Jump to content

Brexit Negotiations


Bud the Baker

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The EU actually gave UK concessions in early 2016, I think, but Cameron went ahead with referendum anyway. These concessions were obviously in addition to the other concessions that thatcher, major, Blair had gotten previously.

Britain’s net contribution last year was £8.6 billion, up from £4.3 billion in 2009.

A major cause of the increased contributions was Mr Blair’s decision to agree to a 7 per cent cut in the rebate during negotiations on the last EU budget deal. If you aggregate the added contributions since 2009 probably cost the country several billions on op of our 'normal' contributions.

 

So not quite everything that Captain Charisma negotiated was an advantage to us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 The Brexit vote had no hint of what deals might be nor how hard it would be to achieve anything approaching what we already had in place.

May could have led the country towards a leave. 

She would have needed to convince people that her Red Lines were realistic.  She didn't - and that's why the MPs voted as they did.  The Remainers saw it as having to take all the rules of the EU with less power, less influence over new rules and less benefits than we already have.

She tried to curry favour with the swivel-eyed Brexiteers who will never be satisfied. She appointed THEM to carry out THEIR mission.  One by one they realised their stupidity, failed to make progress, then resigned as they didn't want the ones to be blamed for having failed to understand reality. 

Yet she piled onwards, whilst knowing that EU would not allow FREE entry to their market AND 'power' to influence it by a member that didn't want to contribute towards it and also that its insistence of free movement within the market for its members was sacrosanct.

The Brexiteers refused to accept that and their Little Englander (but NOT London!) mentality still can't see the hard realities.

You can't freely use a gym's facilities without paying a membership subscription or by paying a bit more than members if  you just want to pop in now and then.   And if you do pop in, you have to comply with the rules of the place.

I have yet to see the slightest sign of the Commonwealth countries or the USA piling in to shower the Brexiteers with trade deals and bright promises for our future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

They certainly did. They voted to Leave.

May's deal is dead.

Currently the choice is exactly the same as it was at the referendum. Remain or Leave. Nothing has changed.

Thats it in a nutshell isnt it

 

Whilst the politicians argue on how to leave/ stay the public 17.4m which is over 3 times Scotlands population voted unconditionally to Leave...... I voted to Remain unconditionally. I lost. I also lost Indy in 2014 for my once in a lifetime chance, but hey ho looks like I am a cat

 

Is a ref different from other voting formats?

 

If the Tories win the next GE, can we have another one two years later if the minority is not happy

 

So much for Demorcracy UK, leading the way in looking totally stupid, and thats how the EU view us

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PMs games continue.....................:toilet

Quote

Theresa May’s plans for cross-party co-operation on Brexit were condemned after it emerged that she was not seeking to involve Jeremy Corbyn despite Tuesday’s historic defeat of her plan.

Andrea Leadsom admitted Labour’s leader had not been invited to cross-party talks and indicated that Corbyn needed to say what he wanted from Brexit before being invited to speak to the prime minister.

May offered cross-party talks after MPs rejected her deal by a majority of 230, with more than a third of Conservatives rebelling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

By quoting that one section of my comment you’ve completely taken it out of context. I’ve already said people voted to “Leave”. What they didnt vote on was “How to leave”. You have Leavers claiming “we voted for this, for that”, but that wasn’t the question. The question was purely Remain/Leave. No MP truly knows what the public want in regards to actually leaving.

There was no offer of some sort of deal to leave when the vote went ahead.

People voted Leave knowing this and the clear understanding was that Leave would mean Leave without conditions.

It is perfectly clear to all except those who are clutching at straws on the Remain side.

BTW you could equally apply your argument to Remain had we won that vote. What kind of Remain was being offered? Nobody knows for sure.

You can argue this line all you want but really we need to move on from this idea that people on the other side from us were either too stupid to know what they were doing or that they were conditionally voting Leave. They voted leave. End of story.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

There was no offer of some sort of deal to leave when the vote went ahead.

People voted Leave knowing this and the clear understanding was that Leave would mean Leave without conditions.

