OnionTerror
-
Posts
12,320 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OnionTerror
-
-
22 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
1. So when Dominic Cummings stated there was no plan and that was a strategic decision taken because no specific Brexit would have gained a majority was he lying and if so why?
2. On the contrary May took forward a fairly hard Brexit. it was her inability to give up the promised and unobtainable cherries/cake that meant it was doomed to failure.
3. So you are happy to betray the people when it suits you. A 48-52 vote was not a mandate for a hard Brexit, maybe 30-70 vote would have been.
-
4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
True according to Curtis at most 2% have actually changed their minds. It is much easier to blame someone else, Remainer traitors or EU punishing us, than it is to admit you were wrong.
However, the demographics are changing the most committed cohort of Leave voters the +75 are literally being decimated each year and being replaced by 18 year old predominately Remain supporters. That itself will be enough to eliminate the Leave majority by the time a second referendum could be held. Whether you think this is relevant depends on whether or not you prioritise the votes of living 18-21yr old voters over the dead voters.
The EU had little or nothing to do with migration levels, it was UK government policy that created the demand (as revealed by Ivan Roger's description of how the UK government sought first mover advantage in the race for EE workers), if you doubt that look what is happening now that EE migration is slowing, they are being replaced one for one by increased migration from elsewhere mainly the sub continent. Brexit will do nothing to reduce migration that we couldn't have done inside the EU.
Leaving the EU will probably reduce our sovereignty as we are heading for a BRINO and will be following rules we have no say in setting.
We'll retain our seats at the top tables, where global rules are made. The EU just "facilitate" these rules into the single market....
-
3 minutes ago, crouch said:
Whatever.
This is going to be process that will never end. The relationship will ever evolve....It isn't bargaining in a souk, if thats what you think...
-
2 minutes ago, crouch said:
Yes I saw that clip earlier in the day. Singham makes it quite clear that their proposals constitute an opening bid and that it would be watered down in subsequent negotiation; it is an opening framework. Hennig was talking about the bottom line not the top, where we are most likely to end up. So the two points of view are not inconsistent but are those at different stages in the process.
We should not start the negotiations by surrendering.
Surrendering what (bar the money)?
-
12 minutes ago, crouch said:
I'm sure that those you mention don't believe it's quite that simple but trade goes on quite satisfactorily between the EU and ROW so this is hardly an insuperable problem. However, it does require good faith and I do raise a question mark against the attitude of the EU in that respect. The "punishment" meme has been on fairly open display recently.
Yes they do believe it...Just last night, the ERG's favourite go to man, Mr Singham....
We, as a country need to have a discussion where our future lies post-Brexit...I will not let these shitehawks high jack it with their own agendas..
-
13 minutes ago, crouch said:
To me the answer is a clear no - to that part of the economic aspect, which, as I say, is not the predominant reason most Leavers voted on.
Tell that to the ERG, Farage, Boris, Singham et al.....listening to them, they think that mutual recognition will be enough for frictionless trade... The truth needs to come out..not this cloak and dagger drive to this place of mythical free trade..
-
4 minutes ago, crouch said:
Right, so we should start off a negotiation by agreeing a framework determined by the EU? Brilliant negotiating tactic! In the manual of negotiation we call it "How to Surrender the Initiative up Front and Fail Dismally".Choosing a detailed Brexit would, as I have said a number of times, been madness because it would surrender the initiative straightaway.
You also continue to make the perennial mistake of alternatives being attractive when those alternatives are economic in nature. Most Leavers did not vote on economic grounds they voted to regain sovereignty and to reduce immigration.
Are we in the single market or not basically sets the marker...There is no CETA++++ or Super Canada..
-
4 minutes ago, kzb said:
That wasn't the question !
For one thing a true believer wouldn't have agreed to the sequencing order. Neither would they ask for a backstop.
Would the red lines be any different?
-
1 minute ago, kzb said:
Yes I do disagree with that. The negotiation was handled by Remainers, and not because every single Brexiter declined offers of the jobs.
...and what would they have done differently?
-
8 minutes ago, kzb said:
Well make your mind up. Either the leavers ran away OR they were given a chance and got removed later. Which is it?
Anyhow I don't believe true leavers were given a fair chance. it is clear that Davis for example was under the control of the PM. The reason he left is because he was instructed to do things he thought were a bad idea.
This is the same DD who thought the UK could do an FTA with Germany? ...and that when the UK has left, we will have the exact same benefits as we have now?
-
1 minute ago, GrizzlyDave said:
Ha ha what a reply...
I do find Varoufakis to have slightly strange views of the EU/Brexit....He's constantly slating the EU, but then he thinks that the UK are "mad" to leave..Perhaps he thinks he can be the main voice of change...
