• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

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

scaramanga said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's a weird story. Cummings was the supposed leaker about the sham negotiations?
What am I'm missing here?
 
Rorschach said:
That's a weird story. Cummings was the supposed leaker about the sham negotiations?
What am I'm missing here?
Click to expand...
The EU we making claims that negotiations weren't going anywhere (as is their duty in trying to get the best deal they can). The Independent and the BBC quickly followed that with stories based on unattributed and unconfirmed quotes that Cummings had claimed that we were not negotiating at all or something similar - something since shown to be untrue as the EU have responded to negotiations.
 
scaramanga said:
The EU we making claims that negotiations weren't going anywhere (as is their duty in trying to get the best deal they can). The Independent and the BBC quickly followed that with stories based on unattributed and unconfirmed quotes that Cummings had claimed that we were not negotiating at all or something similar - something since shown to be untrue as the EU have responded to negotiations.
Click to expand...
Got it. Negotiations are going well and a new deal will be revealed shortly.
 
Rorschach said:
Got it. Negotiations are going well and a new deal will be revealed shortly.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit!

Maybe we will get a re-hashed May deal. Boris has staked his leadership on finding a way to get out end of next month. Whether MPs would take MayBrexitV2 t is another matter.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I love how people are actually buying the whole Cummings 'evil counsellor' charade. It's a diversionary role as old as time. Mandleson and alistair Campbell played it in the Blair years.
Click to expand...
I met Alistair Campbell at a dinner recently. Much less of a clam than I expected.

His views on Corbyn are quite amusing and not for repeating.
 
SpurMeUp said:
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.
Click to expand...
The EU appears to be wed to some ridiculous socialist ideal that spending is absolute and income adjustable to suit. In case we didn't have enough reason to be leaving, this just piles on.

The reality of how the world actually works is that spending must be adjusted to match income. If the EU has made promises on spending past its ability to generate income into the future that's its own fault and nobody else's. It's their pile of brick, they can sit in it.

SpurMeUp said:
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.
Click to expand...
The UK doesn't want no deal but it can live with it.

Obviously if the EU refuses to deal, the only answer is to walk. Walking is significantly better than giving them everything.


SpurMeUp said:
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?
Click to expand...
Parliament would have to back it because we're out of time otherwise.

SpurMeUp said:
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!
Click to expand...
Of course we won't be in the single market - that's the whole point of leaving this preposterous charade. I'm outlining no tariffs during the negotiation period - what we end up with will be somewhere between there and WTO levels and I'm comfortable anywhere in that range.

I would absolutely not accept any deal that would allow the EU control over products and services sold internally or to RoW.


SpurMeUp said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not a Corbyn Brexit because we're not in the CU - the EU's method of ensuring countries can't compete against each other.

My Brexit involves very low tax, very low regulation, deals with RoW that make our import prices significantly cheaper than the EU and undercutting all their members despite their protectionist tariffs.
 
scaramanga said:
The EU appears to be wed to some ridiculous socialist ideal that spending is absolute and income adjustable to suit. In case we didn't have enough reason to be leaving, this just piles on.

The reality of how the world actually works is that spending must be adjusted to match income. If the EU has made promises on spending past its ability to generate income into the future that's its own fault and nobody else's. It's their pile of brick, they can sit in it.
Click to expand...

Every developed nation has spending budgets. Not sure what you're on about. As mentioned before the payoff is probably the least important variable, and we'd need to pay it to move forward with trade negotiations. Don't pay (this relatively small one-off sum) and we shoot ourselves in the foot because we can't get a crucial FTA with the EU.


scaramanga said:
The UK doesn't want no deal but it can live with it.

Obviously if the EU refuses to deal, the only answer is to walk. Walking is significantly better than giving them everything.
Click to expand...

Which contradicts with your next point:


scaramanga said:
Parliament would have to back it because we're out of time otherwise.
Click to expand...



scaramanga said:
Of course we won't be in the single market - that's the whole point of leaving this preposterous charade. I'm outlining no tariffs during the negotiation period - what we end up with will be somewhere between there and WTO levels and I'm comfortable anywhere in that range.

I would absolutely not accept any deal that would allow the EU control over products and services sold internally or to RoW.
Click to expand...

