quite comfortably.

To be clear: are you accusing Mrs May of bribery ??

Until or unless you explain yourself, I'll assume this is some sort of reference to how DUP support was acquired. I think (if so) the real point is that the DUP have, for the most part, common cause with the Conservatives (neither wants Corbyn's lot to get into No 10 !!). Where that common cause is served, they become supportive allies.

Considering that Mrs May's Government is a minority one ... YES ... I think 'quite comfortably' is accurate.

aboutime

01-16-2019, 07:51 PM

GOD BLESS. Here across the pond, we are watching the madness of the U.K., and wondering why WE, here in the USA, are so blinded by our own versions of stupidity.
The World has become "MAD" with stupidity, anger, hatred, and selfishness developed over the years as uneducated demands of "i" , "ME" , and "SCREW EVERYBODY ELSE".

Good luck. Boy, am I glad I'm getting older, fast. And won't live to see where all of this DUMB, HATEFILLED CRAP ENDS. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Noir

01-17-2019, 04:33 AM

To be clear: are you accusing Mrs May of bribery ??

Until or unless you explain yourself, I'll assume this is some sort of reference to how DUP support was acquired. I think (if so) the real point is that the DUP have, for the most part, common cause with the Conservatives (neither wants Corbyn's lot to get into No 10 !!). Where that common cause is served, they become supportive allies.

Considering that Mrs May's Government is a minority one ... YES ... I think 'quite comfortably' is accurate.

The DUPs common cause begins and ends at the £1 billion they secured in return for their votes.

Drummond

01-17-2019, 09:59 AM

The DUPs common cause begins and ends at the £1 billion they secured in return for their votes.

Really ?

So, you think that the Brexit deal's 'backstop' clause meant nothing to the DUP ?

Did I imagine the DUP's withdrawal of support from the Conservative Government, then, on the matter of the Brexit deal's ratification ??

Noir

01-17-2019, 10:24 AM

Really ?

So, you think that the Brexit deal's 'backstop' clause meant nothing to the DUP ?

Did I imagine the DUP's withdrawal of support from the Conservative Government, then, on the matter of the Brexit deal's ratification ??

Yes they did withdraw support and voted against the government on section 13.

Drummond

01-17-2019, 11:46 AM

Yes they did withdraw support and voted against the government on section 13.

Really ?

HOW ?

I remind you of your own words:

The DUPs common cause begins and ends at the £1 billion they secured in return for their votes
To be consistent with what you've claimed for them, Noir, the DUP could not possibly have withdrawn their support. After all, the Conservatives 'paid them off' ... yes ?? All the DUP cares about is the money they've had ... yes ??

However, we both know that the DUP actually DID withdraw their support.

Would you care to try and find consistency in any of that, Noir ?

Noir

01-17-2019, 12:27 PM

Really ?

HOW ?

I remind you of your own words:

To be consistent with what you've claimed for them, Noir, the DUP could not possibly have withdrawn their support. After all, the Conservatives 'paid them off' ... yes ?? All the DUP cares about is the money they've had ... yes ??

However, we both know that the DUP actually DID withdraw their support.

Would you care to try and find consistency in any of that, Noir ?

Their votes ensure the Conservative party stays in power, they are not there to ensure a Conservative executive will be able to push through legislation. These are mutual exclusive priorities for the DUP. This weeks voting demonstrated that perfectly.

Drummond

01-17-2019, 02:16 PM

Their votes ensure the Conservative party stays in power, they are not there to ensure a Conservative executive will be able to push through legislation. These are mutual exclusive priorities for the DUP. This weeks voting demonstrated that perfectly.

Arguable at absolute best.

If they don't see their role as being enablers for legislation to pass ... then, what actual use are they ? What you're effectively saying is that the DUP will defend the Conservatives against moves to oust them from power, but not assist them in the ability to actually GOVERN. Any Party in power, here, has to be able to pass legislation in the House, because if it can't, it'd be incapable of instituting Manifesto (and other) changes they'd want to make.

What would be the point of voting for a Government whose manifesto couldn't possibly be acted upon ??

No, Noir.

The DUP is in opposition to the Government on the Backstop issue. On that specific issue, they won't back them. But on other legislative initiatives the Conservatives had put before Parliament, DUP support has been forthcoming .. this preventing measures forever being voted down by opposing MP's.

Or are you saying that the Conservatives haven't governed us at all, since the last election ?

So I reject what you're claiming. You're trying to paint the Conservatives as a 'zombie' Government (Corbyn's current charming turn-of-phrase, employed about Brexit) when, in fact, they've been effectively governing on non-Brexit issues, thanks to the DUP's rubber-stamping actions.

The DUP only disrupts Conservative efforts to govern specifically as a protest against a Brexit clause they're unhappy with. For the most part, they have permitted Government to function normally.

Noir

01-29-2019, 05:08 AM

Bless, remember how simple things were only two years ago?
(Front cover of the Times)
What could possibly go wrong (:

11898

Noir

02-03-2019, 09:44 AM

Just another average day for Brexit - a Tory MP made a factualy incorrect statement via his twitter, and in responce to people pointing his error, um...

Drummond

02-04-2019, 07:50 AM

Just another average day for Brexit - a Tory MP made a factualy incorrect statement via his twitter, and in responce to people pointing his error, um...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

[Spelling errors, corrected: FACTUALLY -- RESPONSE]

Noir

02-22-2019, 04:51 AM

Internal papers confirm deals with Japan and Turkey will not be ready in time for Brexit. Dozens more deals with non-EU countries are currently incomplete. Yikes.

Britain will not be ready to roll over the EU’s trade deal with Japan or customs union with Turkey by the end of next month, leaving businesses cut out of valuable tariff-free transactions if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

So far seven of the EU’s 69 deals with external countries have been rolled over by the UK.

Ben Digby at the CBI called it “an unwelcome surprise”.
“Individual businesses trading with markets outside the EU would face tariffs worth millions of pounds being slapped on them instantaneously. In total, UK trade deals through the EU span five continents and are vital for the smooth export of our goods and services,” he said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/02/21/uk-fails-roll-japan-turkey-trade-deals-no-deal-brexit/

pete311

02-22-2019, 08:30 AM

Just watched John Oliver's show and he said a big issue is the Northern Irish border and how they won't accept checkpoints if you leave the EU.

Noir

02-22-2019, 08:54 AM

Just watched John Oliver's show and he said a big issue is the Northern Irish border and how they won't accept checkpoints if you leave the EU.

Ive spent the last few days in England and it’s amazing how many people have almost no knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland, nevermind how brexit will impact on it.

Noir

02-24-2019, 06:19 PM

May confirms that there will be no vote in parliament this week, but that one will happen by the 12th March...a whole two weeks before Brexit...

Drummond

02-25-2019, 07:49 AM

May confirms that there will be no vote in parliament this week, but that one will happen by the 12th March...a whole two weeks before Brexit...

Indeed.

Just goes to show how thoroughly unreasonable the EU is being. If they'd been willing to give Mrs May anything of what she needed to get a deal through Parliament, she'd be rushing back, saying 'Look, this is the progress we've been seeking .. so, now, support the deal !'.

Instead ... just more of the same obstinacy must be governing events. The EU is absolutely determined to push through their stitch-up of a deal. Those disgusting control freaks are showing implacable determination to force us to bend to them.

This, in itself, proves why they're unfit to have us as continuing members. They've no interest in being helpful ... in reaching a compromise we can work with ... otherwise, we'd have seen it emerge by now. To them, it's just an 'obey us or else' imperative.

Come a hard Brexit .. Southern Ireland can enjoy a taste of EU tyranny, when they see border controls forced on them, whether they like it or not. Let them properly 'appreciate' their lack of freedom in the matter.

Noir

02-25-2019, 08:14 AM

Come a hard Brexit .. Southern Ireland can enjoy a taste of EU tyranny, when they see border controls forced on them, whether they like it or not. Let them properly 'appreciate' their lack of freedom in the matter.

and as for Northern Ireland?

Drummond

02-25-2019, 10:22 AM

and as for Northern Ireland?

Seems to me that you should be asking the EU that question. Nobody on the British side (i.e our negotiators) is, or has been, in favour of a hard border .. we've wanted a continuation of the status quo. However, EU obstinacy has put us in a position of offering just one deal, one they refuse to replace or amend, which we cannot ratify.

The EU will have to blink, will have to change its stance, if progress is to be made. This is the one and only means by which a result that could serve everyone's interests can be reached.

Noir

02-25-2019, 10:34 AM

Seems to me that you should be asking the EU that question. Nobody on the British side (i.e our negotiators) is, or has been, in favour of a hard border .. we've wanted a continuation of the status quo. However, EU obstinacy has put us in a position of offering just one deal, one they refuse to replace or amend, which we cannot ratify.

The EU will have to blink, will have to change its stance, if progress is to be made. This is the one and only means by which a result that could serve everyone's interests can be reached.

The status quo...i.e. the free movement of people and goods between the U.K. and the E.U?

Drummond

02-25-2019, 11:03 AM

The status quo...i.e. the free movement of people and goods between the U.K. and the E.U?

