Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[kzb]

19 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

...and what would they have done differently?

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.

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

If any records are ever released in 30 years time, we won't recognise it is the same story as given on the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation et al.

Before you have a go at the BBC K, remember they are government driven.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/mandrake-on-the-remain-campaigners-dropped-last-minute-by-bbc-1-5881776

https://leftfootforward.org/2019/02/bbc-invites-two-right-wing-think-tanks-on-in-a-row-to-air-industry-crushing-brexit-policy/

 

[OnionTerror]

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?

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

20 minutes ago, crouch said:

You're saying there was no road map, right? You mean Leave should have had something like this:

http://voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

You call that a business plan accepting of a blank cheque? Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

[kzb]

4 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Would the red lines be any different?

Don't know, personally I don't believe that red lines are good tactics, especially if they are public domain.

[jonb2]

33 minutes ago, crouch said:

You're saying there was no road map, right? You mean Leave should have had something like this:

http://voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

The question is Crouch. And knowing what you know so far. Do you still believe any of the 'wants' in that link are not pie in the sky?

I am not interested in May being a remainer. She's just one member of the Woeful of Westminster. My consistent point is that it's our lot we need to leave if we want any beneficial change. Brexit is just a distraction away from this truth. It's not only a complete waste of time, effort, earned respect and money - but exceedingly damaging to the country and 180 degrees contra to all the claims in your link.

Edited February 7, 2019 by jonb2

[Confusion of VIs]

10 hours ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

     I think that trophy goes to China and let's see how Japan's manufacturing strategy evolves in the EU.

Anyway, returning to Nissan and the X-Trail decision; were you hoping that Nissan would select another EU country instead of the UK?

As an aside, in which country is this Nissan X-Trail made?

i

 

2. Indeed, with or without the UK, Japan can now export cars, and much more, without having manufacturing plants in the EU.

1. Not sure China negotiates at all, it relies on its status as a developing country and its cost of production being low enough to offset tariffs. If we end up outside of the SM it's possible that Nissan could move production to a EU state, most likely France as the capacity is already there.    

No idea where it is built and don't care, I cannot ever see myself buying either a Nissan or an SUV.

2. The trade deal gives EU a lot of access/opportunities in the Japanese market, it's thought to be a much more valuable Win Win prize than TTIP would have been.  

[PeanutButter]

On 05/02/2019 at 19:42, zugzwang said:

1. Political integrity.

2. Revolutionary zeal.

3. Zen-like demeanour.

4. Social conscience.

5. Approachable.

Debatable opinion.

What revolution? 

Fair enough, doesn't seem to get het up about anything.

Fine.

Agreed. 

On 05/02/2019 at 20:00, rollover said:

1. Unicorn promised to everyone  - hopeful people still waiting to be delivered

2. Country split in half

3. The change is undeliverable and may never happen

4. Russia steering up people's emotion  and USA waiting to benefit from the following chaos

5.  Investors leaving

Like Trump's wall. 

Like America.

Like Trump's wall.

Like France, Germany, Ukraine etc etc. 

Like USA losing to Canada and Mexico. 

 

But of course, comparing UK to USA instead of starving socialist Venezuela wouldn't have served quite the same rhetorical purpose. 

[crouch]

8 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

You call that a business plan accepting of a blank cheque? Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

Right, so it's got to be sufficiently detailed to meet your idea of a business plan.

Now, I'm very naive because I always thought that you went into negotiations with your highest bid and were prepared to compromise. This would indicate to me that a degree of vagueness was not merely desirable but necessary and that requiring a considerable degree of detail is in fact self defeating, but of course being a thicko Leaver I just don't understand these issues.

[Dorkins]

2 hours 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.

 

The flaw with that plan is that the Commons likely would have collapsed the government and replaced it with one looking to do a deal.

[Byron]

13 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

You call that a business plan accepting of a blank cheque? Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

Please explain why it is 'utterly pathetic'

[Byron]

2 minutes ago, crouch said:

Right, so it's got to be sufficiently detailed to meet your idea of a business plan.

Now, I'm very naive because I always thought that you went into negotiations with your highest bid and were prepared to compromise. This would indicate to me that a degree of vagueness was not merely desirable but necessary and that requiring a considerable degree of detail is in fact self defeating, but of course being a thicko Leaver I just don't understand these issues.

+1

[crouch]

1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

The question is Crouch. And knowing what you know so far. Do you still believe any of the 'wants' in that link are not pie in the sky?

I am not interested in May being a remainer. She's just one member of the Woeful of Westminster. My consistent point is that it's our lot we need to leave if we want any beneficial change. Brexit is just a distraction away from this truth. It's not only a complete waste of effort, earned respect and money - but exceedingly damaging to the country and 180 degrees contra to all the claims in your link.

That was written at the time of the referendum.

If you go into a negotiation you go in with your highest bid but prepared to compromise in the interest of obtaining agreement (btw as a reminder compromise is agreement by mutual concession). The "pie in the sky" is not only not stupid it is arguably the basis of the negotiation so it's hardly surprising that you don't get all you want; in fact that is the essence of the process.

I do not deny your point about there being larger issues, in fact I fully agree with you but getting this right is important, but, as you say, we are hardly getting it right.

[kzb]

20 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

You call that a business plan accepting of a blank cheque? Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

But it does constitute a plan does it not?

[IMHAL]

6 minutes ago, crouch said:

Right, so it's got to be sufficiently detailed to meet your idea of a business plan.

Now, I'm very naive because I always thought that you went into negotiations with your highest bid and were prepared to compromise. This would indicate to me that a degree of vagueness was not merely desirable but necessary and that requiring a considerable degree of detail is in fact self defeating, but of course being a thicko Leaver I just don't understand these issues.

