Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[scaramanga]

What would you try and attain, that is different to the one template we have thus far - mays deal?

I would tell them that the financial settlement was off the table until trade talks. Our current offer is £0 which would be adjusted upwards based on trade deal concessions.

There would be no tariffs on any goods or services and in return, EU citizens would keep their rights to live and work in the UK. Those rights would last until, and be dependent upon, the future trade negotiations. The same goes for the UK sharing its wealth of anti-terrorism intelligence. Widely regarded as on of the world's best sources, this has huge value to the EU.

Finally we would categorically state (and simultaneously tell all hacks present) that we will not be placing a border in Ireland. We would loudly and very publicly implore the EU not to place a border there, stressing the damage it would do to the peace process. We'll see how serious they are about all being in it together then.

 

[scaramanga]

Like who for instance?

The Independent, the BBC, Remainder rebels who have lost the whip.

 

[Rorschach]

The Independent, the BBC, Remainder rebels who have lost the whip.

I never realised the BBC and the Independent operated out of number 10. Just so I am clear, are we calling anyone who doesn't want no deal a remainer now, even the guys who voted for a deal?

I'm going go the stay with the balance of probability on this one - the reports of zero progress in negotiations from the EU and Ireland, that leaks from number 10 that negotiations were a sham might actually be right, and indeed the evidence that there has been no progress with said negotiations.

 

[scaramanga]

I never realised the BBC and the Independent operated out of number 10. Just so I am clear, are we calling anyone who doesn't want no deal a remainer now, even the guys who voted for a deal?

I'm going go the stay with the balance of probability on this one - the reports of zero progress in negotiations from the EU and Ireland, that leaks from number 10 that negotiations were a sham might actually be right, and indeed the evidence that there has been no progress with said negotiations.

The leak from No10 was claimed in the Independent. There was no corroborating source and the person the quote was attributed to flat out denied it.

The EU obviously will want to undermine the government, we're currently the enemy in negotiations.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I would tell them that the financial settlement was off the table until trade talks. Our current offer is £0 which would be adjusted upwards based on trade deal concessions.

Okay. Interesting. Their response would (and has been) that before a trade negotiation can start, there needs to be a withdrawl agreement. Part of that agreement is to make good what we owe to cover pensions, and cover the current spending plans that we agreed to.

At this juncture, talks would presumably break down with you. Then what would you do? Threaten no deal? The EU doesn't want no deal, but it can handle it. The silver lining of it happening for them, is that it would make brexit and leaving look so fruitless. The French would love it, as they think they'll take quite a lot of our fiancial services (they have taken some already), and it might show up their own popularist movement. The UK has the most to lose from a no deal exit. ...and after leaving with no deal - we'd still need to get a trade deal with the EU. In which case, they'd say, pay up the money you owe first. So I am not sure your idea plays out too well. But I appreciate it. It's something.

There would be no tariffs on any goods or services and in return, EU citizens would keep their rights to live and work in the UK. Those rights would last until, and be dependent upon, the future trade negotiations. The same goes for the UK sharing its wealth of anti-terrorism intelligence. Widely regarded as on of the world's best sources, this has huge value to the EU.

Okay so your two main leverage points are EU peoples access to the UK - free movement bascially - and sharing intelligence. The first one is going to lose all popular support, as we know stopping free open door immigration was the most fundamental issue. Would people want you to sell out that key promise? Would parliment back it?

But...hold up...you havn't paid your bill. The EU won't give us free tarriffs. Moreover, even if we did negotiate such a setup, we'd have to be subject to European Court of Justice, as we'd still be in the single market. No tariffs = part of the single market. You're basically outlining a norway like setup where we don't control any regulation but have to observe it. What NayimFTHWL would call BINO. So all this to effectively stay in the EU but will less not more control? Great idea!

Finally we would categorically state (and simultaneously tell all hacks present) that we will not be placing a border in Ireland. We would loudly and very publicly implore the EU not to place a border there, stressing the damage it would do to the peace process. We'll see how serious they are about all being in it together then.