Pedantry, much ?

My meaning is clear to you. I'm talking about a frictionless border.

Northern Ireland wants that.

Southern Ireland wants that.

The British Government has long taken the stance that this is what they want.

However ... the EU has failed to facilitate any such outcome, saddling us with a 'deal' which is effectively useless. There's far too much resistance in the House of Commons to allow its ratification, and without ratification, it can't be implemented.

The EU's answer, until now, has been to do NOTHING to solve any of this. They won't offer alternatives. They won't give an inch. Their position seems to be that, however intractable the difficulties, WE must bend to THEM.

Trouble is, the more bending we'd do, the more meaningless the whole Brexit 'process' would really be.

So, here we are. With a stupid mess, being fueled by EU control-freaking obstinacy, driven by characters apparently incapable of believing that anyone should defy them, ever ...

Noir

02-25-2019, 11:41 AM

Pedantry, much ?

My meaning is clear to you. I'm talking about a frictionless border.

Northern Ireland wants that.

Southern Ireland wants that.

The British Government has long taken the stance that this is what they want.

However ... the EU has failed to facilitate any such outcome, saddling us with a 'deal' which is effectively useless. There's far too much resistance in the House of Commons to allow its ratification, and without ratification, it can't be implemented.

The EU's answer, until now, has been to do NOTHING to solve any of this. They won't offer alternatives. They won't give an inch. Their position seems to be that, however intractable the difficulties, WE must bend to THEM.

Trouble is, the more bending we'd do, the more meaningless the whole Brexit 'process' would really be.

So, here we are. With a stupid mess, being fueled by EU control-freaking obstinacy, driven by characters apparently incapable of believing that anyone should defy them, ever ...

You can’t have a frictionless border if you also want to have customs controls.

Drummond

02-26-2019, 01:02 PM

You can’t have a frictionless border if you also want to have customs controls.

... and therein lies the problem.

The EU, in the case of a crash-out Brexit, will insist upon those controls .. and then Southern Ireland can get a taste of what the reality, for them, of being a puppet EU Member State really entails.

I hope they enjoy their little epiphany. Maybe it'll teach them a thing or two .. who knows.

Of course, the EU could've avoided this mess by coming up with a deal which we COULD ratify. Everyone close to this issue .. Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland, the UK -- can all live with a frictionless border, and effectively have, for a very considerable time. It works well.

It's only the obstinate control freaks in the EU who insist that nothing short of a hard border will suffice. That 'THEIR' territory, as such, holds an inviolable status. Southern Ireland can get used to a little bit of dictatorship from the EU for real.

Or ... they could, themselves, quit the EU .... and, why not ?? Ireland thinks of itself as being its own country, not of being a territory owned by foreign powers. But in this, they're deluding themselves. THEY ARE NOT. The one and only way they can maintain a belief in themselves of being an autonomous country, caring about and determining their own fate, is to shake themselves free of the overriding power that the EU insists upon subjecting them to.

Noir

02-26-2019, 02:49 PM

... and therein lies the problem.

The EU, in the case of a crash-out Brexit, will insist upon those controls .. and then Southern Ireland can get a taste of what the reality, for them, of being a puppet EU Member State really entails.

It’s difficult to pin down what part of this you don’t understand.

1- The U.K. and Ireland are in a customs union because they are both in the EU. Which allowed for a frictionless border.
2- The U.K. voted to leave the EU.
3- Leaving the EU means breaking the customs union. Which means there can not be a frictionless border.
Do you disagree with points 1, 2, or 3?

aboutime

02-26-2019, 05:33 PM

Drummond

02-26-2019, 06:53 PM

It’s difficult to pin down what part of this you don’t understand.

1- The U.K. and Ireland are in a customs union because they are both in the EU. Which allowed for a frictionless border.
2- The U.K. voted to leave the EU.
3- Leaving the EU means breaking the customs union. Which means there can not be a frictionless border.
Do you disagree with points 1, 2, or 3?

I understand all of this.

What you are not grasping is the nature of the common denominator behind all this .. namely, how the EU views what it sees as 'its' borders, and ITS utter determination to dictate to other countries what form of handling those borders must endure.

The EU is an artificial construct, made possible in its current form, and accordingly maintained, by power mongers. Those power-hungry people, and interests, are totally determined to make the Member States into simply component parts of the single entity of the EU.

An EU SuperState is the goal. In such a setup, no part of the 'EU's border' is distinct from any other part, with the very concept of 'individual countries' within it dwindling into near-irrelevance.

This is why Southern Ireland would be extremely wise to see for itself that IT HAS NO ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER ITS OWN BORDER, and comprehend what that truly means.

This is part of why Brexit even exists. WE want to control OUR borders. Yes ... we dare to want that for ourselves ! So, once Southern Ireland wakes up from its stupor, it'll need to see where the alternative leads.

So, here we are .. with nobody on our side of the North Sea wanting any hard border existing between Northern Ireland and its southern counterpart. Enter the EU on to the scene, insisting that everybody's wishes must be overridden, to bend instead to theirs, in the case of a hard Brexit.

They inserted the 'Backstop' into our deal for a reason. This was to exercise extended control, and its consequent abiding EU tie-in, over all interested parties. This was done on the basis of the EXCUSE that no part of the EU border must be treated any differently to any other.

I have made clear why that is. It's nothing more than an insisted-upon power play. The EU could be lax on this. They choose not to be.

It's all about power, and conning people into believing that no other understanding can be possible. Because any alternative permits all the players involved to see that the EU doesn't need to be as power-obsessed as it really is.

Noir

02-26-2019, 07:31 PM

I understand all of this.

What you are not grasping is the nature of the common denominator behind all this .. namely, how the EU views what it sees as 'its' borders, and ITS utter determination to dictate to other countries what form of handling those borders must endure.

The EU is an artificial construct, made possible in its current form, and accordingly maintained, by power mongers. Those power-hungry people, and interests, are totally determined to make the Member States into simply component parts of the single entity of the EU.

An EU SuperState is the goal. In such a setup, no part of the 'EU's border' is distinct from any other part, with the very concept of 'individual countries' within it dwindling into near-irrelevance.

This is why Southern Ireland would be extremely wise to see for itself that IT HAS NO ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER ITS OWN BORDER, and comprehend what that truly means.

This is part of why Brexit even exists. WE want to control OUR borders. Yes ... we dare to want that for ourselves ! So, once Southern Ireland wakes up from its stupor, it'll need to see where the alternative leads.

So, here we are .. with nobody on our side of the North Sea wanting any hard border existing between Northern Ireland and its southern counterpart. Enter the EU on to the scene, insisting that everybody's wishes must be overridden, to bend instead to theirs, in the case of a hard Brexit.

They inserted the 'Backstop' into our deal for a reason. This was to exercise extended control, and its consequent abiding EU tie-in, over all interested parties. This was done on the basis of the EXCUSE that no part of the EU border must be treated any differently to any other.

I have made clear why that is. It's nothing more than an insisted-upon power play. The EU could be lax on this. They choose not to be.

It's all about power, and conning people into believing that no other understanding can be possible. Because any alternative permits all the players involved to see that the EU doesn't need to be as power-obsessed as it really is.

Okay, so we’re back to the start - How do you propose to regulate customs without boarder checks?

Drummond

02-26-2019, 08:05 PM

Okay, so we’re back to the start - How do you propose to regulate customs without boarder checks?

... and there it is ... an absolute insistence in believing that there's an inviolable aspect of 'EU territory', as such.

See the problem ?

Southern Ireland is a country in its own right. The extent to which the EU is allowed to interfere in that, only goes to prove my point, namely, that the EU exists to redefine all Member State territories as its territories.

I say: let Southern Ireland come to terms with the very stark fact that their own country is no longer, effectively, theirs to exercise control over. Let Southern Ireland insist that the EU stops meddling in its affairs.

-- Or, launch its own version of Brexit. This it will need to do, if it wants to control its own destiny.

If they don't, then they can have the sheer pleasure of having their borders controlled for them. Or simply be ordered to control them in the way that the EU insists they do.

[By the way, the spelling is still 'BORDER'...]

Noir

02-27-2019, 12:49 AM

Drummond

02-27-2019, 12:45 PM

If Ireland decide that they want to have a vote to leave the EU to break away from the customs union, so they can set their own customs tariffs with the U.K. then that’s their prerogative, but that’s not what the reality of the situation is now, or is going to be in a months time.

... indeed. They've not quite, yet, woken up to the reality of their situation. Who knows .. maybe they never will, or at least, decide to just cave in to it.

So living within reality we have to propose how we are going to regulate customs controls, because the U.K. decided that’s what they want.

I daresay that the UK has to make its own effort on this, since that is, yes, the reality as it's emerging.

But don't kid yourself. The EU and its institutionalised control-freakery is the main driver behind all this. You can be sure that they'll move heaven and earth to dictate the terms they want for it .. on both sides, if they think they can get away with it.

Noir

02-27-2019, 01:12 PM

I daresay that the UK has to make its own effort on this, since that is, yes, the reality as it's emerging.

So given the reality of the situation, how do you propose the U.K. can enforce customs controls without a hard border?

