• 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

Fair enough. Personally I find the idea of the whole country getting a kick up the ass quite refreshing!



Thats fine. I maintain there was a genuine threat that the EU didnt take seriously, but theres little point exhausting the topic.

Overal position? Kind of "meh" really.

On the spectrum of Remain <-----> Leave I guess Im more leave, but Im not especially passionate about it.

I am quite euro sceptic, I dont really like the idea of a european superstate, and I think thats obviously where things are heading.

That said, I love Europe. Its beautiful, and fascinating. Its an amazing place.

Ideally we end up as a close family friend rather than sibling. Close relations, trade and a co-operative sensibility would suit me fine. While not being bound by the growing EU state.

I actually voted remain. Mostly because I have no faith in our politicians to make the most of the situation, not because I was committed to staying. I think leaving could be a huge opportunity for the UK, but I also think if you can rely on someone to fudge it up it will be our government - whichever party is in power.

So now its a reality Im looking at it a bit more holistically. Short term will be rough. Longer term I really think it could lead to some REAL politics again. Which in turn can lead to real and meaningful change. Which is quite an exciting prospect.

It's interesting how many remain voters, myself included, who are actually ok with leaving, just with different caveats. The bit in bold is the key really -- a lot depends on just how rough the short term is, indeed how "short" that period is too. The long term is a bit vague, as we don't really know what's going to happen; as someone said "in the long term, we're all dead."

I think we are showing in this thread that it is possible to see both sides of Brexit, debate and disagree in a reasonable way. It's a shame the referendum could not have been conducted in a similar fashion, but with the media in this country that's practically impossible. Either BBC establishment toads or the likes of The Daily Mail going for hysterics.
 
I've chopped up your points apologies. I wouldn't make it as an academic. I agree with all of the above. A lot of excellent points.

The UK has had years of newspaper stories about the EU. The print media made a discovery, while articles about trade deals were dull, Jonny foreigner dictating the shape of our bananas, appealed to our natural human, mild xenophobia and were funny and entertaining. The real work of the EU is seriously boring (work that the UK will now have to do creating a big Customs Department, a Trade Department, Medical, Aviation Regulator etc and did you know the EU bureaucracy is the size of Birmingham council?) But all of these bodies help facilitate trade and international cooperation. ...yet as you say, reality is not always important in a democratic vote. Its all about perceptions and how you get your message across (Leave were illegally funded by Trumps money man helping to get a their desired message out). Maybe the reason Remainers feel so upset at UKIP publishing images of lines of Turkish immigrants or the cash for the NHS claim is a) that it worked and b) if you look into it there is only a tenuous link to the the real work of the EU. But that work is not interesting, and never will be. How could Cameron or whoever was up there present the grey EU successfully, when faced with clever, well researched, emotive images of immigrants and hospitals?



The irony is, as with you, the EU doesn't adversely affect many people in the UK. Leaving the EU might though. Another irony is that Remoaners have been labelled with project fear, but there is a fear or distrust among Leavers of the foreign 'other', The foreign EU controlling things. Yet the EU conducts its works in our language, has many Brits working in it from all sides of the political spectrum, and things like the EU working time directive or laws on polluting etc, probably do protect most people in the UK.



Of course we have control of borders! What you on about? Have you come back from the EU and walked off the plane without showing your passport? We control our borders. We also have an opt out from Shengen so people who get a visa to visit the EU, can't visit the UK without applying directly to the UK for another visa. Just shows that you are spot on. Its all about perception. Not reality.

I enjoy reading this thread about Brexit for people's varied opinions, even though I'm particularly bored of the whole saga. But this post has basically aired out how I view things. Thank you.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments about immigration and border control. The immigration 'crisis' is a media-created movement. We have some of the strictest controls on this globally. But let's take a picture of refugees and call them roosterroaches, for the masses....


Edit: I should add, the ardent 'Leavers' in this thread have made excellent points about their reasonings for voting, so my post isn't directed at you guys specifically.
 
Last edited:
The BBC is a disgrace. It used to stand for something, but now its just another tabloid.

As Gutterboy has been saying, if we dont like what the government are doing we can change things.

Personally I suspect it will take a while to work out the spin-career-politicians and get some proper politicians in their place.

I think as people recognise/want this the media should follow suit more.

If Brexit has done one thing its get people a lot more engaged/aware of politics, and that wont just disappear after march given the changes on the horizon.