It is perfectly clear to all except those who are clutching at straws on the Remain side.

BTW you could equally apply your argument to Remain had we won that vote. What kind of Remain was being offered? Nobody knows for sure.

You can argue this line all you want but really we need to move on from this idea that people on the other side from us were either too stupid to know what they were doing or that they were conditionally voting Leave. They voted leave. End of story.

It's less than three years since the referendum and even my Fawlty memory recalls the prevailing mood of Leave voters which was "take back control of our borders" i.e. a hard Brexit, harder even then May's deal! To suggest that Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for is extremely patronising. That we haven't been able to secure the "easiest deal in history" is a far stronger argument against Brexit.

 

What amazes me is the Hard Brexit argument that since parliament rejected the deal it's now up to the EU to offer us something better.Even if the EU was so inclined (and we all know they're not) what could they offer that would secure a majority at Westminster? :wacko: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

Is a ref(erendum) different from other voting formats?

Yes.  It's very different.

 

Due to UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, it's a constitutionally non-binding way of finding a bit about how the population feels.

For some unknown reason, {glory as the PM who did it?), May decided that as 30% of potential voters in the UK agreed with the swivel-eyed Brexit nutters pulling her own party apart that she'd go with that.   Then she rushed far too fast into it, announcing our leaving as soon as she could - with no need for such a rush - and while her Brexiteer ministers had yet to find out just how costly the whole exercise would be for the country.

 

Here's an example:

John Allan - President of the CBI on BBC Radio 4 this morning.

"The notion that we throw away the free trade agreements that we have with the EU and through the EU, that account for about 70% of our trade, and trade successfully under WTO rules is frankly cloud-cuckoo land."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

BTW you could equally apply your argument to Remain had we won that vote. What kind of Remain was being offered? Nobody knows for sure.

This is  lunacy.  Simplistic pishy wittering, as you call it.

The kind of Remain that was being offered was remain.  Not changing anything.  Not negotiating timeshares in Estonia, not setting sideways trade deals with the Cook Islands not f**kin' anything but Remain!

It was just remaining.

 

It's the duty of those wishing to change a status quo to justify the reasons for doing so that off a better deal than Remain.

 

They did.  They lied.  Big style on the side of Busses.

 

And instead of Taking Back Control, we are now scrabbling to find any means by which we can retain any sort of control.

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, antrin said:

This is  lunacy.

The kind of Remain that was being offered was remain.  Not changing anything.  Not negotiating timeshares in Estonia, not setting sideways trade deals with the Cook Islands not f**kin' anything but Remain!

It was just remaining.

No it really wasn't.

There was plenty of discussion regarding how a Remain vote would result in the UK trying to reform the EU from within and equally strong moves by Germany and France to centralise further powers into Brussels with no clear idea about what "Remain" would look like in a few years.

Both Remain and Leave quite rightly required a certain amount of a leap of faith. Most normal and reasonable people would expect that.

You may have a slippery memory my friend but I do not.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, antrin said:

Yes.  It's very different.

 

Due to UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, it's a constitutionally non-binding way of finding a bit about how the population feels.

For some unknown reason, {glory as the PM who did it?), May decided that as 30% of potential voters in the UK agreed with the swivel-eyed Brexit nutters pulling her own party apart that she'd go with that.   Then she rushed far too fast into it, announcing our leaving as soon as she could - with no need for such a rush - and while her Brexiteer ministers had yet to find out just how costly the whole exercise would be for the country.

 

Here's an example:

John Allan - President of the CBI on BBC Radio 4 this morning.

"The notion that we throw away the free trade agreements that we have with the EU and through the EU, that account for about 70% of our trade, and trade successfully under WTO rules is frankly cloud-cuckoo land."

 

Mate I know

 

 I was using the example of what voting actually means ................... it does mean nothing. We are a joke in this country, we still have the HOL, we still have first past the post, and when we do vote it may not result in the majority succeeding....................

Cameron saying today he doesnt regret having the referendum, what bollocks. I bet he regreats not making it 60% to change, and I also bet he regrets not giving that fanny Salmond Devomax...........................

