EU Trade Talks Thread

[Sephiroth]

whlst I agree with the rest of rouge's post (And posts generally), I have to pick up on this point

"Unlike Seph I think a soft Brexit would've been accepted both by parliament and the country as a whole. Yes it would've peed off the ERG headbanger types, but there would've been enough on the Labour side to see them off."

Because I think it's a comforting thought that people still cling to and I don't know why. For a start it couldn't happen - May, even with her full on shrill Brexit means Brexit stance was never accepted as a True Believer and was thrown overboard. Her successor was chosen from a list of headbangers - anyone with even a sniff of "soft Brexit" about them wouldn't have become leader. There was no corner from which a soft brexit could emerge

But even if I'm wrong and it was possible - it would still be lose lose. We lose access to power we had as a member. Leavers don't get their "sovereignty".

It's such a large "what if", we may as well go full "What if" and talk about not having had teh referendum in first place, putting a threshold for such a constitutional rupture or having a ratifciation referendum on the table

But this notion of "oh if only we could have had a soft Brexit" just doesn't hold water for me

[JohnL]

Nancy Pelosi was astounded. There won't be a US-UK trade deal whilst the democrats hold the house if this continues.

[Blah Blah]

Firstly, there is little chance of Boris's Bill getting through the Lords, so we might as well all ask what is the point of it.

And yes, if the Democrats hold either house (or both), they have clearly stated they will block any trade deal if Boris's amendments go through.

[diable rouge]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because I think it's a comforting thought that

> people still cling to and I don't know why. For a

> start it couldn't happen - May, even with her full

> on shrill Brexit means Brexit stance was never

> accepted as a True Believer and was thrown

> overboard. Her successor was chosen from a list of

> headbangers - anyone with even a sniff of "soft

> Brexit" about them wouldn't have become leader.

> There was no corner from which a soft brexit could

> emerge

I think there were two opportunities for a soft Brexit. May only became vulnerable to being thrown overboard after losing her majority in 2017, up to that point she didn't need the headbangers, just as she didn't need them when she was elected leader. Their favourites, Gove and Johnson, stabbed each other in the back, leaving Andrea Leadsom as their only choice, and she quickly pulled-out because she had little support from the rest of the party. Happy to be corrected, but my memory says that at the time of the Tory leader election, none of the candidates had a clear vision of what Brexit entailed, and it was only after May won that she came out with the infamous ''Brexit means Brexit'' soundbite, presumably as a reposte to being asked what her plans were. Had she come up with a soft Brexit after being elected I feel sure she would've got it through parliament with more than enough Labour support to counter the ERG mob. With the likes of the ERG, Gove, and Johnson having little political clout at the time, it raises the question why did May go for such a hard Brexit? Personally, I think its because she saw it as an opportunity to go in hard against immigration. This vicar's daughter has quite a nasty xenophobic streak in her, she was the architect of the 'hostile environment' and 'go home vans' after all.

The second opportunity she had was after losing her majority at the snap election, a clear indication that the country as a whole wasn't happy with her 'red lines' hard Brexit, and she could've then pivoted towards a softer Brexit and got Labour support. Her decision not to was more to do with her and her party staying in power.

> But even if I'm wrong and it was possible - it

> would still be lose lose. We lose access to power

> we had as a member. Leavers don't get their

> "sovereignty".

That's democracy for you, you can't please all the people all the time, at some point compromise has to take hold. Instead of compromising we seem to be living in an age of absolutism which never bodes well. At least with a soft Brexit it would've allowed an easy route to rejoining at some point in the future, and equally detaching ourselves from the EU gradually over time if public opinion went that way.

Right, football calls!...

[Sephiroth]

That's democracy for you

Nowt democratic about what has happened during and since that referendum. No ability to change our minds? Not democratic. Such a major change on a tiny majority? Not democratic

No other democracy would run something like this

[keano77]

A big subject Sephiroth that would require its own thread.

However, rather than tackling it from ?Sephiroth is unhappy with the majority vote result therefore it is undemocratic? May I suggest you start with ?Plato made simple? or ?Plato for idiots? or some such beginners introductions to the subject.

[Sephiroth]

You could start with

?Do you think that slim majority in 2016 voted for THIS??

Because I can tell you now they f@@king didn?t

Yes I?m unhappy and so should everyone who cares about this country, international law, peace in Ireland

Obviously that will exclude you keano

Only a psychopath would be ?happy? with how things are now

[keano77]

Calm Sephiroth, calm.

Last time I looked the negotiations were still going on. The EU will come up with its usual fudge.