Im no fan of Corbyn, but I think its interesting his more radical approached was pretty well received - I think its a sign post that people want politics with conviction and drive. They want a plan. They want someone who believes in what they are doing. Hopefully that success (if you call it that, he did fail to win!) will pave the way for more people to stand forward.
 
At the moment I subscribe to Scaras view on brinksmanship here.

I am convinced us leaving is as traumatic for them as it is for us. Common sense should find some middle ground.

If we end up paying a fee for trade access its win-win for me. We keep our financial passport and trading partners, they still get a boost to the budget.

We go our own independent way, whatever that looks like. They get to carry on doing what they are doing.

Its a case of who blinks first. And right now, our lot seem so bone headed Im pretty sure they will cut off their nose just to spite their face - which the EU really needs to recognise.

Hard Brexit is probably the worst result on both sides.

An amended Norway/EEA model as per the infographic above looks pretty reasonable though as @the dza says.

Don't get me wrong the EU don't want us to leave, it will be bad for them... they have said as much.

But it will be a lot worse for us, so in terms of you saying: "as traumatic for them as it is for us" well no, not even close.

They will also have the strategic aim of increasing cohesion within the EU27 the most obvious way to do this is make sure that Brexit is an unmittigatted disaster.

Guys we have just brought a knife to a gun fight... and it ain't going to be pretty.
 
Last edited:
IT WILL BE WORSE FOR US...

Will it?

Well I think it will, because of the combined size of the economies in question and the politically motivation that the eu27 will have in making sure it's anything but a success for us... like I said knife to a gun fight.

Why do you think different? considering that the financial cost to the EU27 will be paid for by the political benefits (I.e no one else leaving the EU because of what a disaster it will be for the uk.. closer union because again the uk are fudged without it.) Etc
 
I dont think you can pay for financial loses with political good will/cooperation.


As Ive stated above, I think we are a special case.

If Poland (as an example) were to leave they could well be "punished" and used as a cautionary tale.

We are much more of a big hitter though.

If Poland leave there is less of a financial burden on the EU budget. If we leave their budget takes an enormous hit which must have repercussions across all remaining countries.

And, as you speak of Political weight - how do you think those right wing Germans will take the added pressure? They are already making headway over there. Something like us leaving and even more burden falling on Germany could swing things their way in a big way. And what of the EU project then?

I really dont think its a simple as "make GB look bad and cement our project going forward".

It makes sense for them to take our money when all is said and done.

Im sure they could spin it as a benefit - they take our money but we have no say in their project. Just as we can spin it - we get the trade agreement only that we always wanted, and nobody gets to judge our bananas :eek:

And, on the basis we come out of Brexit with a trade deal with the EU - how worse off are we?

An amended EEA agreement, allowing us to then try and trade with less restrictions with the like of African nations while carrying on essentially "as is" with europe doesnt sound too bad to me at all.

As Ive mentioned a few times, theres seems to be a real binary logic to these discussions. As if trade will either be on or off. As if travel will either be on or off. Of course thats nonsense.
 
I dont think you can pay for financial loses with political good will/cooperation.


As Ive stated above, I think we are a special case.

If Poland (as an example) were to leave they could well be "punished" and used as a cautionary tale.

We are much more of a big hitter though.

If Poland leave there is less of a financial burden on the EU budget. If we leave their budget takes an enormous hit which must have repercussions across all remaining countries.

And, as you speak of Political weight - how do you think those right wing Germans will take the added pressure? They are already making headway over there. Something like us leaving and even more burden falling on Germany could swing things their way in a big way. And what of the EU project then?

I really dont think its a simple as "make GB look bad and cement our project going forward".

It makes sense for them to take our money when all is said and done.

Im sure they could spin it as a benefit - they take our money but we have no say in their project. Just as we can spin it - we get the trade agreement only that we always wanted, and nobody gets to judge our bananas :eek:

And, on the basis we come out of Brexit with a trade deal with the EU - how worse off are we?

An amended EEA agreement, allowing us to then try and trade with less restrictions with the like of African nations while carrying on essentially "as is" with europe doesnt sound too bad to me at all.

As Ive mentioned a few times, theres seems to be a real binary logic to these discussions. As if trade will either be on or off. As if travel will either be on or off. Of course thats nonsense.

The German far right will only do well out of Brexit if the uk does well "ie look at the uk they have thrown of the shackles of the eu and are thriving... let us do the same."

But if the Uk does badly, then even Germany's right will be hesitant about promoting a German leave campaign as the people will see what happened to the uk as a warning.