Drummond

02-28-2019, 11:01 AM

So given the reality of the situation, how do you propose the U.K. can enforce customs controls without a hard border?

I see no evidence from you of any acknowledgment that it's the EU's power-mania, that of insisting that other countries defer control of their very territorial rights to THEM, that is the very root of the problem.

Without that in play, none of this mess would even exist. No consideration of border controls would be an issue. The 'deal' would not include any backstop arrangement, and therefore, would most likely have been ratified on the UK side by now.

But, to answer you: it seems to me that the only requirement of border control emanates from the EU. Therefore, why isn't this ENTIRELY the EU's 'problem' .. ? They could impose their 'requirments' on the Southern Ireland side of the border, and we just let them get on with it.

Too bad if Southern Ireland is 'a bit miffed' about it all. This is what happens when you give up your very autonomy to foreign control-freaks.

Noir

02-28-2019, 12:53 PM

But, to answer you: it seems to me that the only requirement of border control emanates from the EU.

Incredible. So you don’t want any U.K. customs checks between it and the EU?

Drummond

02-28-2019, 03:35 PM

Incredible. So you don’t want any U.K. customs checks between it and the EU?

Well ... I suppose they're going to be forced on us, eh ?

The EU creates problems all the time. Such a pity that it even exists.

Still, it'll be the EU that'll absolutely insist upon them. Can't have THEIR border(s) violated ....

Noir

02-28-2019, 03:38 PM

Well ... I suppose they're going to be forced on us, eh ?

The EU creates problems all the time. Such a pity that it even exists.

Still, it'll be the EU that'll absolutely insist upon them. Can't have THEIR border(s) violated ....

I thought Brexit was about taking control etc?
You want to ‘take control’ of a border by the U.K. having absolutely zero customs controls?
You want EU goods to be able to cross into the U.K. with zero checks by the U.K.?

Drummond

03-01-2019, 12:16 PM

I thought Brexit was about taking control etc?

Choosing not to take control, Noir (should it ever come to that), is a choice CONTROLLED by us. It would represent a lack of others controlling that status quo for us.

Of course, as it'll continue to be an EU member, Southern Ireland will have no latitude to exercise that choice of control for themselves.

You want to ‘take control’ of a border by the U.K. having absolutely zero customs controls?

Answered above.

You want EU goods to be able to cross into the U.K. with zero checks by the U.K.?

That may not be such a bad thing (in certain circumstances).

Of course, as a means of facilitating illegal immigration, or drug trafficking ... that'd be different. As an un-monitored source of food and raw materials, though .. well .....

In any case, that'd be no more than a moot point, should the EU choose it to be. After all, THEY govern controls within THEIR territory (pity Southern Ireland will have to obey them, but then, they could choose our path, instead ...)..

Noir

03-01-2019, 12:36 PM

Choosing not to take control, Noir (should it ever come to that), is a choice CONTROLLED by us. It would represent a lack of others controlling that status quo for us.

Of course, as it'll continue to be an EU member, Southern Ireland will have no latitude to exercise that choice of control for themselves.

Answered above.

That may not be such a bad thing (in certain circumstances).

Of course, as a means of facilitating illegal immigration, or drug trafficking ... that'd be different. As an un-monitored source of food and raw materials, though .. well .....

In any case, that'd be no more than a moot point, should the EU choose it to be. After all, THEY govern controls within THEIR territory (pity Southern Ireland will have to obey them, but then, they could choose our path, instead ...)..

Incredible.
You think you’ve heard it all, then you hear ‘atleast we’re choosing not to have any controls at our border’.

A man can stand in front of his burning house and demand that firefighters let it burn. He may not be a wise man, but atleast he was in control...

Drummond

03-01-2019, 01:55 PM

Incredible.
You think you’ve heard it all, then you hear ‘atleast we’re choosing not to have any controls at our border’.

A man can stand in front of his burning house and demand that firefighters let it burn. He may not be a wise man, but atleast he was in control...

'A burning house' is hardly the same subject as the one (- I thought -) we were discussing.

It's a pity you don't get the point, though.

The point of Brexit is that we regain a fundamental freedom ... that of CHOOSING OUR FUTURE.

With the control-freaks in Brussels, we were (& currently are, in fact, until Brexit actually happens) having basic freedoms taken away from us ever-more completely with time. We voted in the 2016 Referendum to reverse all that, and take charge of our own fate.

I suggest to you that we have that right ... no matter how much the Left hates what we've done with it, thus far.

I'd also suggest to you that, even IF we know short-term hardship during the period of readjustment, (a) it will be short-term only, until we create new trading alliances with what is, after all, the greater marketplace to be found outside of the EU ... and ... (b) I don't believe the EU will remain stable or even viable for too many more years; since I think the Euro will implode after multiple bailouts are demanded from the EU's weaker economies.

Give it a decade, and I believe we'll be thanking our lucky stars that we got out when we did (& yes, THEN, we will need very strong border controls !!!).

Noir

03-13-2019, 03:38 AM

jimnyc

03-13-2019, 08:28 AM

As per the headlines on Drudge anyway....

---

WHAT A BREXS*ITSHOW Theresa May’s Brexit deal crushed by MPs AGAIN meaning we’re no nearer to quitting EU after 993 days

The House of Commons last night voted against the PM's Brexit deal for the second time - by a margin of 391 votes to 242

BRITAIN was last night plunged into chaos once again as MPs voted to kill off Theresa May's Brexit deal by 391 votes to 242.

Now 993 days after the referendum, and with just 17 days before Brexit, Brits are still in the dark about when or if we will ever leave the EU.

Furious MPs blasted the uncertainty - saying the "wretched soap opera of Brexit continues" as the country heads "back to square one".

And Cabinet ministers were summoned for a crisis meeting at No10 to work out how to move forward.

Parliament has repeatedly voted against Mrs May's strategy for leaving the EU on March 29 - last night the Commons laughed and cheered after the the fresh chaos was confirmed.

But without a clear alternative on the table, the latest defeat opens the door to a range of wildly different outcomes - from a cliff-edge No Deal to a second referendum which could cancel Brexit entirely.

Tonight MPs will vote on whether Britain should quit the EU without a deal in 17 days' time.

But they are expected to oppose the idea - and will instead back a delay to Brexit in a further vote likely to take place on Thursday.

Tory MP Bob Seely, who voted for the deal, warned that last night's result would "prolong the Brexit purgatory" and "grab defeat from the jaws of victory".

He said: "This entire episode is becoming a shambles that reflects appallingly on this current House of Commons. There are now no good options."

Ex-minister Stephen Crabb added: "A coalition of the principled, the tribal, the ideologues, opportunists and conspiracy theorists have again blocked Brexit."

Rest - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8615679/brexit-deal-vote-latest-theresa-may-fails-majority/

Drummond

03-13-2019, 01:12 PM

So the governments Brexit plan failed in parliament, again, by some 150 votes.

Mutterings about the Governments no deal strategy have been surfacing - one claim I saw was that NI will operate under different tariffs to Great Britain. Which would be amazing if true.

You should be more accurate in your descriptions, Noir. The 'Brexit plan', as such, doesn't exist yet, because we don't know - beyond the 2016 Referendum decision - that there is a 'plan' (- OF SORTS -) showing the way by which Brexit actually happens.

The precise manner of how, even when, that's achieved is what the current mess is all about .. so, if it's a 'plan', it's a remarkably un-detailed, unclear and chaotic plan.

No. The DEAL, Noir, isn't particularly the Government's deal, either. The very nature of deals is that responsibility for their existence is shared by whatever parties were part of it. In this case, that includes the EU. So, you can't particularly call it the 'Government's' deal.

A particular reason WHY you can't, is that Mrs May made multiple journeys to Brussels to get it changed, &/or guarantees as to how exactly it'd be implemented. She essentially failed, and, why ? Because, Noir, it's MORE the EU's deal than it is ours. It's the EU that has shown such dogged determination not to move ground on THEIR deal.

So, Noir, let's be more truthfully precise, shall we ?

We still have further (maybe laughingly ?) 'progress' to make before the fog clears. Such as, what will happen from tonight's Commons vote ? Labour's entirely fantasist belief in the chance of a 'deal' exit being realistic, when no such deal exists (beyond the one they've done their utmost to make fail !!), nor is the EU at all interested in considering any alternative one, is driving the current direction into sheer dysfunctional weirdness. As I see it, the only realistic outcomes, are:

1. Crashing out, minus any deal ...
2. Our being able to get an extension of time agreed by the EU (... and we're forced to ask PERMISSION for this, from the EU !!) ... but I think we can only get that if we first show the EU that one has clear direction and an envisaged intention as to what, exactly, we want !

Labour's fantasist disconnection from reality will only muddy those waters, since any thoughts they have on their side outright defy the Referendum intention, that of actually EXITING, FULLY, from the EU !

There's ....

3. A second Referendum.

Three problems with that ... one, it'd take time to agree what exactly would be asked in one, two, there's the time it'd take to organise, and three, its sheer uselessness, if it only reconfirmed the outcome of the first Referendum !!!