[Sephiroth]

None so blind as those that won?t see

England has talked itself into a corner and has no way out. So it talks about breaking international treaties or imagines the eu will just abandon the rules of the single market to accomodate this tantrum

Sorry keano. But the just like the German car makers, no one is coming to the rescue of the U.K. this time. U.K. govt has alienated too many people

Johnson will either renege and accept a slim pickings deal (in which case he?s gone)

Or he goes ahead with no deal (In which case the country implodes and he?s gone)

The govt has never ever been able to deliver on the promises made before the referendum. Because it was only talking to itself.

[Sephiroth]

How many years since the referendum keano?

How many extensions has the U.K. had to ask for? And why have they had to ask for them?

Was it because the eu caves in as it always does? Or was it just obvious the U.K. was in no way ready?

[j.a.]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Calm Sephiroth, calm.

>

> Last time I looked the negotiations were still

> going on. The EU will come up with its usual

> fudge.

Is that the same as the UK fudge where Johnson tells everyone to vote for the deal, that it ?gets Brexit done?, and campaigns on it in a GE which results in a stonking majority, thus giving him a mandate for the WA, and then subsequently says it isn?t good, we can?t agree to it and we have to change it, and is CJ apply breaking international law to do so?

Is it the same as that fudge? Because I quite like fudge, but Johnson?s smells overcooked and like it will taste bitter.

Still waiting for you to explain how the WA can be ok and then not ok. If there was a problem with it, why did we sign it? Simple question really.

[keano77]

No point in going over old ground.

Let?s see how the negotiations progress now that they?ve been reinvigorated.

[keano77]

J.a I refer you to BJ?s article in The Telegraph today. He explains why he wishes to amend the WA. That should answer your question.

[Sephiroth]

It doesn?t answer the question. At all. It doesn?t address anything about how many people told him all this at the time. About how mps wanted time to debate it only to be told shut up enough talking nothing to discuss

It?s not old ground

Because it?s the same ground over and over again

He lies and he lies. Voters like you might like it but same people in this country and international partners have had enough

[keano77]

If, but, maybe, could have, should have etc

We are where we are. It?s time to bang heads together and get both parties negotiating. Both sides want a deal but both parties agree a no-deal is better than a bad deal.

[Sephiroth]

No cliche left unturned now keano eh?

So easy to say ?no deal better than a bad deal?

But what can we expect of people who didn?t know what they voted for

(That IS what Johnson is claiming this week isn?t it?)

[keano77]

Wait for the fudge Sephiroth.

We?ll be exporting chlorinated chickens to the EU and our European cousins will be licking their lips before you can say the Maastricht Treaty.

[j.a.]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> J.a I refer you to BJ?s article in The Telegraph

> today. He explains why he wishes to amend the WA.

> That should answer your question.

Hahahaaaaa! No it doesn?t! And yes I?ve read it.

You?re just avoiding the fact that your Brexit hero told you he?s got it done, and then said he hadn?t.

Whatever mate. I see you.

[Sephiroth]

We all see him

And the world sees U.K.

Both with their arses hanging out

[keano77]

Shakes head in disbelief of my obsequious fellows

[Sephiroth]

Oh sweetie. Some things simply demand excessive attention

Perhaps a smidge more attention and the liar you are subservient to wouldn?t need to renege on all of his main election promise or break international law

[JohnL]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Calm Sephiroth, calm.

>

> Last time I looked the negotiations were still

> going on. The EU will come up with its usual

> fudge.

Boris will go No Deal just to say "I did it, I did it" whilst dancing around the fire he's caused.

[JohnL]

also from the Telegraph

"Boris Johnson has written a column for the Telegraph for the best part of three decades. No modern politician?s opinions are better known: readers have been treated to his views on skiing helmets, the African elephant, and the disappearance of the otter, among other more weighty subjects. But his columns have also become a source of controversy, with his opponents selectively quoting from them in an effort to discredit him...."

Everything he writes is a load of BS - that's what the above means.

A brief history of Boris BS

https://thepinprickcom.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/a-brief-history-of-bullshit-boris-johnsons-10-greatest-fibs/

[Sephiroth]

Nah. Johnson will claim whatever paltry deal he gets will be the eu caving in ?as per?

Britain will be diminished

Scotland will leave

Johnson will be sacked

Keano will still be keano

Speaking of this fudge. Care to try and define it keano? Give me 3 things (or more) that Botha sides will cave in on and why this will be a bet win for Britain. Go on. You get to play Fantasy Brexit

[keano77]

Thank you for your kind offer to let me play with you Sephiroth.

Not many parents let me play with their EU-indoctrinated offspring in case I de-programme them.

A letter from your parents saying it will be okay will do though.