So you are not really a Conserverative. Someone who appreciates the worth of free trade? Tariffs on our goods sold to a market of 500m people, right next door to us, can not be a good thing. It harms our exporters - cars, food, services. You're just downgrading the UK economy. Weird.


scaramanga said:
It's not a Corbyn Brexit because we're not in the CU - the EU's method of ensuring countries can't compete against each other.

My Brexit involves very low tax, very low regulation, deals with RoW that make our import prices significantly cheaper than the EU and undercutting all their members despite their protectionist tariffs.
Click to expand...

If we try to undercut the EU, we won't get a good trade deal with the EU. They will not let us undercut them, while sorting us out with free trade. That is obvious isn't it? And the Gravity model of trade holds true. All nations trade disproportionately with those closer to them. We trade most with the EU. Your rationale is so out of kilter. It's the Donald Trump quacks and pseudoscience outlook. The smart people - all academics, all research groups, the government analysists, our nationa bank etc etc - see the reality. But you think they are wrong, and prefer to follow the likes of Boris, and Trump. o_O
 
scaramanga said:
I met Alistair Campbell at a dinner recently. Much less of a clam than I expected.

His views on Corbyn are quite amusing and not for repeating.
Click to expand...

That's the point. They are deliberately cast in that 'malevolent influence' role, to keep the leader aloof from the bad cop stuff. It also gives the leader a second innings, once that person has served as fall guy for the first big crisis.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Every developed nation has spending budgets. Not sure what you're on about. As mentioned before the payoff is probably the least important variable, and we'd need to pay it to move forward with trade negotiations. Don't pay (this relatively small one-off sum) and we shoot ourselves in the foot because we can't get a crucial FTA with the EU.
Click to expand...
I fully propose to pay it, you've completely misunderstood.

I do not, however, propose to pay it just to get the EU around the table to discuss the withdrawal agreement. It will be discussed as a part of, and depend upon, the terms of the free trade agreement made later.

SpurMeUp said:
Which contradicts with your next point:
Click to expand...
You'll have to explain your thinking there. With a matter of only a few days before Oct 31st, parliament doesn't have a lot of choice. There are plenty of ways around the surrender bill, that's why the UK's opponents were all so keen to have parliament back again.


SpurMeUp said:
So you are not really a Conserverative. Someone who appreciates the worth of free trade? Tariffs on our goods sold to a market of 500m people, right next door to us, can not be a good thing. It harms our exporters - cars, food, services. You're just downgrading the UK economy. Weird.
Click to expand...
I'm done trying to explain this so I'll refer you to my point about Venezuela a few pages back. Trade within a tariff barrier isn't free trade - it's protectionism.

SpurMeUp said:
If we try to undercut the EU, we won't get a good trade deal with the EU. They will not let us undercut them, while sorting us out with free trade. That is obvious isn't it? And the Gravity model of trade holds true. All nations trade disproportionately with those closer to them. We trade most with the EU. Your rationale is so out of kilter. It's the Donald Trump quacks and pseudoscience outlook. The smart people - all academics, all research groups, the government analysists, our nationa bank etc etc - see the reality. But you think they are wrong, and prefer to follow the likes of Boris, and Trump. o_O
Click to expand...
The undercutting point was in reference to WTO rules being applied.

The idea of a nation on their doorstep, able to show up their socialist bureaucracy for all that is wrong with it is the ultimate threat. A high regulation, high cost model like the EU can only work in a vacuum without credible threats of undercutting - they will not be able to continue their socialist experiment with a low tax, low regulation economy on their doorstep.
 
Rorschach said:
What did he think of you?
Click to expand...
He assumed my education was far better than it really was due to my being just about the only other person present able to tie a real bow tie and wear a dinner suit properly.

He also thinks that Spurs are fudged now Burnley have our jinx off their backs (no, I didn't know they thought that either - apparently we always beat them).
 
Gutter Boy said:
That's the point. They are deliberately cast in that 'malevolent influence' role, to keep the leader aloof from the bad cop stuff. It also gives the leader a second innings, once that person has served as fall guy for the first big crisis.
Click to expand...

Not to disagree with your point, but if that is the intent it doesn't seem to be working all that well in Johnson's case!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back