A second Referendum could only have a point to it, if it reversed the decision of the first one in some fashion ... meaning, IT EXISTED TO NULLIFY THE OUTCOME OF THE FIRST REFERENDUM.

Therefore ... the second Referendum is intended to ruin the outcome of the first one. A move to make democratic process subvert previous democratic decision-making.

The only truly democratic outcome from all of this is to see the Brexit decision implemented (those wanting it stopped in its tracks, and even fail, totally defy the Will of the People). Legally, and currently, Article 50 mandates the UK to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. This should be respected, deal or no deal. It's down to Parliament's sheer uselessness as to why we have a measure of chaos which is interfering with that.

Noir

03-14-2019, 04:22 AM

You should be more accurate in your descriptions, Noir. The 'Brexit plan', as such, doesn't exist yet, because we don't know - beyond the 2016 Referendum decision - that there is a 'plan' (- OF SORTS -) showing the way by which Brexit actually happens.

Well congratulations are in order to our government, and various Brexit Ministers, MPs, Think Tanks, and so on. Who have been able to get us to 15 days before Brexit without a plan.

A particular reason WHY you can't, is that Mrs May made multiple journeys to Brussels to get it changed, &/or guarantees as to how exactly it'd be implemented. She essentially failed, and, why ? Because, Noir, it's MORE the EU's deal than it is ours. It's the EU that has shown such dogged determination not to move ground on THEIR deal.

Do you remember when we first voted to leave, and all the talk was ‘The EU *needs* a good deal with Britain’ ‘If the EU doesn’t give us a good deal they’ll be sorry’ etc etc, guess that was all nonsense, though I think it’s nonsense our negotiators believed

As I see it, the only realistic outcomes, are:

1. Crashing out, minus any deal ...
2. Our being able to get an extension of time agreed by the EU (... and we're forced to ask PERMISSION for this, from the EU !!) ... but I think we can only get that if we first show the EU that one has clear direction and an envisaged intention as to what, exactly, we want !
3. A second Referendum.

1 - Not what our parliament wants, but it is what our executive wants. I think this is the most likely option
2 - We are now aware that Aaron Banks and Andy Wigmore have been in talks with Matteo Salvini in order to veto any extension, so I see this as unlikely, but even if it did happen I don’t see what good it would do other than delay our crash out.
3 - I think a third referendum is the least likely of the 3 options, and quite what would happen if the majority voted to Remain idk, given Leaves strongest argument is ‘no matter how bad it is to leave, that’s what the majority voted for’.

Drummond

03-14-2019, 02:09 PM

Well congratulations are in order to our government, and various Brexit Ministers, MPs, Think Tanks, and so on. Who have been able to get us to 15 days before Brexit without a plan.

You overlook the EU's behaviour in all of this. Most of the available negotiating time, over the TWO YEARS originally available for it, were frittered away by the EU's stubbornness, intractability, and outright refusal to make progress. My belief ... they always wanted things to go to the wire, in the (mistaken) belief that we'd feel time-pressured into rushing through their stitch-up of a 'deal'.

They badly miscalculated, didn't they ...

Do you remember when we first voted to leave, and all the talk was ‘The EU *needs* a good deal with Britain’ ‘If the EU doesn’t give us a good deal they’ll be sorry’ etc etc, guess that was all nonsense, though I think it’s nonsense our negotiators believed

The EU's sheer arrogance was always badly underestimated. They did indeed need ... our money !! They've been dreaming up demands for it, throughout all this time. If we do end up with an Article 50 extension, the EU (as they're busily proving) will want it to ideally last for a long time. Why ? Because, for as long as it does, they'll still expect revenue from us. They're fine with that !

My guess is that they'll demand a good reason for a delay from us if we only ask for a short extension, say up to June. As for something far longer ... they'll be far less picky ('strangely').

1 - Not what our parliament wants, but it is what our executive wants. I think this is the most likely option
2 - We are now aware that Aaron Banks and Andy Wigmore have been in talks with Matteo Salvini in order to veto any extension, so I see this as unlikely, but even if it did happen I don’t see what good it would do other than delay our crash out.
3 - I think a third referendum is the least likely of the 3 options, and quite what would happen if the majority voted to Remain idk, given Leaves strongest argument is ‘no matter how bad it is to leave, that’s what the majority voted for’.

I think that a third referendum is very unlikely. I'm not too convinced we'll even get a second Referendum. However, if we do ... then we might as well have a third, or fourth, and indeed, as many as it takes for the Great Voting Public to finally 'get it right', eh ?

I think I agree, though. The EU is way too arrogant, too self-serving, to rethink anything of their attitude. Ultimately we'll have to either just crash out, or maybe even forget Brexit altogether ....

... except that if our politicians took that road, it'd shatter all faith in Parliamentary, ahem, 'democracy'.

Anyway .. we seem to be on course for the request to be made for an extension. We shall see if even THIS brings about a fit of stroppiness from the EU side.

I think it will.

**UPDATE**

After a further round of voting on amendments, etc in the Commons .. the Government just barely (by TWO votes) escaped having control of the Brexit process wrested from them, and handed over to Parliament as a whole (further proof of how weak our Government has become). More importantly -- they voted to opt for an extension to the Article 50 deadline of 29th March.

The idea was to extend to June.

The EU isn't altogether happy. Their view is that a short extension should only be granted if the UK has a clear plan as to how to proceed in fixing the present 'backstop' impasse. None is apparent.

The EU is more likely to agree to a much longer extension. This has definite advantages for them:

1. EU elections are due in May. The 'powers-that-be' in the EU would much rather that the angst and sheer dysfunctionality illustrated by the ongoing Brexit issue wasn't a live and urgent issue during those elections.

2. The EU gets to keep its influence over us during that time. EU laws passed during it are expected to be taken on board. Freedom of movement across borders continues. All the 'ills' the EU visits upon us, continue unimpeded.

3. We'd need to keep paying into EU coffers, of course. The EU benefits financially. The longer the delay, the greater the benefit .. to THEM.

Ah, well. Mrs May's weakness in not standing up to EU bullying during negotiations will literally cost us billions of £ sterling. It's effectively cost her a functioning Government, with the collective responsibility status quo wrecked in her Cabinet. She wants to provide leadership in Commons votes ... her Ministers do whatever the hell they like.

We live in interesting times.

Noir

03-19-2019, 06:47 AM

Drummond

03-19-2019, 11:47 AM

So after 2 historically large government defeats on the ‘meaningful vote’ it has been doing the rounds that the government will try for a 3rd (and even 4th!) vote with much the same text.

The speaker of the house considered it necessary to advise the government that he will not allow them to repeatedly put the same bill to parliament as it’s already been voted down, twice.

Bercow's ruling is a curious one. There were very minor tinkerings done (mainly 'clarifications') to the backstop, just prior to the last vote on the deal. The Attorney General ruled that they didn't really change anything in terms of legality. Yet, Bercow allowed the second vote.

I think his ruling, now, comes from a deliberate effort to find any way of stopping Brexit in its tracks. My belief ... he didn't even know of this '1604' ruling until just days ago.

Here's an interesting point. Bercow said that no repeated motions would be allowed IN THIS (PARLIAMENTARY) SESSION. Meaning, that in the next one, she can re-submit the 'deal' one ? Seems to me that all Mrs May needs is to get the EU to agree to a delay lasting long enough to last until the next session is underway !

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/session/

A session is a parliamentary year. Sessions normally begin in the Spring with the State Opening of Parliament, and run for around 12 months, ending with the prorogation of the session. There are normally five sessions in each Parliament.

Then again, though .....

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/theresa-may-to-force-third-vote-on-brexit-deal-in-defiance-of-john-bercow-ruling-cabinet-minister-reveals/ar-BBUWWZB?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

Theresa May will defy John Bercow and “find a way through” to stage a third vote on her twice-defeated Brexit deal next week, a Cabinet minister has insisted.

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, revealed the prime minister would attempt to get around the Speaker’s shock ruling – that identical votes cannot be restaged after defeats – by arguing she had secured changes.

One option was to insist the EU agreeing an extension to Article 50 to delay Brexit day constituted a different motion, or to agree changes that satisfied the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Noir

03-26-2019, 03:50 AM

Drummond

03-26-2019, 02:21 PM

So in a totally normal week for Brexit -

Therresa May was declared finished by a number of political editors and MPs when she held a closed doors meeting with several potential leaders of the party, and she walked out without being kicked out of the job, and their support.

Anti-Brexit campaigners held a Proest march in London with several hundred thousand (some outlets saying a million) in attendance, though missing was the leader of the opposition because he couldn’t make the time for the biggest political demonstration in 15 years.

Pro-Brexit campaigners concluded their March in a pub car park that maybe had 200 people.

Parliment votes to take control of the agenda for Brexit amendments, given Mays lack of success to find any deal remotely acceptable to parliament, which means we’re in for a lot more votes, and maybe Brexit at some point.

In short ... chaos rules. Total dysfunctionality. Everyone head-butting, everyone of all persuasions wanting to win out, getting ever-more frantic, as time .. GOVERNED BY THE EU .. rapidly runs out.

