• 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)

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
They have been absolute all the way through. Their way or the high way. Deadline is deadline. Hard Brexit is a possibility if it comes to it.

They have used this to apply massive pressure througout to get us to cave to a deal that suits them.

Then it came to it. Have we left yet?

Would suggest something gave a bit...


They have absolutely pulled back. However, because we have a circus rather than a government, that rather fortuitously means that delay they offer while trying to maintain an air of strength is actually playing into their hands.

The more delay there is the more chance there is of our government completely undoing Brexit and cancelling it or going for the BINOest of BINO.
Click to expand...

This is some deja vu conversation.

I remember telling you how negotiations would turn out, and I was pretty much spot on. Where as you insisted we would get a great deal because they need us.

At the risk of repeating myself, hardball is off the table as soon as we triggered Art50.

Yes, the EU don't want no deal Brexit' because it will be damaging to them. But it will be a lot worse for us. A lot, lot worse. And we don't want it either.
 
DTA said:
This is some deja vu conversation.

I remember telling you how negotiations would turn out, and I was pretty much spot on. Where as you insisted we would get a great deal because they need us.

At the risk of repeating myself, hardball is off the table as soon as we triggered Art50.

Yes, the EU don't want no deal Brexit' because it will be damaging to them. But it will be a lot worse for us. A lot, lot worse. And we don't want it either.
Click to expand...

Thats because it is a deja vu situation.

I remember telling you not that we WOULD get a great deal, but that by rights we SHOULD, which is a very different thing.

We have enough to offer that we SHOULD be able to get a good deal. As I said all along - one that suits all.

The thing is, remainers refuse to see it. Refuse to credit the UK. And refuse to allow the idea that the EU are as to blame as we are for the situation to this point. In both their conduct up to and including meetings with Cameron, and since.

Yes, you did tell me negotiations would go this way. Just as I told you - it neednt be that way.

The EU dont need to "win", to defeat us, or put us in their pocket. They could very simply respect a different point of view and agree a trade deal that means they still get to make billions off of us every year.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Thats because it is a deja vu situation.

I remember telling you not that we WOULD get a great deal, but that by rights we SHOULD, which is a very different thing.

We have enough to offer that we SHOULD be able to get a good deal. As I said all along - one that suits all.

The thing is, remainers refuse to see it. Refuse to credit the UK. And refuse to allow the idea that the EU are as to blame as we are for the situation to this point. In both their conduct up to and including meetings with Cameron, and since.

Yes, you did tell me negotiations would go this way. Just as I told you - it neednt be that way.

The EU dont need to "win", to defeat us, or put us in their pocket. They could very simply respect a different point of view and agree a trade deal that means they still get to make billions off of us every year.
Click to expand...

When negotiating your aim is to get the best deal for yourself and those you represent. Without screwing the other party so much that it makes the deal unsustainable.

EU represent EU27. They done there job, they also showed some flexibility.

Mays deal is an example of some flexibility by the EU (considering Her red lines). My problem with it is twofold:

1. I don't agree with her red lines
2. that it leaves us worse off than being in the EU. That's why considering what was promised pre 2016 refendum a confirmatory vote is only fair.

If the public knowing what the deal will be, vote for it. Then so be it, and so will almost all that want to remain.
 
DTA said:
When negotiating your aim is to get the best deal for yourself and those you represent. Without screwing the other party so much that it makes the deal unsustainable.

EU represent EU27. They done there job, they also showed some flexibility.

Mays deal is an example of some flexibility by the EU (considering Her red lines). My problem with it is twofold:

1. I don't agree with her red lines
2. that it leaves us worse off than being in the EU. That's why considering what was promised pre 2016 refendum a confirmatory vote is only fair.

If the public knowing what the deal will be, vote for it. Then so be it, and so will almost all that want to remain.
Click to expand...

If you really think about it, there is actually no reason at all for the EU to not do a free trade deal with us (or as near as) and treat us like any other third party. None at all.