That is your problem. It was never a real negotiation. So far in this 'negotiation', our path has been dictated by May's red lines...and not through horse trade. There have always been a set of paths/options available to us...made clear by the EU...day 1...depending on where we set our red lines. There is a brilliant chart somewhere that shows this very clearly.

When you have actually chosen a path then you can customise it around the edges...... your idea of what negotiation means is very different to the reality of this situation.

That is why we could have decided on our path before the referendum and why we would be in an entirely different situation IF the public decided that they wanted to follow a specific Brexit path rather than remain.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Depends on how much risk the client is accepting of, as well as the size of their budget; and how happy they are to commence ground works at a concept stage, but sure; regular client engagement is essential to refine the design whilst meeting legislation and legal requirements.

The brexit plan is a bit like the millennium dome. There is a hard time limited dead line and a rough vision but lack of agreement as to the detail. On the other hand we delivered the 2012 games pretty smoothly; so HMG does get it right sometimes...

If they knew anything about building projects they would be very unhappy. 

Did you actually get to see the Millennium dome. I did thankfully on a corporate freebie, it was in a word cr@p a monumental waste of time and money.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Confusion of VIs

[kzb]

10 minutes ago, Byron said:

Please explain why it is 'utterly pathetic'

I suppose we could call this progress.  We keep being told there was no plan.

But Monsieur must now have recognised there was a plan, in order to insult it !

[Confusion of VIs]

2 hours ago, Andy T said:

What a dork he is for coming out with a statement like that.

These people are supposed to be our leaders yet they can't maintain professionalism or lead by example. He's lashing out because he's worrying about his own paypacket/pension/cosy existence - pathetic.

Tusk is an anglophile who cannot believe what the UK is doing to itself. 

Look at his background, and then have a think about just how big an idiot that last sentence makes you look. 

[pig]

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

Well Pig, thinking about your though bubble. Nor do I.

All we know is they will fall ... and hard.

Makes all those secret visits to the USA by the 'leading' Brexiters a bit of a conundrum doesn't it?

Safely sozzled in Oklahoma I guess while the Irish Americans in lay out in Washington how whats left of the UK is going to be run .

 

[rollover]

59 minutes ago, crouch said:

You're saying there was no road map, right? You mean Leave should have had something like this:

http://voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

You are right, I remember "Road to Brexit" and the "Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction" described by David Davis.

[Confusion of VIs]

2 hours 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.

Failed and Bailed probably sums it up.

Is your name Mr Gullible?  You can listen to 90mins of him attempting to rewrite history, with 90mins of self serving nonsense, explaining to the Select Committee why it all went wrong.  

Davis has always been a blagger/chancer he was given a chance to do the easiest deal in history and couldn't so the PM got involved. That's what happens when you cannot deliver. 

 

[Bruce Banner]

Sky News just had a Dr Ben Laker (apparently a government Brexit adviser) on.

He is confident that May's tactic of running down the clock and giving parliament a choice between her deal (including backstop) and no deal, will be successful, as MPs are scared stiff of no deal and May refuses to include a 2nd referendum option.

This is outrageous, there must be some way to stop her getting away with this.

May's deal is "Brexit in name only" and no one voted for that!

[pig]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

That sort of language from a figure in such a position is not at all uncontroversial.

Expressing the general sentiment about a lack of planning (although as I've said earlier it wilfully overlooks that it's a situation where no meaningful plans could be made in advance) is one thing - it would still be stupidly undiplomatic from someone in that position (most equally stupid comments from the British parliament have come from less significant, even if not less visible, quarters), but it speaks volumes about people who can't grasp the difference between genuine criticism, no matter how undiplomatic and cutting, and talking of a place in hell. It's unbelievably unprofessional. If you (generic, not directing this at you personally) can't condemn such language, even if you agree with the sentiment that those people are a problem, you're not yet ready to leave the playground and talk with the grown ups, and no better than those who cheer on Farage's embarrassing childish slurs, claiming he's speaking the truth with them.

Its like you're happy shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic while complaining about the swearing coming from the engine room. I guess your priority is making the lying no-deal numpties comfortable ?

Two years ago it would have been unimaginable that a Brussels bureaucrat would be speaking for well over half the population of Britain, of all political colours, while our own PM sails us into Davy Jones locker.

[kzb]

4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Failed and Bailed probably sums it up.

Is your name Mr Gullible?  You can listen to 90mins of him attempting to rewrite history, with 90mins of self serving nonsense, explaining to the Select Committee why it all went wrong.  

Davis has always been a blagger/chancer he was given a chance to do the easiest deal in history and couldn't so the PM got involved. That's what happens when you cannot deliver. 

 

I did watch that select committee (well, some of it), that is how this topic originated.

His story is that May told him she was running things and she expected him to do as he was told.  The reason he couldn't do the easiest deal in history is because he was undermined.  Agreeing to the EU sequencing was the last straw.

I guess we will need to survive 30+ years without getting dementia before we find out the truth.

[rollover]

9 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Sky News just had a Dr Ben Laker (apparently a government Brexit adviser) on.

He is confident that May's tactic of running down the clock and giving parliament a choice between her deal (including backstop) and no deal, will be successful, as MPs are scared stiff of no deal and May refuses to include a 2nd referendum option.

This is outrageous, there must be some way to stop her getting away with this.

May's deal is "Brexit in name only" and no one voted for that!

Apparently, it is the middle ground to gel split nation together.

In reality, it is the only Brexit option, the only other option is revoking A50.