A second Referendum may be talked about, but there's no time to hold one. Of course.

Tomorrow's handover to Parliament may produce motions and voting patterns which provide nonsense, decisions running contrary to each other, and decisions the EU will never accept. So it's little wonder that our Government has said that it doesn't believe it must be tied to anything 'decided' tomorrow.

I think there are two overriding difficulties, dysfunctionalities, in play:

1. Everyone in Parliament is following their OWN agenda, being far too determined to ignore what the public mood is saying, and for that matter, too blind to consequences that'd arise from the people they supposedly 'represent', generally believing that the Brexit Referendum imperative is being eroded or even overridden.

2. Parliament just hasn't grasped how relatively powerless it is, in all of this. Even now, they don't comprehend just how much the EU is calling the shots. Labour has been especially bad at that, steadfastly ignoring the fact of the EU's unbending insistence of getting their deal ratified. Throughout, Labour has insisted that alternatives could be negotiated, which in fact, was utter rot.

Perhaps the inmates are now in charge of the asylum ?

Noir

03-27-2019, 05:57 PM

Drummond

03-27-2019, 07:01 PM

So today parliament had eight (8!!!) votes on what the path of Brexit should be.
All eight votes failed, most by a wide margin.

No Deal rejected 400 - 160
Common Market rejected 283 - 188
EFTA & EEA rejected 377 - 65
Customs Union rejected 272 - 264
Labours Â‘planÂ’ rejected 307 - 237
Revoke article 50 rejected 293 -184
Public vote rejected 295 - 268
WTO terms 422 - 139

Doesn't all of this confirm what I've been saying ? Chaos ... dysfunctionality. This is what rules in today's UK Parliament.

The House of Commons is clear about what it doesn't support ... the EU-Mrs May's deal. They are far from usefully clear about what they DO support ... to the point where nothing at all, in terms of actual 'progress', can be settled on as a way forward.

We reached this point, in its simplest terms, because the Will of the People was then interfered with, tinkered with, by political considerations. The original Brexit Referendum was very clear: do the citizens of the United Kingdom support continued membership of the EU, or, should we exit it ? The clear vote came back: WE SHOULD EXIT.

Pretty much all that's happened since has worked to interfere with that simple decision.

Mrs May started off well enough. She wanted to do a deal with the EU (as Article 50 provides for) to make our exit as painless as possible. She declared, very reasonably, that if she got a bad deal ... leaving with NO deal, was preferable to accepting it.

Then political machinations set in, with the chaos mounting out of it.

The EU prevaricated, stalled talks, stopped any useful progress, stone dead.

Near to the end of the 2 year period they had to negotiate, suddenly, they made a lot of 'progress' .. reaching a deal with us. Precious little time remained to negotiate any alternative ... 'surprise, surprise'. We had to go with that deal.

Mrs May did nothing to counter that bullying, her principal mistake. She went back to the UK, determined to sell the deal as a 'good' deal. Suddenly ... a bad deal was a good deal, instead. Because she said so.

The UK Parliament didn't agree. It disagreed so strongly that it gave her an historic defeat in the Commons, by voting it down by a massive, unprecedented margin.

Mrs May single-mindedly carried on, not learning a thing. Yes, she did consult with Brussels. Brussels didn't budge, however. They wanted their dodgy deal to succeed, and they didn't care about the extent of its initial failure to be democratically ratified. THEIR way HAD to win, because they said so.

So ... attempt No 2 in the Commons. Mrs May again put her deal to the vote. Again (though by a smaller margin) ... it failed to be ratified, again.

Fast-forward, past Bercow's pronouncement as Speaker of the Commons, which saw him dredge up an ancient ruling dating back to 1604 (!!), banning further repeats of duplicate motions being resubmitted during a single Parliamentary session (this apparently stopping Mrs May from making a third attempt ??) ... to today, with Parliament as a whole taking charge of the process of choosing a successful way forward. They had a shot at it -- more precisely, eight shots at it. Eight motions, proposing different preferences over how to go forward on Brexit ... ALL DEFEATED.

Chaos, and dysfunction rules. Why ? Because the process of Brexit has been watered down by political interferences. Nobody voted for a Brexit 'with a deal' ... we instead voted to see Brexit succeed.

But ... BREXIT IS NOT SUCCEEDING. IT'S STILL STALLED.

The EU has injected time limits. Apparently, the only one now valid is April 12th, unless Mrs May can overcome obstacles to submit her 'deal' for yet a THIRD time. Mrs May has provided a 'sweetener', promising to quit as PM if in turn Parliament ratifies her deal.

The DUP hasn't been persuaded by that.

So, chaos and dysfunction rules.

Why ?

BECAUSE POLITICAL MACHINATIONS HAVE INTRODUCED DYSFUNCTIONAL COMPLICATIONS.

We're being ruled by self-serving interests, where the democratic decision made on 23rd June 2016 (!!) has been superseded by them.

We should get out, now, minus a deal. Ah, but .. we can't, because Parliament has banned that 'option'. Except ... dysfunction is pushing us towards crashing out, on 12th April, because everyone is following self-serving agendas ...

... AND ... DEMOCRACY, THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE, BE DAMNED .....

High_Plains_Drifter

03-27-2019, 07:15 PM

https://i.ibb.co/5sJjpPn/Capture.jpg

Drummond

03-27-2019, 08:04 PM

https://i.ibb.co/5sJjpPn/Capture.jpg

All went well ... to begin with. Then, two things happened: first, the EU did their utmost to stall 'deal' talks, and secondly, Mrs May didn't have the backbone to stand up to EU bullying.

So, she caved into it, accepted a dodgy deal, reneged on her word to 'quit the EU without any deal in preference to leaving with a bad deal', and she's been pushing it for all she's worth, ever since.

Hers has been a display of weakness. Even her Government has no unity of purpose behind it. Mrs May doesn't lead it, and if she tries to, she's rewarded by resignations from those disagreeing with her chosen direction.

I believe she's been well-intentioned (many here strongly disagree). Her problem is, and always has been, that she's no natural leader .. something that makes her fundamentally weak.

Self-serving agendas have drowned out the simple 'in or out' Brexit decision arrived at from our Referendum. The EU has capitalised to the fullest extent they can. We've even had Donald Tusk, for the EU, 'helpfully' reminding us that we can abandon Brexit unilaterally if we want and keep within the EU (.. the only thing we CAN do, unilaterally !!).

I think we'll crash out of the EU on the new 'due' date of April 12th. At least, I hope so ... because I think Theresa May was correct at the beginning: leaving minus a deal is better than leaving with a bad one.

Time will tell, though. There's way too much chaos going on to be sure of anything.

FakeNewsSux

03-30-2019, 09:05 PM

At least the Brexiteers are a nicer type of citizen. This shouldn't be a surprise when one is being compared to the power hungry, Euro 'One Worlders':

WATCH – Delingpole: Brexiteers Much Nicer than Remainers, Experts ConfirmBrexiteers are much nicer people than Remainers, experts have confirmed.We know thanks to research produced by political analyst Matthew Goodwin. On every metric, Brexiteers turn out to be kinder, more generous spirited, more tolerant and forgiving than spiteful, nasty, vengeful, bitter Remainers.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/03/30/brexiteers-nicer-than-remainers-say-experts/

Noir

03-31-2019, 02:25 AM

On every metric, Brexiteers turn out to be kinder, more generous spirited, more tolerant and forgiving than spiteful, nasty, vengeful, bitter Remainers.

Yes, I think if I had to choose a few words to describe myself they would be spiteful, nasty, vengeful, and bitter :rolleyes:

Also if your interested in Goodwins work I would suggest going to this thread https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1111664900286369792?s=21 which goes through some of the data and sets the tone for Goodwins work with “why I am worried...we’ve had several bits of research which suggest that Britain is becoming more polarised and divided”

Ofcourse the article you’ve quoted does nothing to try and heighten polarisation and division :rolleyes:

Noir

06-11-2019, 06:36 AM

More scaremongering - this time brought to you by, er, looking at investment trends between the U.K. and EU 27 over 6 years, for the 3 years since the Brexit vote and compared to the 3 years before that.

The total amount of capital invested in the EU27 surged 43 per cent in the three years to the first quarter of 2019, compared with the preceding three years, according to fDi Markets, an FT-owned database of cross-border investment. This is in sharp contrast to the UK, which has experienced (https://www.ft.com/content/f220bea4-860e-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453) a 30 per cent drop in investment. About $340bn of capital has been invested in the 27 remaining EU states in that period, up from $237bn in the previous three years, fDi found. The biggest increase came from European companies spending beyond their national borders, including companies from the UK investing in another EU country.

https://amp.ft.com/content/93c681ca-7c9c-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560?__twitter_impression=true

When oh when will the /Remoaners/ shut up and accept that we voted for this kind of investment slump and just be happy it’s not dropped more than 30%!??

Drummond

06-11-2019, 09:17 AM

More scaremongering - this time brought to you by, er, looking at investment trends between the U.K. and EU 27 over 6 years, for the 3 years since the Brexit vote and compared to the 3 years before that.

https://amp.ft.com/content/93c681ca-7c9c-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560?__twitter_impression=true

When oh when will the /Remoaners/ shut up and accept that we voted for this kind of investment slump and just be happy it’s not dropped more than 30%!??