That would not actually be an issue for you, as above you've said we'd get no tariffs and have free movement. You only need a border to regulate these 2 things. Respect your ideas. But some serious issues there. You're basically backing a Corbyn brexit, and not being realistic that we'd have to pay something to achieve it.

 

[scaramanga]

Okay. Interesting. Their response would (and has been) that before a trade negotiation can start, there needs to be a withdrawl agreement. Part of that agreement is to make good what we owe to cover pensions, and cover the current spending plans that we agreed to.

At this juncture, talks would presumably break down with you. Then what would you do? Threaten no deal? The EU doesn't want no deal, but it can handle it. The silver lining of it happening for them, is that it would make brexit and leaving look so fruitless. The French would love it, as they think they'll take quite a lot of our fiancial services (they have taken some already), and it might show up their own popularist movement. The UK has the most to lose from a no deal exit. ...and after leaving with no deal - we'd still need to get a trade deal with the EU. In which case, they'd say, pay up the money you owe first. So I am not sure your idea plays out too well. But I appreciate it. It's something.



Okay so your two main leverage points are EU peoples access to the UK - free movement bascially - and sharing intelligence. The first one is going to lose all popular support, as we know stopping free open door immigration was the most fundamental issue. Would people want you to sell out that key promise? Would parliment back it?

But...hold up...you havn't paid your bill. The EU won't give us free tarriffs. Moreover, even if we did negotiate such a setup, we'd have to be subject to European Court of Justice, as we'd still be in the single market. No tariffs = part of the single market. You're basically outlining a norway like setup where we don't control any regulation but have to observe it. What NayimFTHWL would call BINO. So all this to effectively stay in the EU but will less not more control? Great idea!



That would not actually be an issue for you, as above you've said we'd get no tariffs and have free movement. You only need a border to regulate these 2 things. Respect your ideas. But some serious issues there. You're basically backing a Corbyn brexit, and not being realistic that we'd have to pay something to achieve it.

I think you've misunderstood where negotiations currently are.

All of the above is for the withdrawal agreement and the period during negotiation of a trade deal. It all gets replaced when we agree deals.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think you've misunderstood where negotiations currently are.

All of the above is for the withdrawal agreement and the period during negotiation of a trade deal. It all gets replaced when we agree deals.

Okay so you fail at step one, where you say we won't pay. The EU says pay what you owe or we can't give a withdrawal agreement. You say do one. Then what? No deal? See previous post.

So what kind of deal are you suggesting for post withdrawl agreement? One that keeps FoM, one that keeps free access to the single market?

Forget the flimflam whinging slogans that get trotted out - not respecting the will of the people - 17.4 millions people voted for it, why aren't you do 'it'. The devil is in the detail. No point bleating on about the great 'injustice' when none of you can put forward a viable leaving arrangement. It is startling how people who fervantly advocate for something, can not outline what it is - exactly in detail - that they want! "just get us out" More whinging nonsesne. How? And with what what kind of trading setup? Boris feeds off this ignorance. Rather than address the complexity, he feeds off binary rhetoric.

And this is the core issues "leave the EU" is a simple samantic statement. But the reality is not. It is complex and multifacted. If people really want to leave, they need to be able to understand what the implications are and put forward something that IS viable. Not dreams and wish lists.

 

[scaramanga]

Okay so you fail at step one, where you say we won't pay. The EU says pay what you owe or we can't give a withdrawal agreement. You say do one. Then what? No deal? See previous post.

So what kind of deal are you suggesting for post withdrawl agreement? One that keeps FoM, one that keeps free access to the single market?

Forget the flimflam whinging slogans that get trotted out - not respecting the will of the people - 17.4 millions people voted for it, why aren't you do 'it'. The devil is in the detail. No point bleating on about the great 'injustice' when none of you can put forward a viable leaving arrangement. It is startling how people who fervantly advocate for something, can not outline what it is - exactly in detail - that they want! "just get us out" More whinging nonsesne. How? And with what what kind of trading setup? Boris feeds off this ignorance. Rather than address the complexity, he feeds off binary rhetoric.