There is the obvious "Well we cant have the UK on a better deal than any EU party or theyll all be at it" but when you actually break it down, it doesnt stack up. Its distracting noise, not a valid reason.

There is no reason for the EU to want to impose their 4 pillars on us. There is no reason for them to not want to trade with a wealthy nation/large economy.

The aim of their negotiation has always been punitive. Not in the spirit of what is best for all.

Were we not already in the EU. Were we an entirely independent nation, approaching them to talk trade - do you think that negotiations would have gone the way they have?

And what exactly is Mays deal? So far as I can see (and I do stand to be corrected) its a withdrawal agreement with a promise to get along nicely afterwards. One that keeps us locked in the EU for the forseeable and paying them many billions in divorce, and then what?

Its all woolly nonsense isnt it? Do you think they will ever get around to being flexible? To leaving anything on the table in our favour? I certainly dont. And if not for Mays red lines that "deal" would have been much worse!

Why the need for any of that? Instead of, simply - "fine, youre out of the club, you lose all those wonderful benefits of being a united states, and we will simply trade and thats it"?
 
We took all our bargaining chips of the table early in the negotiations thats why it failed. That and we have the worst negotiator to ever live in charge
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Extension after extension.

Previously it was a hard line "we'll let you hang yourselves", now its come to it they are backing off real fast to try and keep things in their favour.

suddenly their resolve has waned because they didnt expect us to actually do it, the bluff has been called.
Click to expand...
they have said at the outset that they want us to stay or have a trade deal, the worst case was breaking the four pillars and then no deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
If you really think about it, there is actually no reason at all for the EU to not do a free trade deal with us (or as near as) and treat us like any other third party. None at all.

There is the obvious "Well we cant have the UK on a better deal than any EU party or theyll all be at it" but when you actually break it down, it doesnt stack up. Its distracting noise, not a valid reason.

There is no reason for the EU to want to impose their 4 pillars on us. There is no reason for them to not want to trade with a wealthy nation/large economy.

The aim of their negotiation has always been punitive. Not in the spirit of what is best for all.

Were we not already in the EU. Were we an entirely independent nation, approaching them to talk trade - do you think that negotiations would have gone the way they have?

And what exactly is Mays deal? So far as I can see (and I do stand to be corrected) its a withdrawal agreement with a promise to get along nicely afterwards. One that keeps us locked in the EU for the forseeable and paying them many billions in divorce, and then what?

Its all woolly nonsense isnt it? Do you think they will ever get around to being flexible? To leaving anything on the table in our favour? I certainly dont. And if not for Mays red lines that "deal" would have been much worse!

Why the need for any of that? Instead of, simply - "fine, youre out of the club, you lose all those wonderful benefits of being a united states, and we will simply trade and thats it"?
Click to expand...

This really is cake and eat it territory here, delusions of grandeur.

So the UK can have red lines, but the bigger more affluent more powerful negotiating partner shouldn't?

Absolutely crazy perspective.
 
Gutter Boy said:
We should never have agreed to the EU's sequencing. Just said we were leaving on 31/3/19 on WTO, but we'd prefer to negotiate an FTA in the interim period.
Click to expand...

Then we would have left on WTO terms. Which would have been an omighty Shi T show.

And gone back begging to them within months to rejoin.

Triggering Art50 is where we lost any advantage.
 
r-u-s-x said:
they have said at the outset that they want us to stay or have a trade deal, the worst case was breaking the four pillars and then no deal.
Click to expand...

They dictated terms throughout, specifically setting them against the red lines May presented (which, lets be fair, are a reasonable reflection of WHY we voted out for many). Then made May look like the unreasonable one for saying "this isnt going to work for us".

There is no reason for them to insist on the four pillars, we would be out of the union. But they did anyway...

I really dont like defending May but she got shafted around that. I cant fathom why shes the worlds biggest clam for trying to reflect the vote but the EU are saintly for drawing lines in the sand that directly contradict that.