All could have been plain and boring. Instead the markets react positive whilst the Buinesses shit themselves. The Housing market has slowed, and people hold back on Hols. Not to mention the problems we are not addressing

All this whilst Multi Millionaires like Rees Mogg supps Champers with other Tories to toast the success of the biggest defeat in history of their own government

You could not make it up

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

No it really wasn't.

There was plenty of discussion regarding how a Remain vote would result in the UK trying to reform the EU from within and equally strong moves by Germany and France to centralise further powers into Brussels with no clear idea about what "Remain" would look like in a few years.

You may have a slippery memory my friend but I do not.

That was always a part of the Uk's relationship with the EU.  (And should have been a basic ongoing instinct of any member nation.)

Nothing would have changed in that respect - it was not a new promise, a new offer - it was simply a case of remaining, of continuing the status quo, as in life, constantly changing but remaining the same.   

Why the f**k would anyone sane even contemplate how Remain would be changing anything?

 

A slippery memory is the least of your worries when you come out with absurdities like that.

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, antrin said:

constantly changing but remaining the same.   

 

A slippery memory is the least of your worries when you come out with absurdities like that.

Constantly changing but remaining the same?

You should be careful referring to anyone's posts as absurd when you come out with pearls like that. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You can argue this line all you want but really we need to move on from this idea that people on the other side from us were either too stupid to know what they were doing or that they were conditionally voting Leave. They voted leave. End of story.

You act like I’m in denial of the result. In my original post, of the three answers I suggested, none of them were to remain.

In truth there are actually a minority of leave voters who didn’t realise the consequences of their actions. The ones thick enough not to realise future holidays to Spain would not be as simple as they are now, that the EHIC may no longer exist for Brits among other things. Mainly those grouped in the “Britain is mighty, bow down to us” Little Englander mentality. Basically the Daily Mail/Express readers. Those with more intelligence knew there would be some downsides to their Leave vote and weren’t hit by the sudden shock of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

You act like I’m in denial of the result. In my original post, of the three answers I suggested, none of them were to remain.

In truth there are actually a minority of leave voters who didn’t realise the consequences of their actions. The ones thick enough not to realise future holidays to Spain would not be as simple as they are now, that the EHIC may no longer exist for Brits among other things. Mainly those grouped in the “Britain is mighty, bow down to us” Little Englander mentality. Basically the Daily Mail/Express readers. Those with more intelligence knew there would be some downsides to their Leave vote and weren’t hit by the sudden shock of it.

In fairness you are correct. I had missed that.

I agree with your second paragraph. There are always stupid people who vote for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

Mate I know

 

 I was using the example of what voting actually means ................... it does mean nothing. We are a joke in this country, we still have the HOL, we still have first past the post, and when we do vote it may not result in the majority succeeding....................

Cameron saying today he doesnt regret having the referendum, what bollocks. I bet he regreats not making it 60% to change, and I also bet he regrets not giving that fanny Salmond Devomax...........................

All could have been plain and boring. Instead the markets react positive whilst the Buinesses shit themselves. The Housing market has slowed, and people hold back on Hols. Not to mention the problems we are not addressing

All this whilst Multi Millionaires like Rees Mogg supps Champers with other Tories to toast the success of the biggest defeat in history of their own government

You could not make it up

 

That is the folly of the stock markets - traders being paid a fortune in comissions to gamble with our pension money. These traders crave volatility and don't forget for every winner in the swings there is a loser in the roundabouts and the only people really making money are like I said the traders.

In case anyone needs reminding Jacob Rees-Mogg has made sure that whatever happens he won't lose out by opening a second investment fund in Ireland! 

EAT THE RICH!

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

The Tories do that themselves. 

By quoting that one section of my comment you’ve completely taken it out of context. I’ve already said people voted to “Leave”. What they didnt vote on was “How to leave”. You have Leavers claiming “we voted for this, for that”, but that wasn’t the question. The question was purely Remain/Leave. No MP truly knows what the public want in regards to actually leaving.