And this is the core issues "leave the EU" is a simple samantic statement. But the reality is not. It is complex and multifacted. If people really want to leave, they need to be able to understand what the implications are and put forward something that IS viable. Not dreams and wish lists.

We might not need to pay to negotiate - nobody has actually tried to find out.

If the EU won't negotiate then there's little point and we may as well just walk. If they're willing to negotiate then we can.

Long term, our best relationship will be one where we trade bit where only products and services sold to the EU have to conform. One where we can trade with whomever we like whenever and however we like.

I'd like to see FoM but I can understand most probably don't.

 

[Rorschach]

The leak from No10 was claimed in the Independent. There was no corroborating source and the person the quote was attributed to flat out denied it.

The EU obviously will want to undermine the government, we're currently the enemy in negotiations.

Fair enough. I'd deny it too, mind. Who was it?

 

[SpurMeUp]

We might not need to pay to negotiate - nobody has actually tried to find out.

If the EU won't negotiate then there's little point and we may as well just walk. If they're willing to negotiate then we can.

Long term, our best relationship will be one where we trade bit where only products and services sold to the EU have to conform. One where we can trade with whomever we like whenever and however we like.

I'd like to see FoM but I can understand most probably don't.

The bold bit is just not true. Not only have the EU commission been clear about it, it defies logic to suggest they wouldn't need paying. Would you let France leave without paying what it owed? With us then partly making up the shortfall? Don't be silly. Of course the EU have to ask for monies owed on spending we'd agreed to and pensions.

So from first advocating a soft brexit where we keep FoM and free trade, you've jumped to a Hard No Deal exit! Right! Really kick the UK in the nuts. Lose the service jobs that export to the EU. Lose the car manfacturers. Lose all the lamb farmers who exprot to the EU etc etc.

At a stroke we'd devalue our nation. We write down the UK economy instantly, and lose jobs. Why would you advocate or want that? Utter non-sense.

 

[Legohamster]

I would tell them that the financial settlement was off the table until trade talks. Our current offer is £0 which would be adjusted upwards based on trade deal concessions.

There would be no tariffs on any goods or services and in return, EU citizens would keep their rights to live and work in the UK. Those rights would last until, and be dependent upon, the future trade negotiations. The same goes for the UK sharing its wealth of anti-terrorism intelligence. Widely regarded as on of the world's best sources, this has huge value to the EU.

Finally we would categorically state (and simultaneously tell all hacks present) that we will not be placing a border in Ireland. We would loudly and very publicly implore the EU not to place a border there, stressing the damage it would do to the peace process. We'll see how serious they are about all being in it together then.

How will the rest of the world view us welching on payments owed?

It wouldn’t go down well being dragged through the courts whilst trying to do trade deals.

They would have course laugh at us with all those demands, we are in no position to demand anything sadly.

I’ll include the just walk part from the second post - are you willing to risk jobs, I guess a better question is are you willing to risk your job to achieve this?

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Times today suggests Corbyn might accept a GNU if he thinks that Johnson has a viable scheme for weaselling out of his Benn Act obligations. Can’t see it, however lovely an idea it is - Benn is watertight, Johnson is trumping and Milne/McCluskey/Murphy wouldn’t countenance the idea. Extension and a GE timed for early Jan (to fudge up students) looks pretty nailed on.

 

[scaramanga]

How will the rest of the world view us welching on payments owed?

It wouldn’t go down well being dragged through the courts whilst trying to do trade deals.

They would have course laugh at us with all those demands, we are in no position to demand anything sadly.

I’ll include the just walk part from the second post - are you willing to risk jobs, I guess a better question is are you willing to risk your job to achieve this?