DTA said:
This really is cake and eat it territory here, delusions of grandeur.

So the UK can have red lines, but the bigger more affluent more powerful negotiating partner shouldn't?

Absolutely crazy perspective.
Click to expand...

Its not at all. And that really is the point. People are so predisposed to picking sides, and obviously siding with the EU, that they lose perspective.

What is crazy about wanting only a trade deal? Really think about it, be honest with yourself - how is that possibly crazy?

Why is it crazy to not want EU pillars imposed upon us? Canada didnt, are they crazy?

Its not cake and eat it at all. Its straightforward.

We do not want ever closer union. We do not want free movement of people, a single currency, EU oversight of our budgets, EU control on taxation. We do not want to be fully integrated at all.

Whether YOU want it or not, you have to accept this is not an unreasonable position. It is perfectly valid.

We want none of those things, but we do want to trade. In a way that is mutually beneficial.

Yeah... mental.

As I say - approach it as a third party (which we would be). We say "Hey EU, lets do a trade agreement and have lots of profitable business together"

Do you think it reasonable for them to reply "Great, lets talk" ? Or "Great, but we'll need to control your borders, your own trade deals, and have a say in your budgets etc... And we wont even talk to you until you agree a fee"

Cake an eat it - this one cracks me up and has done since the start. Just because the UK might want different things than the EU nations, where does this cake and eat it stuff come from? Its just another mental twist to validate their punitive approach to us.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
They dictated terms throughout, specifically setting them against the red lines May presented (which, lets be fair, are a reasonable reflection of WHY we voted out for many). Then made May look like the unreasonable one for saying "this isnt going to work for us".

There is no reason for them to insist on the four pillars, we would be out of the union. But they did anyway...

I really dont like defending May but she got shafted around that. I cant fathom why shes the worlds biggest clam for trying to reflect the vote but the EU are saintly for drawing lines in the sand that directly contradict that.




Its not at all. And that really is the point. People are so predisposed to picking sides, and obviously siding with the EU, that they lose perspective.

What is crazy about wanting only a trade deal? Really think about it, be honest with yourself - how is that possibly crazy?

Why is it crazy to not want EU pillars imposed upon us? Canada didnt, are they crazy?

Its not cake and eat it at all. Its straightforward.

We do not want ever closer union. We do not want free movement of people, a single currency, EU oversight of our budgets, EU control on taxation. We do not want to be fully integrated at all.

Whether YOU want it or not, you have to accept this is not an unreasonable position. It is perfectly valid.

We want none of those things, but we do want to trade. In a way that is mutually beneficial.

Yeah... mental.

As I say - approach it as a third party (which we would be). We say "Hey EU, lets do a trade agreement and have lots of profitable business together"

Do you think it reasonable for them to reply "Great, lets talk" ? Or "Great, but we'll need to control your borders, your own trade deals, and have a say in your budgets etc... And we wont even talk to you until you agree a fee"

Cake an eat it - this one cracks me up and has done since the start. Just because the UK might want different things than the EU nations, where does this cake and eat it stuff come from? Its just another mental twist to validate their punitive approach to us.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not on the side of the EU I'm on the side of the UK but also of reality.

I don't know how closely you followed the negotiations but they offered us the Canada deal... In fact they suggested it. We turned that down.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
They dictated terms throughout, specifically setting them against the red lines May presented (which, lets be fair, are a reasonable reflection of WHY we voted out for many). Then made May look like the unreasonable one for saying "this isnt going to work for us".

There is no reason for them to insist on the four pillars, we would be out of the union. But they did anyway...

I really dont like defending May but she got shafted around that. I cant fathom why shes the worlds biggest clam for trying to reflect the vote but the EU are saintly for drawing lines in the sand that directly contradict that.




Its not at all. And that really is the point. People are so predisposed to picking sides, and obviously siding with the EU, that they lose perspective.