In a word: 'Jitters'.

It's the lack of certainty about where, exactly, the Brexit process is going, that's creating a climate where those who'd invest don't know precisely what it is they're investing in !!

We've got Parliament's dysfunctionality to contend with ... where 'interested parties' are interpreting Brexit THEIR way, and not just getting on with it, as their electorate want (!!). We've got, by contrast, the EU's intransigence, and their sticking to their one line, 'come what may'.

Particularly, we've got the EU's rules to contend with, while we're still a member. Such as, we're not allowed to strike out for ourselves and make our own, non-EU affiliated, trade deals !

Lack of certainty. Lack of direction, our taking a clear path leading to a clear Brexit. Lack of trading freedoms, courtesy of EU control-freakery. Here's why investors don't know what they'd be investing in !!

The sooner we get out of the EU, the sooner all this will be cleared up ... and the brakes will no longer be applied to our trading (and, therefore, investment) potential. Less faffing about, more decisive action !! That's the answer, Noir.

Noir

07-09-2019, 05:30 AM

Some more “scaremongering” this time from Pascal Lamy and Roberto Azevêdo, and what would they know? After all they only have 14 years combined experience as directors of the WTO.

In the run-up to the new Brexit deadline of 31st October hardline Leavers insist ever louder that Britain could simply walk away from the EU with no adverse consequences. They say the World Trade Organisation provides a perfectly good alternative framework and there is nothing to worry about. Boris Johnson, the frontrunner to be prime minister, has sided with them.

Based in Geneva, the WTO has 164 members, of which Britain is already one. It establishes a “base level” trading framework across the world, which countries build on with their own preferential free trade deals (like the EU internal market). It has rules and a court system which member states can use to enforce them. But relative to the single market, and the deals with third countries we enjoy in virtue of membership, a WTO Brexit would not offer very liberal trade terms at all.

Azevêdo, arguably the most important trade official in the world, said “in simple factual terms in this scenario, you could expect to see the application of tariffs between the UK and EU where currently there are none.” He was at pains to remain neutral, and stressed the lack of detailed WTO forecasting, but those tariffs “would clearly have an effect.” Tariffs are by definition a hindrance to open and free trade.

For Pascal Lamy, Director General of the WTO from 2005 to 2013, “Jumping brutally from trade league one (the internal market without borders) to trade league three (a WTO, multilaterally committed trade regime for goods and services) would certainly hurt.” That conveys the risk of Britain simply walking away from talks, especially when the EU accounts for almost half of UK exports.

Yet this reading is by no means universal. In particular, some Leavers have claimed that the WTO provides for continued tariff-free trade in the event of no-deal. In a recent BBC leadership debate Johnson referred to the now-infamous “Gatt 24, or whatever it happens to be,” a clause from WTO forerunner the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that would allegedly preserve low tariffs in the event of a crash out.

What is the truth of the matter? Alarmingly, when I put this question to Azevêdo, he said Gatt 24 would simply not apply with a no-deal outcome. “Article XXIV of the GATT is simply the provision of global trade law under which free trade agreements and customs unions are concluded,” he explained. The problem is that it only kicks in in the event of such a deal being struck. “If there is no agreement, then Article XXIV would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would.”
These “standard WTO terms” would include increased tariffs on British goods imported into the continent, 10 per cent on cars and rising to more than 35 per cent for dairy products. In addition there would be extra bureaucratic hurdles for businesses to leap over on things like product standards and sanitary checks. The rules do little for services, which make up 80 per cent of the British economy and close to half of exports.

As Lamy explained, under WTO rules, Britain could not just lower tariffs specifically for EU trade because without the formal framework of a deal that would count as granting unfair, privileged access. The “WTO regime implies tariffs which have to apply to all [the UK’s] trade partners,” he said. There is no simple way around this and the EU is bound by the same rules.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/jumping-from-league-one-to-league-three-wto-insiders-scathing-assessments-of-a-wto-brexit

Drummond

07-09-2019, 10:56 AM

Some more “scaremongering” this time from Pascal Lamy and Roberto Azevêdo, and what would they know? After all they only have 14 years combined experience as directors of the WTO.

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=inherit]

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/jumping-from-league-one-to-league-three-wto-insiders-scathing-assessments-of-a-wto-brexit

I'm glad we can agree that it's scaremongering. Well done, Noir ! There's hope for you yet.

Along with most Brits, now, Noir, I'm thoroughly sick of seeing this whole Brexit saga creep along, minus a resolution of it. I want it done 'n' dusted. Dealt with. Finished.

Facts:

1. To judge by all the scaremongering the 'Remain' side has come up with, the UK will suffer 'financial Armageddon' the moment Brexit kicks in, especially if it's without any implemented deal. We'll 'lose masses of trade' with the EU. Businesses will flee our shores en masse, like rats leaving a sinking ship. However, the TRUTH is that trade will continue on, much as before ... just not on quite such advantageous terms.

2. A 'no deal' Brexit will see us 39 billion pounds sterling better off, since we'll owe the EU nothing if they don't agree a viable deal. It'll help cushion us from short-term 'losses'.

3. We won't be sitting on our hands once this all kicks off. We'll be doing deals ! IF repeat, IF, our diplomats can get it through their heads that they must stop insulting Trump's Administration (!), we should (hopefully, though it depends on how much damage our idiocy has already caused) be able to agree lucrative deals with the US.

4. We'll survive it all. Oh, yes, we will ! Certainly we won't be free of short-term problems, but, in the longer term, we'll not only survive but thrive. Free of EU domination, free in fact to agree OUR deals as WE choose them ... we can determine our own fate, not have it decided for us by the EU's power-hungry bureaucracy and laws. OUR laws, Noir, will be OURS again, to fully shape as WE choose.

I'm 'sorry' if you find all of this offensive, Noir. All I can say, is .... get over it.

Noir

07-09-2019, 11:13 AM

You appear to not of read a single word of what was quoted by Azevêdo and Lamy.

Drummond

07-09-2019, 11:27 AM

You appear to not of read a single word of what was quoted by Azevêdo and Lamy.

Let's say that I had read every single word.

So what ?

Whatever they have to say is, at best, speculative. They can't ACTUALLY see into the future. They've no foreknowledge of what deals we'll strike, or how lucrative they'll be, or, EXACTLY how our future business relationship(s) with the EU will ultimately pan out. And ... tell me, Noir, if I did a proper check, would I find (as if it isn't obvious, anyway !!!) that these people were merely following their own agendas, complete with biases and prejudices, and then insisting that we not only buy into them, but knuckle under to them ??

'Sieg Heil' ....

There's no substitute for reality. The reality of Brexit hasn't yet happened. We'll only truly see its effects when they do happen.

Foreign speculators don't have the 'jump' on us when it comes to assessing our own future, Noir, and trying to dictate what it 'must' seem to be. OUR fate is OURS to determine, whether you like it, or not.

There's a word for that freedom.

BREXIT.

And whether you like it or not ... it's been voted for. An electoral majority, as the recent MEP elections amply proved, are now CLAMOURING for its implementation.

If you don't like that ... well ... TOUGH.

Kathianne

07-09-2019, 11:52 AM

I thought you two might consider an American point-of-view from a writer that is pro-Trump on most things, though acknowledges that he may just have a personality difficulty or two:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/07/09/trump-escalates-fight-may-ambassador-stupid-guy/

Trump Escalates Fight With May: Ambassador A “Very Stupid Guy”
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 10:01 am on July 9, 2019

This bizarre, personal spat with our closest ally began yesterday when Donald Trump declared a de facto persona non grata status for Kim Darroch on Twitter. The British ambassador to the US had offered his professional observations of Trump and the administration in confidential memos to Theresa May, which then got leaked to the media. The outgoing prime minister noted — rightly — that Darroch was doing his job with those memos, although they have promised to open an investigation into the embarrassing leak of the memos.

That wasn’t good enough for Trump, who went on the Twitter warpath again this morning:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559442885185536)

The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy. He should speak to his country, and Prime Minister May, about their failed Brexit negotiation, and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was...

55.5K (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1148559442885185536)
4:48 AM - Jul 9, 2019 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559442885185536)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)

25.3K people are talking about this

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559442885185536)

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
· 4h

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559443845668864)

Replying to @realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/_/status/1148559442885185536)
...handled. I told @theresa_may (https://twitter.com/theresa_may) how to do that deal, but she went her own foolish way-was unable to get it done. A disaster! I don’t know the Ambassador but have been told he is a pompous fool. Tell him the USA now has the best Economy & Military anywhere in the World, by far...

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

....and they are both only getting bigger, better and stronger.....Thank you, Mr. President!

43.8K (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1148559446030921728)
4:48 AM - Jul 9, 2019 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559446030921728)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)

15.9K people are talking about this

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559446030921728)

It’s worth noting that Darroch has served as ambassador to the US for more than three years, first starting almost exactly a year before Trump’s inauguration. Given the close nature of the relationship between the UK and the US, it seems rather remarkable that Trump has yet to even meet with Darroch. It’s just as remarkable to call someone “a very stupid guy” and a “pompous fool” in the same paragraph as an admission like “I don’t know the Ambassador.” Wouldn’t it be a good idea to meet the British ambassador first before coming to those conclusions?

