• 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

Gutter Boy said:
Because we're the 5th biggest economy in the world, and they'd prefer we stayed near their orbit, rather than moving back to the Anglosphere
Click to expand...
This isn't discussing possibilities pre negotiating, we know how that argument panned out... It wasn't successful.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
"your side" = like I said - the problem is fundamental here.

Why the need for sides? Why not simple, pragmatic, discussion about what works best for all.

Why winners and losers? Why petty and spiteful? Why points scoring?
Click to expand...

I really don't know where to go with this... It has just become circular.

Either you just don't get it, or your are on a wind up.

If you are interested in understanding and not just on a wind up.

Go back to my analogy with the Truck, the Fiesta and the red lines. It actually does sum up the UK EU negotiations quite well.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Even if they did offer Ukraine would we sign up for ECJ jurisdiction and regulatory alignment?


“In the future the EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the United Kingdom. The agreement we reach must therefore respect the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders, that means the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK must end.
Click to expand...

That's Chequers. Common rulebook and all that brick

I'm resigned that's the best we can hope for until Irish reunification allows Brexit 2.0
 
It's TPP 11, plus the US when they get a less bat-brick president. It's in the White Paper that we will start accession as soon as we are out of the EU in March.
 
Precisely why we need to fix neo-liberalism. 100% food and fuel security, and moving production as close as possible to the point of consumption, should be some of the first aims of the GBBO
 
Gutter Boy said:
Precisely why we need to fix neo-liberalism. 400% food and fuel security, and moving production as close as possible to the point of consumption, should be some of the first aims of the GBBO
Click to expand...

You don’t just want to fix neo-liberalism then, you’re going to have to reverse all those terrible innovations that started when some people discovered they were better at knapping flint and others had a knack for hunting, overcomplicating societies and splitting consumption from production.
 
DTA said:
I really don't know where to go with this... It has just become circular.

Either you just don't get it, or your are on a wind up.

If you are interested in understanding and not just on a wind up.

Go back to my analogy with the Truck, the Fiesta and the red lines. It actually does sum up the UK EU negotiations quite well.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly, you see it as a competition - I see no reason why it should be.

As I said previously, its fundamental.

There is no good reason why it needs to be about winners and losers, and why it shouldnt be about a fair compromise so everybody does well.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
You don’t just want to fix neo-liberalism then, you’re going to have to reverse all those terrible innovations that started when some people discovered they were better at knapping flint and others had a knack for hunting, overcomplicating societies and splitting consumption from production.
Click to expand...
Knapping. Just learned a new word. ShipOfThesaurusus
 
r-u-s-x said:
I know you didn't bring up the Exit fee I added that for information

I don't agree with your conclusions that they bullied us or are being nasty so happy to support their stance.

They came into the negotiations cards on the table saying we need X / Y / Z or we can not do a deal, these are our principles and we will not move on these - Everything else is on the table. At that point we didn't walk away we went into the negotiations, we didn't provide any insight on what we wanted in a similar manner (other than the best deal / have our cake and eat it) because apparently this would weaken our hand and we started to negotiate.

At the outset we could have walked away until they changed their position or enter the negotiations knowing this is the case, we chose the latter. 2 years later The EU seem to have been consistent and flexible within these principles - this seems a decent way to negotiate in my opinion.

This was predicted at the outset that we didn't hold anything to make them change their stance and has proven to be the case (or the Tories are incompetent which adds up to the same thing)

I am not sure why there is anger towards the EU for sticking to something they said they would not change at the outset, once we entered the negotiation table we implicitly accepted their position. Our options were walk away, provide the EU with our own requirements and give them the option to walk away or negotiate within these restrictions.

All IMO.
Click to expand...

The EU set boundaries from the outset they knew we would not like. Boundaries they have relaxed upon in the past. Immediately, this is an aggrivating move, is it not?

They then dragged the divorce bill out, refusing to talk trade at all until they had lined their pockets. Our weak government allowed it, and its another aggrivating move.

The intention is clear. And parroted here plenty - winning and losing. "beating" us.

I do agree with you - we should have walked away. Damn our weak willed leadership.

I am not angry with the EU, I am disappointed, and confused.

I think their approach betrays their intent, intent many anti EU posters get shot down for expressing.

Im still sat here wondering why it even needs to be conducted like that. So far, they set out their stall knowing it doesnt work for us, and then sat and smiled. This is not an intent to negotiate or compromise, which is the essence of any fair agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back