What is crazy about wanting only a trade deal? Really think about it, be honest with yourself - how is that possibly crazy?

Why is it crazy to not want EU pillars imposed upon us? Canada didnt, are they crazy?

Its not cake and eat it at all. Its straightforward.

We do not want ever closer union. We do not want free movement of people, a single currency, EU oversight of our budgets, EU control on taxation. We do not want to be fully integrated at all.

Whether YOU want it or not, you have to accept this is not an unreasonable position. It is perfectly valid.

We want none of those things, but we do want to trade. In a way that is mutually beneficial.

Yeah... mental.

As I say - approach it as a third party (which we would be). We say "Hey EU, lets do a trade agreement and have lots of profitable business together"

Do you think it reasonable for them to reply "Great, lets talk" ? Or "Great, but we'll need to control your borders, your own trade deals, and have a say in your budgets etc... And we wont even talk to you until you agree a fee"

Cake an eat it - this one cracks me up and has done since the start. Just because the UK might want different things than the EU nations, where does this cake and eat it stuff come from? Its just another mental twist to validate their punitive approach to us.
Click to expand...
You can argue against the four pillars but the EU see them as non negotiable as is their right.

They never had hard lines on extending was my point, ideally we would stay in and worse case was no deal... They have been consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
DTA said:
I'm actually not on the side of the EU I'm on the side of the UK but also of reality.

I don't know how closely you followed the negotiations but they offered us the Canada deal... In fact they suggested it. We turned that down.
Click to expand...

As with everything else, they offered something unsuitable. Because they wanted to punish us. Ultimately they wanted us in their pocket, and never offered the respect of seeing us as a fair partner.

Ask yourself, where did the Canada deal come from? It wasnt an off the shelf option when it came along. Neither was the one with Korea. Or Norway.

But when it comes to us, only off the shelf is an option... hmmm...


The reality, as you put it, has so far been whatever the EU says it is. Hows that for cake and eat it?
 
r-u-s-x said:
You can argue against the four pillars but the EU see them as non negotiable as is their right.

They never had hard lines on extending was my point, ideally we would stay in and worse case was no deal... They have been consistent.
Click to expand...

The werent non negotiable with Canada.

And as far as extending, of course they didnt declare absolutes - but the messaging was clear and has clearly changed.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The werent non negotiable with Canada.

And as far as extending, of course they didnt declare absolutes - but the messaging was clear and has clearly changed.
Click to expand...
What one did they break for Canada ? Seriously I don't think they have broken them.

The message isn't changed they don't want to extend but its preferable to no deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
r-u-s-x said:
What one did they break for Canada ? Seriously I don't think they have broken them.

The message isn't changed they don't want to extend but its preferable to no deal.
Click to expand...

I dont see free movement on people to Canada being a thing. Rather just an expedited visa situation for people in certain sectors, to allow for trade.

The message has very much been one of ramping up pressure on the deadline to try and effect our parliamentary process, to force things their way at that point. Since that passed its changed from "deadline day youre fudged" to "Lets just have a vague ongoing extension, maybe a year?"

Id suggest thats a pretty obvious change. You only need to watch Tusk and Barnier and their briefings to see it.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
As with everything else, they offered something unsuitable. Because they wanted to punish us. Ultimately they wanted us in their pocket, and never offered the respect of seeing us as a fair partner.

Ask yourself, where did the Canada deal come from? It wasnt an off the shelf option when it came along. Neither was the one with Korea. Or Norway.

But when it comes to us, only off the shelf is an option... hmmm...


The reality, as you put it, has so far been whatever the EU says it is. Hows that for cake and eat it?
Click to expand...

Um... You mentioned the Canada deal.

We have a bespoke deal or rather withdrawal agreement, they literally did what you are claiming they didn't.

Again why is it ok for the UK to have red lines but the EU (which is much bigger) can't have red lines? Madness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back