There's no welching involved as we don't owe the money. This is just the cost of projects we won't be a part of that the EU wants us to contribute to.

I'd be happy to discuss that as a part of a trade deal, but not at this stage.

My job won't be at risk, my company will thrive outside the EU - like many others.

 

[scaramanga]

The bold bit is just not true. Not only have the EU commission been clear about it, it defies logic to suggest they wouldn't need paying.

Yet again, you're listening to the opening stance of an opponent and assuming it's their final one.

The fact that your own business still exists leads me to suspect you don't just immediately accept the opening stance of your opponent in any negotiation - why would you expect the UK to?

Would you let France leave without paying what it owed? With us then partly making up the shortfall? Don't be silly. Of course the EU have to ask for monies owed on spending we'd agreed to and pensions.

I wouldn't expect France to pay it because it's not owed.

If France continues membership, it should continue to pay. If it leaves then it has no continuing debt.

So from first advocating a soft brexit where we keep FoM and free trade, you've jumped to a Hard No Deal exit! Right! Really kick the UK in the nuts.

I still do advocate a soft (outside the CU) Brexit but a hard Brexit is significantly better than staying in the CU.

Lose the service jobs that export to the EU. Lose the car manfacturers. Lose all the lamb farmers who exprot to the EU etc etc.

The car manufacturers are going anyway - that's been repeatedly shown to you and you repeatedly ignore it.

Businesses have to adapt or die. Just like we can't subsidise coal mines, we can't sacrifice the entire country for a few businesses that have allowed themselves to become dependent on a supranational, socialist bureaucracy.

At a stroke we'd devalue our nation. We write down the UK economy instantly, and lose jobs. Why would you advocate or want that? Utter non-sense.

There might be a temporary downturn - it will certainly be a lot smaller than all the doom mongers have been suggesting. They've been flat out wrong on everything so far and I suspect that will continue.

Businesses will be fine in the long run - the good ones always are. You just have to adapt and keep moving. Businesses that can't do that won't survive anyway.

 

[scaramanga]

Fair enough. I'd deny it too, mind. Who was it?

It was attributed to Cummings but leaks don't really fit with his methods. He's renowned for only talking to hide directly involved in the issue and keeping everything verbal only.

I don't know what his plans are but I'm very sure we won't hear about them until absolutely necessary.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Yet again, you're listening to the opening stance of an opponent and assuming it's their final one.

The fact that your own business still exists leads me to suspect you don't just immediately accept the opening stance of your opponent in any negotiation - why would you expect the UK to?


I wouldn't expect France to pay it because it's not owed.

If France continues membership, it should continue to pay. If it leaves then it has no continuing debt.


I still do advocate a soft (outside the CU) Brexit but a hard Brexit is significantly better than staying in the CU.


The car manufacturers are going anyway - that's been repeatedly shown to you and you repeatedly ignore it.

Businesses have to adapt or die. Just like we can't subsidise coal mines, we can't sacrifice the entire country for a few businesses that have allowed themselves to become dependent on a supranational, socialist bureaucracy.



There might be a temporary downturn - it will certainly be a lot smaller than all the doom mongers have been suggesting. They've been flat out wrong on everything so far and I suspect that will continue.

Businesses will be fine in the long run - the good ones always are. You just have to adapt and keep moving. Businesses that can't do that won't survive anyway.

The pay off is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Its a one off settlement. The UK tax payers are paying 40billion a year in interest on government debt! Which is what only 20b less than we'd agreed to pay the EU once! So its not a massive deal. Sure we might be able to shave off a few billion but we'd need to pay something to cover pensions and spending that we'd agreed to. The idea that you'd let other nations leave and have the UK make up the shortfall is just silly.

"I still do advocate a soft (outside the CU) Brexit but a hard Brexit is significantly better than staying in the CU." Is this viable or a dreamland? Remind us what the diference between the single market and customs union is? It is so complex (and dull to most). Is Norway in the single market but not in the CU? You know they get emailed EU laws to observe but have no say or control over them?