-
2 minutes ago, IMHAL said:
What makes you say that? I don't think his pay packet, pension or whatever will be in the least bit affected. Your on the other hand....well that's a different story.
In my view he's telling the truth.....and the truth hurts...
Unusual line from The Sun's political editor...
-
5 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:
I think we should have told the EU we were leaving on the 29th March 2019 & would like to do a FTA which would end up with us having the same status as any other 3rd party country. If they wanted to give us better terms then that would be great - but we wouldn't be under any political or legal obligations other than those that related to trade.
They would likely have said no. We could then have proceeded to plan under the assumption of no FTA.
Does the UK want to move towards NAFTA/US standards or does to stay harmonised towards EU standards? This is a legitimate conversation to have...although trade usually performs best when you are nearest to your trading partners..
-
11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:
It would've made sense and perhaps provided a bit of an easier start but would it really have resulted in things being much different by now? We'd still be in the same position, and would've been then - those who see working within that structure as BRINO and unacceptable and those who say it fits the requirements, nobody agreeing, and the EU rejecting anything not one extreme or the other.
Its a byproduct of thinking that March 29th is an end point..rather than its the start of the process...so many people want a hard Brexit...Right ok...what then? If there was some some sort of "vision" (sounds corny) / positive ideas put in front of the populace that are realistic, then people can see what we are trying to achieve...not the fwee trade cobblers that the ERG and their likes are peddling...the world has moved on..
-
4 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
On every engineering project I have delivered the success is fundamentally associated with a strong schedule of work with key deadlines.
..but I suspect you're also expecting to know what the client wants from the off...
-
6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:
Whilst it certainly would've been nice if the government - i.e. the people who called Article 50 and whose job it was, not the Leave campaign, as hard as that is for some to grasp - had some sort of plan it would have to have been incredibly tentative and speculative before talks began. The odds are the whole thing would've had to be thrown out of the windows on Day 1.
Perhaps the govt should have worked out the framework of what they actually wanted, and what could have worked within the EU's existing treaty structure before triggering A50..
-
Just now, GrizzlyDave said:
A deadline is a great way to force progress.
Is it? Certainly not in this case..
-
11 minutes ago, hotblack42 said:
Tusk is angry.
People get angry when they are frightened.
Exasperated rather than angry...It was a great idea to call A50 without a plan or Dominic Cummings deliberately deciding against promoting any plan whatsoever, or the ERG shouting from the sidelines without any workable idea..
-
1 minute ago, ****-eyed octopus said:
What powers do the US have to interfere with Canada or Australia's immigration policy? Their domestic legal system?
Any country in a trade deal has to abide by mutually agreed rules pertaining to that trade. That is all.
And I'm afraid I simply don't believe that having identical rules & standards to start with doesn't make future agreements a whole lot easier. Unless one side wishes to be obstructive of course ...
Non tariff barriers are perhaps the main obstacles to trade.
-
2 minutes ago, Dorkins said:
It sounds like you're talking about whether the UK becomes a single market rule taker (i.e. Norway) and/or is able to negotiate 3rd party FTAs by leaving the customs union. I wouldn't call this a custody battle as the EU27's position has always been that it is up to the UK whether it wants those things and it can have them if it does want them. Not much of a battle.
The EU is also a rule taker. Those EEA laws are are founded on global regulations and parliament has the power not to ratify them. So you could argue that we’d actually have more power than we have now.
-
3 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:
It is not about a plan, it is about being able to negotiate and being able to project the size/importance of the UK market for the EU into the negotiations, this will have to happen now after a "Hard" Brexit with more competent people at the table than May and her remainer chums. The EU deliberately refused to negotiate trade deals etc. at the start and instead just wanted to discuss how much we owed them, hoping to bully us into a soft Brexit like May`s deal later on as they have done with other countries/agreements. Unfortunately for the EU it has backfired and they are now showing their fear in public.
Take our pick...
-
50 minutes ago, Dorkins said:
Do you have a link?
I’m trying to find specific announcement from the EU..
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1013361227945431043
-
1 minute ago, Dorkins said:
The EU27 never said the UK can't have a FTA, in fact Barnier said as soon as the withdrawal agreement is signed FTA negotiations should start.
The EU have stated that a CETA type agreement would be for Great Britain only..
-
3 hours ago, Dorkins said:
What do you mean "on what terms"? EFTA is EFTA, you join and you follow the rules of the single market. It's not a special customised deal.
Well, it would need to be. The EEA is a fully adaptable framework.
Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.
in House prices and the economy
Posted
I can see the situation, whereby on no deal Brexit day, there will be few jams at the ports (as haulage firms et al. wont bother to travel), and a lot of people will say "I don't know what the fuss was all about"...
It wont be for a few months when the huge job losses will start to bite, as that'll be when the reality of trade barriers will kick in...
...but we will see...