Trump made sure that one recent opportunity to do so went nowhere. Darroch got “uninvited” from a dinner Trump attended last night, CBS News reports, and the US is increasing pressure on May’s government to make a change:

... (video)

Even this is pointless, or perhaps even worse. May is only a caretaker PM now, waiting for Tories to pick a new PM before leaving the office. She doesn’t have enough political juice to make any significant changes. Furthermore, Trump’s public tantrum may make it even more difficult for May’s replacement to act. British career diplomats won’t take kindly to the personal attacks Darroch is enduring and will put plenty of pressure on the next PM not to incentivize such attacks in the future, even if some of them agree with Trump’s assessment of May’s performance on Brexit. This is just making it tougher on either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt to replace Darroch when the time comes, and it will certainly mean that the next envoy won’t be Nigel Farage or anyone of his temperament.

It’s tough to see the upside for Trump, too. Right now he needs the UK to help rally the rest of our European allies to keep Iran isolated, which matters a lot more than Darroch’s privately expressed opinions about Trump. The Brits have been somewhat more sympathetic to our arguments on Iran than some other European leaders angry over Trump’s reversal on the JCPOA. This only erodes the diplomatic cohesion necessary to generate a reluctant unity against Tehran.

The only possible point there might be to this nasty feud with a diplomat of our closest ally is as a distraction from something else. Even that possibility sounds ominous, as it’s tough to envision any positive development worth distracting from to achieve as to justify this diplomatic rift.

Drummond

07-09-2019, 12:24 PM

Kathianne

07-09-2019, 12:35 PM

I've done a small bit of research on Ed Morrissey. From what I've seen, he's broadly pro-Conservative (.. all to the good ... I suspected that he might not be ...).

However, and as you hint, Morrissey reserves for himself some critical judgmentality against Trump. But, has he only just started along that road ?

See this .... including comments made in an interview, from Morrissey, about Trump, from years ago ...

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/24/506817042/cautious-trump-voter-and-radio-host-ed-morrisey-is-optimistic-after-cabinet-pick?t=1562692111137

So I question your claim that Morrissey is 'pro-Trump on most things'. My research seems to tell me that Morrissey is a Conservative, but with deep reservations about Trump personally.

Maybe he's thought again, afterwards ? I don't know. But his comments on the current US-UK diplomatic issue over the UK's ambassador (and more) suggests to me that his reservations persist .. and take the form of wanting to see Trump and his actions 'reined in'.

This is not an 'enthusiastic' Trump supporter !!

If you mean is he like Sean Hannity, meaning Trump really could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and the writer find a ready excuse? No. If you mean he finds every opportunity to bash Trump? No.

As you say, he is most definitely conservative. He is 'for' the President succeeding, but is not without criticism. I do believe he voted for Trump and thus far, intends to repeat that.

In any case, you are focused on the messenger, rather than the message. I really expect more from you.

Drummond

07-09-2019, 12:53 PM

If you mean is he like Sean Hannity, meaning Trump really could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and the writer find a ready excuse? No. If you mean he finds every opportunity to bash Trump? No.

As you say, he is most definitely conservative. He is 'for' the President succeeding, but is not without criticism. I do believe he voted for Trump and thus far, intends to repeat that.

In any case, you are focused on the messenger, rather than the message. I really expect more from you.

Do you, now ? I'm rather less concerned about what you 'expect' from me than you think I should be.

I did indeed focus on the messenger. Why ever not ? You have to remember that I'm not likely to have heard of Ed Morrissey ... so ... I'm naturally going to immediately question whether he has his agenda, and, what exactly it is.

I'm gratified that Morrissey will continue to vote for Trump. But that doesn't mean that he 'owns' Trump. Trump has his way of doing things, he has his agenda, he has his mindset. Morrissey - IF he's a supporter - should respect all that.

Our UK ambassador has manifestly failed in his duty. He's meant to be a diplomat, someone SMOOTHING relations between our two countries .. not someone using his position to inject his prejudicial subjectivity into a narrative with poisonous effect.

I'm sure Trump understands this, and includes that in his overall judgment against Sir Kim. He well understands that to continue to have dealings with that particular character serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

Kathianne

07-09-2019, 12:56 PM

Do you, now ? I'm rather less concerned about what you 'expect' from me than you think I should be.

I did indeed focus on the messenger. Why ever not ? You have to remember that I'm not likely to have heard of Ed Morrissey ... so ... I'm naturally going to immediately question whether he has his agenda, and, what exactly it is.

I'm gratified that Morrissey will continue to vote for Trump. But that doesn't mean that he 'owns' Trump. Trump has his way of doing things, he has his agenda, he has his mindset. Morrissey - IF he's a supporter - should respect all that.

Our UK ambassador has manifestly failed in his duty. He's meant to be a diplomat, someone SMOOTHING relations between our two countries .. not someone using his position to inject his prejudicial subjectivity into a narrative with poisonous effect.

I'm sure Trump understands this, and includes that in his overall judgment against Sir Kim. He well understands that to continue to have dealings with that particular character serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

LOL! I don't really care what concerns you or not, just saying that usually you give more response to content. In this case you choose not to. Fine.

Drummond

07-09-2019, 01:00 PM

LOL! I don't really care what concerns you or not, just saying that usually you give more response to content. In this case you choose not to. Fine.

Glad you approve, Kath.

My responses are mine to make. I respond according to what I think merits a response ... I have that right. :rolleyes:

Kathianne

07-09-2019, 01:51 PM

Noir Just in case you think all Americans or even conservatives are in lock step...

Same site, different writer. He's very conservative, but further from pro-Trump. He mentions some of the previous article, but is giving an American perspective on what we're hearing from the UK regarding those emails and author and politicians...

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/07/09/british-foreign-secretary-hits-back-trump-ambassador-comments-disrespectful-country/

British Foreign Secretary Hits Back At Trump Over Ambassador: Your Comments Are Disrespectful To Our CountryALLAHPUNDITPosted at 1:31 pm on July 9, 2019

The British foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, also happens to be one of the two finalists to succeed Theresa May as prime minister, which gave him extra incentive to fire at Trump here. The target audience for these tweets is obviously UK voters more so than the president, with Hunt seizing an opportunity to stand up to a domineering American as the Tories prepare to choose a new leader. The British naturally don’t like being viewed as the “junior partner” in the U.S.-UK “special relationship” and now here’s Trump poking them in that sore spot by presuming to tell them not just who their ambassador should be but that they’ve handled the wrenching issue of Brexit badly.

It was a gimme for Hunt to show some spine, not just to keep up morale among the diplomats he oversees but to try to impress the Tory rank-and-file before the PM vote.

Which, as I said yesterday (https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/07/08/trump-will-no-longer-deal-british-ambassador-criticized-private-diplomatic-cables/), leaves the other finalist — and favorite — for PM in a bind. Does Boris Johnson lie low and risk looking weak on this relative to Hunt? Or does he join Hunt in vowing to keep Kim Darroch on as ambassador and risk a spat with the White House before he’s even taken office?

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1136206737910972417/oZZTsplP_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt)Jeremy Hunt
✔@Jeremy_Hunt
(https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt)

(https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1148626614479130625)

1/2 @realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) friends speak frankly so I will: these comments are disrespectful and wrong to our Prime Minister and my country. Your diplomats give their private opinions to @SecPompeo (https://twitter.com/SecPompeo) and so do ours! You said the UK/US alliance was the greatest in history and I agree... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559443845668864 … (https://t.co/hNeBWmyyVN)
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

Replying to @realDonaldTrump

...handled. I told @theresa_may how to do that deal, but she went her own foolish way-was unable to get it done. A disaster! I don’t know the Ambassador but have been told he is a pompous fool. Tell him the USA now has the best Economy & Military anywhere in the World, by far...

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559443845668864)

6,737 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1148626614479130625)
9:14 AM - Jul 9, 2019 (https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1148626614479130625)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)

2,710 people are talking about this

(https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1148626614479130625)

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1136206737910972417/oZZTsplP_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt)Jeremy Hunt
✔@Jeremy_Hunt
(https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt)

(https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1148626829684744192)

2/2...but allies need to treat each other with respect as @theresa_may (https://twitter.com/theresa_may) has always done with you. Ambassadors are appointed by the UK government and if I become PM our Ambassador stays.

6,603 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1148626829684744192)
9:15 AM - Jul 9, 2019 (https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1148626829684744192)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)

2,096 people are talking about this

(https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1148626829684744192)

Johnson’s going to have to line up with Hunt. He’d look like the cuck to end all cucks if he took the boorish Yank’s side against his own team.