No deal exit was never a viable option anyone advocated. Even Farrage or the ERG, and even today, almost all say they'd prefer a deal (yet few tell you how or what it would look like becuase their charade starts to fall away when you see the detail, credit to you for trying).

We still make a lot of cars in the UK:

The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy accounting for more than £82 billion turnover and £20.2 billion value added.

With some 186,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and in excess of 856,000 across the wider automotive industry, it accounts for 12.0% of total UK export of goods and invests £3.65 billion each year in automotive R&D.

More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers. https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/uk-automotive/


UK businesses can't be expected to adapt to increase costs of sourcing parts, and large 10%+ tariffs on sales into the EU market. You are an advocate of free trade!!! Yet you're argueing for anti-free trade measurers, that will affect our ability to trade with the largest most prosperous market on earth. Can you see the contradiction?

The cost to the exchequer of losing the £80b odd from car making and then paying out benifits to people who lose jobs is massive. Then add the farmers who export to the EU, fiancial jobs that go and the massive revenues that are generated from tax on them, and the "tempory downturn" could be pretty severe. Austerity for the UK, but permently. This is what has been outlined by all economists. Do we just ignore them?

Maybe you are right, and all the economists are wrong, and this pain would be "tempory". How long is that 5 years, 10?

This is the most important point however: what is it that would happen post brexit that would open up new oppotunity, that we don't have now, to make up for the losses and downturn from losing free trade with the EU????? What??

You're believing in a Telegraph daydream. The reality is somewhat different. No one wants to damage the UK economy and make us poorer, yet it seems like you do. The Tory who doesn't want free trade. The people who were sold brexit on immigration and think "I'll be alright me" without understanding that the EU is first and foremost a trading block. All somewhat deluded that this brexit charade will bring about anything of value to the UK.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

GHod damn I say GHod damn this brexit stuff is even effecting the french economy. https://news.sky.com/story/aigle-az...ces-second-biggest-airline-collapses-11821556

The second biggest airline in France has closed down after it failed to find new investors, leaving hundreds out of work.

Aigle Azur had about 1.9 million passengers in 2018, but was forced to file for bankruptcy earlier this month and cancelled all of its flights - leaving thousands of customers stranded.


It mainly operated flights between France and Algeria, but also served routes to China, Russia, Brazil and others in recent years.

Its biggest shareholder was Chinese conglomerate HNA Group, which had a 49% stake.

The closure of the airline was ordered by a French commercial court after no sustainable offers arrived - a ruling that has caused the loss of 1,150 jobs.

Aigle Azur is not the only budget airline to experience financial trouble recently. Another French company, the much smaller XL Airways, was forced to suspend ticket sales last week.

 

[Legohamster]

GHod damn I say GHod damn this brexit stuff is even effecting the french economy. https://news.sky.com/story/aigle-az...ces-second-biggest-airline-collapses-11821556

The second biggest airline in France has closed down after it failed to find new investors, leaving hundreds out of work.

Aigle Azur had about 1.9 million passengers in 2018, but was forced to file for bankruptcy earlier this month and cancelled all of its flights - leaving thousands of customers stranded.


It mainly operated flights between France and Algeria, but also served routes to China, Russia, Brazil and others in recent years.

Its biggest shareholder was Chinese conglomerate HNA Group, which had a 49% stake.

The closure of the airline was ordered by a French commercial court after no sustainable offers arrived - a ruling that has caused the loss of 1,150 jobs.

Aigle Azur is not the only budget airline to experience financial trouble recently. Another French company, the much smaller XL Airways, was forced to suspend ticket sales last week.

There are too many airlines, it was always going to happen

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

There are too many airlines, it was always going to happen

Nope

Nah


No

Is all brexits fault.

 

[Legohamster]

Nope

Nah


No

Is all brexits fault.

Brexit has played a part, certainly.

But I can’t get behind the crying it’s all down to it