Additionally an argument can be made that Germany will actually financially benefit from a hard Brexit as a lot of the Financial industry will relocate to Frankfurt. And no one that can afford to buy Porsche BMW Mercedes will buy FORD instead because of us leaving the EU.
 
Thats a hard brexit, far from likely IMHO.

Im more curious how we supposedly lose out when maintaining a FTA as well... o_O

A FTA will have to be worse than what we have now... it is absolutely imperative for the Eu that it is otherwise what's the point of being in the union?

And that's an optimistic stance that says we can get them to agree to a FTA
 
I dont think you can pay for financial loses with political good will/cooperation.


As Ive stated above, I think we are a special case.

If Poland (as an example) were to leave they could well be "punished" and used as a cautionary tale.

We are much more of a big hitter though.
.

it appears to me that those negotiating the Brexit on our side thought the same but the EU's position has been transparent and remained unchanged throughout the negotiations while we are backing down.

Reading between the lines they believe its a greater cost to significantly change the rules of engagement compared to giving the UK greater access without the responsibilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
The German far right will only do well out of Brexit if the uk does well "ie look at the uk they have thrown of the shackles of the eu and are thriving... let us do the same."

But if the Uk does badly, then even Germany's right will be hesitant about promoting a German leave campaign as the people will see what happened to the uk as a warning.

Additionally an argument can be made that Germany will actually financially benefit from a hard Brexit as a lot of the Financial industry will relocate to Frankfurt. And no one that can afford to buy Porsche BMW Mercedes will buy FORD instead because of us leaving the EU.

The German far right will do well when the German people feel they are proping up the whole of europe, regardless of how we do.

They are a great industrial nation, superior to ours in that respect for sure, they could easily spin a "we wont rooster it up like the British" line - IF we were to fail anyway.

I think our performance post Brexit is irrelevant.

How badly has the population here responded to immigration? Add on top of that the entire union being help upon our shoulders and Im sure you can see just how easily a right wing party could prosper...

That said, I do agree Germany would benefit from taking the financial services. Though honestly thats back to the financial/political confluence which Im not sure correlates. Perceptions and all that...


A FTA will have to be worse than what we have now... it is absolutely imperative for the Eu that it is otherwise what's the point of being in the union?

And that's an optimistic stance that says we can get them to agree to a FTA

If we got an EEA agreement, how is it worse? Its the same deal is it not? And if not, is it drastically different? Enough to be punitive?

I feel like you are just arguing from a point of point scoring there. I mean, from the EU point of view. Many people have it ingrained that the EU must make us be seen to suffer for the sake of the union.

While I understand where that comes from, I dont really understand how that applies in arguments like this.

If we took an amended Norway deal, you assume it will be "worse than we have now". Would you say then that Norway have it worse than us? Do they suffer? Are they a cautionary tale to any country considering leaving the EU?

I dont think that stacks up personally. Though that article seems to think even a soft Brexit would be bad, which I find interesting in and of itself as I cant see why it would be and the article does nothing to explain its position.

In fact, its scare mongering based off of an economic modelling process. Something that has been shown to be unreliable! It does nothing to explain or evidence any of its points.

it appears to me that those negotiating the Brexit on our side thought the same but the EU's position has been transparent and remained unchanged throughout the negotiations while we are backing down.

Reading between the lines they believe its a greater cost to significantly change the rules of engagement compared to giving the UK greater access without the responsibilities.

I think we are still in the bluffing stage. The EU took an early far sided position and are holding their nerve.

They stand to lose a great deal, its not just us that could end up worse off.

And as Ive said, in todays politics of spin there are sensible positions that can be arrived at that can be spun as a win for either party.
 
I think we are still in the bluffing stage. The EU took an early far sided position and are holding their nerve.

They stand to lose a great deal, its not just us that could end up worse off.

And as Ive said, in todays politics of spin there are sensible positions that can be arrived at that can be spun as a win for either party.

Other than gut feel what makes you think they are bluffing? If we are we do not appear to be very good at it as we have been secretive on our demands and have backed down while they have been transparent on their red lines and have not moved.

I do not think its a far sided position for negotiation purposes, by all evidence it just seems to be their position - They have 4 pillars that are non negotiable, anything around this is up for discussion but these four pillars they have never given an indication they are movable on.

If we do not want to negotiate within this remit it will be a hard Brexit. I am not going to discuss if this is good or bad as everyone has / should already have an opinion on this but it certainly appears to be the situation.
 
A FTA will have to be worse than what we have now... it is absolutely imperative for the Eu that it is otherwise what's the point of being in the union?