To my surprise, Darroch hasn’t (yet) resigned. I assume he’s offered to, just to spare May and Hunt the dilemma of what to do about all this. The fact that his resignation hasn’t been accepted is all the evidence we need that the Brits have had it with Trump’s antics and would rather spite him than make this concession. Besides, as Ed rightly noted (https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/07/09/trump-escalates-fight-may-ambassador-stupid-guy/) this morning, Darroch’s done nothing wrong. He gave his honest opinion about the government of the nation where he was stationed, believing it would remain confidential. The leak was wrong but there’s no evidence that Darroch was involved in that. (Why the hell would he be, knowing what it would mean for him professionally?) If Trump were less narcissistic, he could have channeled his pique at Darroch’s criticism of him into faux concern about British cybersecurity. “Not sure how we can continue to meet with British diplomats knowing that they can’t protect their own secrets! Sad!”

Although after Snowden and Wikileaks and 8,000 other breaches of U.S. cybersecurity, that argument would have been even less convincing than his tantrum over what Darroch wrote about him.

From what I can tell, British media today is a mix of “How can Darroch possibly continue?” and more defiant pieces like this one from Alex Massie (https://spectator.us/shame-donald-trump-british-acolytes/) at the Spectator, tearing into Nigel Farage for toadying on Trump’s behalf by demanding Darroch be canned:

Still, sides must be chosen. Donald Trump doesn’t like the UK’s ambassador to the United States and if Donald Trump says that then his British acolytes will agree with him. This, it seems, is what believing in Britain is all about. There is something humiliating, even perhaps something servile, about this.

On the right as well as on the left there is now an instinctive willingness to grant foreign powers the benefit of the doubt while reserving nothing but contempt for the claimed fecklessness of our own political leaders, diplomats and other representatives. It is hardly a surprise that Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn each, for different reasons, grant Vladimir Putin a measure of indulgence they would never offer the UK’s own political leaders.

The irony is that if Trump really wants Darroch replaced and isn’t just exploiting Diplogate to pick a fight with May’s government for whatever weird Trumpy reason, the worst thing he could have done is tweet about it. He should have spoken to them privately and nudged them to create some pretext for Darroch to leave his post early or even to resign forthrightly as penance for the leak of his cables. By making a public stink about it, he forced the Brits to make a “him or me” decision in full view of their own citizens. Naturally they were going to side with their own man. Which is to say, this very incident demonstrates the aptness of some of Darroch’s criticism of the administration — diplomatically clumsy, unpredictable, inept.

Here’s Hunt yesterday sounding much more diplomatic about this mess, before the latest round of presidential tweet-farting forced a sterner response.

(Video)

Drummond

07-09-2019, 04:04 PM

@Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) Just in case you think all Americans or even conservatives are in lock step...

Same site, different writer. He's very conservative, but further from pro-Trump. He mentions some of the previous article, but is giving an American perspective on what we're hearing from the UK regarding those emails and author and politicians...

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/07/09/british-foreign-secretary-hits-back-trump-ambassador-comments-disrespectful-country/

Is this 'different writer' actually a Trump hater ? I get that impression.

Anyway: you aimed your post at Noir ? OK. I'll limit my own response.

Just to report this ... a short while ago on British television, the two Conservative leadership (therefore PM) contenders, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, squared off against each other in a TV debate (on ITV). On this matter of the British ambassador, each was asked about Sir Kim's future as ambassador to the US.

Jeremy Hunt was emphatic. He said that, as PM, he'd keep Darroch in his current post until he was due to retire.

Boris Johnson was less forthcoming, and gave no definite commitment either way, just saying that he'd built up a good relationship with the White House. He did say that, as PM, it would fall to him, and only him, to decide if Sir Kim continued on as Ambassador (i.e, implying he'd not bend to pressures to remove him).

So it appears that your writer/commentator has judged this with some degree of accuracy. Neither Johnson nor Hunt want to seem to 'bend' to Trump's own preferences ... but, it was only Hunt who categorically pledged to keep the current Ambassador doing his current job for months to come.

Hunt, by the way, also took issue with Trump's criticism of Theresa May ... he considers the criticism unjust and unacceptable.

Kathianne

07-10-2019, 09:31 AM

Once again, Trump wins:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/07/10/uk-ambassador-cheerio/

Ambassador is allowed to resign.

Drummond

07-10-2019, 10:44 AM

Once again, Trump wins:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/07/10/uk-ambassador-cheerio/

Ambassador is allowed to resign.

I don't understand your comment.

Darroch resigned because he was unable to continue doing his job as UK Ambassador.

Why ?

Because his comments on Trump and his Administration were so poisonous to the nature of that job, that to continue on would have been impossible. Darroch is supposed to be A DIPLOMAT ... not a figure who gives vent, in an official communication, to whatever biases, prejudices, twisted perceptions, his mind is infected with.

Darroch was never privy to the inner workings of the Trump Administration .. how could he be ? His only real and detailed knowledge of Trump himself, beyond a swift meeting or 2 where they shook hands, in front of cameras, was filtered by media prejudices. After all, Darroch - despite his diplomatic status - was nonetheless NOT an 'insider', but someone on the outside, looking in, as any foreign figure would be.

I'm disgusted by the whole business. Darroch - as Nigel Farage correctly assesses - wasn't fit to continue on as 'ambassador'. Happily Darroch himself, however belatedly, understood what he had to do, and he did it.

But our politicians are busily heaping PRAISE on Darroch, and so ludicrous is this, that for Boris Johnson to so much as hint at a lack of support for Darroch has earned him a backlash today in our Press, and from political opponents in his OWN Party.

So, yes. I'm disgusted. Anti-Trumpism has reached such a pitch as to defy all reason.

FakeNewsSux

07-10-2019, 12:38 PM

Noir

07-10-2019, 04:41 PM

Drummond

07-10-2019, 05:28 PM

:laugh:

The number of people who would support something like this is sadly not zero.

... and I can vouch for that. I'm one person who would !!

Drummond

07-10-2019, 05:43 PM

I realize that it is not in PM May's character but I think I have an "out of the box" solution to the Brexit problem. Why not proceed with the attitude that Brexit has already occurred? Pursue policies that are in the UK's interest whether or not they align with requirements of the EU. Ignore any penalties or requirements imposed by the EU (much like most EU nations do under the NATO Treaty) and go on with your life. What are they going to do, kick you out of the EU?

I like that suggestion, a lot. If it could be done, I'd be delighted.

But I suspect that trying it would present us with enormous difficulties.

The EU would argue that we were a member defying both their rules and treaties, but, most probably, their laws, too. We'd be seen as a 'defaulter' Member of theirs.

My guess: at minimum, the'd raise crippling trading tariffs against us. As a recognised Member, they'd see us breaking EU immigration rules .. since no non-criminal EU member can be denied entry into any Member State's territory. There'd quickly be legal cases brought against us for failing to live up to Treaty obligations.

Perhaps Brits living in other EU nations' territories (there are always many thousands of them) would suddenly find themselves regarded and treated as 'non-citizens', deprived of basic rights, e.g employment, or, access to State benefits ?

There might well be outright bans imposed on trade with us.

Perhaps most worrying ... if we're seen, internationally, as a reneger against treaties we take exception to, who ELSE would trust us enough to enter into trade deals with them ? What if the EU boycotted trade with any other nation which tried to deal with us ?

Trade is continuous. Any implementation of resistance to EU treaty might see UK assets in the EU territories frozen. Any goods in transit might be impounded. Medical supplies ... will we be banned from receiving any of EU origin, putting lives at risk ?

No. I like the idea, but I'm sure the EU would kick back .. hard. They'd have to, because if they failed to, they just might encourage another EU Member State to one day follow suit. Deterrence against that ever happening would be the name of the game .... we'd have to be made an example of.

Noir

08-20-2019, 03:24 PM

Well Boris has set out his stall in black and white for the Northern Irish border, and surprise his unique soulution is...a sea boarder separating Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. :laugh:

12179

Noir

08-28-2019, 04:46 AM

Drummond

08-28-2019, 09:29 AM

The government are expected to announce the suspension of parliament from the middle of September through to mid October, given the processes involved this will all but guarantee a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, Parliament will have less than 2 weeks leading up to the break to have any further input.

This announcement comes one day after 6 parties (the Liberal Democrat’s, Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Green Party, Plaid Cymru, and Change UK) agreed the ‘Church House Declaration’ to stop parliament being suspended. The declaration current has the signatures of over 200 MPs.

As you'll know by now, Boris has asked the Queen to suspend Parliament.

'Naturally', those who have contempt for the result of the 2016 Referendum result regard Boris's action as a 'democratic outrage' ... not caring to give a nanosecond's thought to the sheer hypocrisy implicit in their utterances.

The 2016 Referendum was clear. We get OUT of the EU. No ifs, buts, maybes, involved. Many in Parliament have worked to derail that process. They want Parliament to keep going, for its business to be uninterrupted, so that it can then give power to wreckers to continue their derailing efforts.

Boris considers himself answerable to a greater democracy, that of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. It's because there are too many in the Commons who have proven their contempt for this, that Boris has now acted.

These are grim times, made that way by those having total contempt for the Peoples' wishes.

News just breaking ... I understand that the Queen has given her consent for the suspension of Parliament.

She could not reasonably do otherwise, I believe ... Parliament has seemingly forgotten why it even exists ... to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.