Actually yes they do, we voted to leave the EEC, not stay attached to ANY part of it, not still abiding by ANY of their rules, not following ANY of their procedures, leave, LEAVE, not stay, not nearly leave, nor leave a little bit, nor leave later, Leave NOW!    we'll i''ll settle for March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's the cross party talks well & truly fucked..............

Quote

Downing Street has flatly ruled out customs union membership, before the cross-party Brexit talks Theresa May promised on Tuesday night have even begun.

The prime minister responded to Tuesday’s historic defeat in the meaningful vote by pledging to speak to “senior parliamentarians” to identify a deal that could secure a majority.

But the Labour frontbench position is for a permanent customs union, as is that of Conservative backers of a Norway-style Brexit deal, making it unlikely talks with either group would get off the ground if May stands by that red line.

Speaking to journalists after prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, a spokesman for May said: “The principles that govern us as we go into these talks is that we want to be able to do our own trade deals, and that is incompatible with a customs union.”

May had said at PMQs that while she was seeking to learn “what could command the support of this house and deliver on the referendum”, any proposal must involve “opening up new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world”.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Actually yes they do, we voted to leave the EEC, not stay attached to ANY part of it, not still abiding by ANY of their rules, not following ANY of their procedures, leave, LEAVE, not stay, not nearly leave, nor leave a little bit, nor leave later, Leave NOW!    we'll i''ll settle for March.

Actually…

Wrong.

It was a vote to leave.  That I can agree with.

 

But it was not a vote to leave as you say... in the same way as in it was not a vote to leave by sticking sharp sticks in our eyes, poke hot irons up our arse or follow sevco forever after.  It was merely a vote to leave.

What the canny swivel-eyed Brexiteers and May have managed to negotiate as their leave deal (Because in an adult world,there must be agreements about splitting up) is so much worse than people could have imagined and much, much worse that what we have, already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, antrin said:
34 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Actually yes they do, we voted to leave the EEC, not stay attached to ANY part of it, not still abiding by ANY of their rules, not following ANY of their procedures, leave, LEAVE, not stay, not nearly leave, nor leave a little bit, nor leave later, Leave NOW!    we'll i''ll settle for March.

Actually…

Wrong.

It was a vote to leave.  That I can agree with.

 

But it was not a vote to leave as you say... in the same way as in it was not a vote to leave by sticking sharp sticks in our eyes, poke hot irons up our arse or follow sevco forever after.  It was merely a vote to leave.

What the canny swivel-eyed Brexiteers and May have managed to negotiate as their leave deal (Because in an adult world,there must be agreements about splitting up) is so much worse than people could have imagined and much, much worse that what we have, already.

I generally enjoy a debate but sorry there is only a one word answer to you sir and that is BOLLOX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, antrin said:
14 minutes ago, jaybee said:

I generally enjoy a debate but sorry there is only a one word answer to you sir and that is BOLLOX

Actually…

Wrong.

It was a vote to leave.  That I can agree with.

 

But it was not a vote to leave as you say... in the same way as in it was not a vote to leave by sticking sharp sticks in our eyes, poke hot irons up our arse or follow sevco forever after.  It was merely a vote to leave.

What the canny swivel-eyed Brexiteers and May have managed to negotiate as their leave deal (Because in an adult world,there must be agreements about splitting up) is so much worse than people could have imagined and much, much worse that what we have, already.

How can you enjoy a debate when you don't grasp the basics?

That must be very frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

Britain’s net contribution last year was £8.6 billion, up from £4.3 billion in 2009.

A major cause of the increased contributions was Mr Blair’s decision to agree to a 7 per cent cut in the rebate during negotiations on the last EU budget deal. If you aggregate the added contributions since 2009 probably cost the country several billions on op of our 'normal' contributions.

 

So not quite everything that Captain Charisma negotiated was an advantage to us!

I was merely pointing out that EU has made concessions to UK over the years. Its fair to say we have had more opt outs and concessions that any other country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...