And that's an optimistic stance that says we can get them to agree to a FTA

I should point out as well, unless you are GB, France or Germany, the point of being in the union is that you get out far more than you put in.

Which is the thing that separates us from all but two in the union. Its the thing that gives us weight.
 
Other than gut feel what makes you think they are bluffing? If we are we do not appear to be very good at it as we have been secretive on our demands and have backed down while they have been transparent on their red lines and have not moved.

I do not think its a far sided position for negotiation purposes, by all evidence it just seems to be their position - They have 4 pillars that are non negotiable, anything around this is up for discussion but these four pillars they have never given an indication they are movable on.

If we do not want to negotiate within this remit it will be a hard Brexit. I am not going to discuss if this is good or bad as everyone has / should already have an opinion on this but it certainly appears to be the situation.

I think they are bluffing because I think it hurts them tremendously if we go for a hard Brexit.

And I think pragmatism should win out in the end.

Outside of the 4 pillars what is there to negotiate? They have effectively taken a position at this point of not negotiating.

They know full well immigration is a major reason behind Brexit, by not even entertaining it on the table they arent entertaining us at all.

Which on the face of it looks like they want us gone and thats that. Do you think thats really the case?

I really dont. I think they are just waiting to see if we flinch. If we do, they win. They get essentially what they want - we are neutered, and they still have our trade, our money and european people still have the freedom to come and go as they choose.

And given the circus that is UK politics its not hard for them to look like they are in full control of proceedings.
 
Deadlock over UK's Brexit bill, says EU's Michel Barnier

The EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier says there has not been enough progress to move to the next stage of Brexit talks as the UK wants.

He said there was "new momentum" in the process but there was still "deadlock" over how much the UK pays when it leaves, which he called "disturbing".

Mr Davis said the UK still wanted to be given the green light for trade talks when EU leaders meet next week.

The pair were speaking after the fifth round of Brexit talks in Brussels.

Mr Barnier said: "I am not able in the current circumstances to propose next week to the European Council that we should start discussions on the future relationship."

The UK's Brexit Secretary David Davis urged EU leaders at the summit, on 19 and 20 October, to give Mr Barnier a mandate to start trade talks and to "build on the spirit of cooperation we now have".

He said there had been progress on the area of citizens' rights that had moved the two sides "even closer to a deal".

Mr Barnier said he hoped for "decisive progress" by the time of the December summit of the European Council.

He said Theresa May's announcement that Britain would honour financial commitments entered into as an EU member was "important".

But he said there had been no negotiations on the issue this week because the UK was not ready to spell out what it would pay.

"On this question we have reached a state of deadlock which is very disturbing for thousands of project promoters in Europe and it's disturbing also for taxpayers."

The so-called divorce bill covers things like the pensions of former EU staff in the UK, the cost of relocating EU agencies based in the UK and outstanding commitments to EU programmes. The UK has said it will meet its legal requirements and there has been speculation the bill could be anywhere between £50bn and £100bn, spread over a number of years.

BBC Europe Correspondent Kevin Connolly said the UK sees its total financial commitment "as its best negotiating card to be played somewhere near the end of the talks - the EU wants that card to be shown now at a point which is still relatively early in a two-year game".

The UK has also offered to keep paying into the EU budget during a proposed two-year transition period.

The EU had two other issues on which it would not make any "concessions", said Mr Barnier - citizens' rights and the Northern Ireland border.

On the status of the border, Mr Barnier said negotiations had "advanced" during this week's discussions.

But he said there was "more work to do in order to build a full picture of the challenges to North-South co-operation resulting from the UK - and therefore Northern Ireland - leaving the EU legal framework".

Asked about speculation that the UK could exit the EU in March 2019 without a trade deal, Mr Barnier said the EU was ready for "any eventualities" but added: "No deal will be a very bad deal."

Mr Davis said: "It's not what we seek, we want to see a good deal, but we are planning for everything."

Both men said progress had been made on citizens' rights, with Mr Davis saying there would be an agreement "soon" to ensure EU nationals in the UK would be able to enforce their rights through the UK courts.

He said EU citizens would still have to register with the UK authorities but the process would be streamlined to make it as simple and cheap as possible.

According to Mr Davis, the remaining sticking points include:

  • The right to bring in future family members
  • The right to "export a range of benefits"
  • To "continue to enjoy the recognition of professional qualifications"
  • To vote in local elections
  • To "leave for a prolonged period and yet continue to enjoy a right to remain or permanent right of residence on return"
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "I think it's quite shocking. We're now 15 months on since the referendum and the government seems to have reached deadlock at every stage."

He said "falling out" of the EU without a trade deal would threaten "a lot of jobs all across Britain".

Labour is calling for "emergency" talks between Mr Davis and the EU early next week, to try to break the deadlock ahead of the EU summit.

Earlier this week, European Council President Donald Tusk warned that if the current "slow pace" of negotiations continued the UK and the EU would "have to think about where we are heading".

He suggested that the green light to begin talks about a post-Brexit trade deal would not come until December at the earliest.

Last month Prime Minister Theresa May used a speech in Florence to set out proposals for a two-year transition period after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, in a bid to ease the deadlock.
 
Brexit talks doomed? Not so fast...
laurakuenssberg.png

Laura Kuenssberg
"Deadlock!". "L'impasse". "Quelle Horreur". You can hear the cries from across the Channel, and the cages of the City rattling in fear, as Michel Barnier's language took a dramatic turn at this morning's press conference, painting the Brexit talks as at a brick wall.

True, not even Brexit's biggest cheerleader could claim the discussions in Brussels have been going well. And there are visible frustrations on both sides.

But before claiming this morning's drama means the whole thing is doomed there are a few things worth remembering.

At the very start of this whole process, the hope was that in October, the EU would agree to move on to the next phase of the talks, to talk about our future relationship. But for months it has been clear that the chances of that were essentially zero.

It is not, therefore, a surprise to hear Mr Barnier saying right now, he doesn't feel able to press the button on phase 2, however much he enjoyed the drama of saying so today.

Second, behind the scenes, although it has been slow, there has been some progress in the talks but officials in some areas have reached the end of the line until their political masters give them permission to move on.

Forgive what comes next as nerdy detail, but it hopefully helps make this clear.

For example, the UK side is unwilling to move on to talking in more detail about the money, until the EU side is willing to talk about transition (the idea is, until we know what we might get in future, whether access to certain agencies, or EU programmes, how can we assess what we might be prepared to pay).

Mr Barnier is understood to have asked the EU 27 last Friday if he can start exploring transition for that reason, but Germany is resisting. So in this area, it is a possible, and would be a positive outcome for the UK, if at next week's political summit, Barnier asks the 27 for formal permission to talk transition.

It would not be as big a step as moving on to phase 2, but it is the next political decision that could ease the deadlock in this area. And there was a clue from Mr Barnier in his remarks this morning that this is what he will continue to pursue.

And third, if you had been writing the script of these negotiations before they even began, there's no question that at some point in the plot, there would have been a declaration of digging in, a cry that it's all impossible, it is almost the end of the road, all is lost!

Then, at the last moment in a late night summit, emerges the one side of A4 in the clammy hand of an official. On it, not many details, but a few lines that sketch out agreement, show some progress. Finally, the heroic politicians have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! (Leaving officials in a quiet way to work out the boring details for the next ten years)

That is not to say for a second that all is well or indeed to minimise the real and possibly very serious consequences of the talks genuinely breaking down.

And whether it is all pantomime or real politics, the remarks will of course stir the pot in Westminster too, likely adding to the drum beat among some Brexiteers that a swifter exit with no deal is better than this drawn out agony - and Remainers' deep anxiety and uncertainty for business about whether a deal can really be done.

But both on the UK side and the EU side, to translate this morning's remarks into certain Armageddon for the deal would be to misunderstand.
 
The BBC is a disgrace. It used to stand for something, but now its just another tabloid.

As Gutterboy has been saying, if we dont like what the government are doing we can change things.

Personally I suspect it will take a while to work out the spin-career-politicians and get some proper politicians in their place.

I think as people recognise/want this the media should follow suit more.

If Brexit has done one thing its get people a lot more engaged/aware of politics, and that wont just disappear after march given the changes on the horizon.

Im no fan of Corbyn, but I think its interesting his more radical approached was pretty well received - I think its a sign post that people want politics with conviction and drive. They want a plan. They want someone who believes in what they are doing. Hopefully that success (if you call it that, he did fail to win!) will pave the way for more people to stand forward.

The bit in bold is the most relevant ( imo), i have been trying to say for years that folks were getting bored and fed up with self serving leaders and partys. It started with UKIP winning a lot of local councils, and ended up with the likes of Corbyn winning the leadership of the labour party, and the leave vote in the Brexit election.

It has spread abroad with Trump and the change of voting in Germany and even the France election was close. Folks are sick to death of the status Quo here and abroad and it amazes me that so many fail to see that.
 
Last edited:
Back