Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[scotty]

You need to lay off the disaster porn pal.

 

That's priceless, given the non-stop deluge of impending financial catastrophe peddled as fact by yourself and the other remain voters.

Edited 15 October, 2017 by scotty

[shurlock]

That's priceless, given the non-stop deluge of impending financial catastrophe peddled as fact by yourself and the other remain voters.

 

Show me where I’ve been peddling impending financial catastrophe? I’ve been as critical as anyone of outlandish forecasts. You might want to get your facts straight before talking s**t.

[shurlock]

Sorry, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean?

 

Germany not too different from the turn of the last century? The EU wanting to destroy the UK? Why don’t you think with your brain instead of your emotions. Better still why don’t you take ownership for your decision instead of whining and covering your ears. Read some history while you’re at it. Cheap xenophobia only makes you look even more of an unhinged zealot.

 

Perhaps you shouldn’t have been played for a fool and accepted all the fairytales you were told: how the UK held all the cards in negotiations; how the UK would enjoy the same level of access to the single market inside the EU as outside it; how an EU trade deal would be the easiest to get in human history; how the UK was going to sow up major trade deals around the world within 12-24 months of the referendum result. The list goes on. By contrast, those who’ve tried to inject some realism and accountability into matters in order to avoid the most damaging consequences of Brexit have been routinely accused of talking Britain down and undermining the cause.

 

Ultimately the EU is playing hardball just as the UK has been laying down red lines. It was the UK, if I recall, that threatened to reduce cooperation on security or treat EU citizens living in the UK as bargaining chips. The EU’s main crime, it seems, is insisting on the UK abiding by the same rules as everyone else with respect to the four freedoms, that it cannot have membership like access without membership like burdens (in practice, the UK has carved out numerous opt-outs and privileges which other member states don’t enjoy but that’s another story).

 

But keep telling yourself that the EU is trying to destroy the UK. The more you do so, the more you can luxuriate in your Euroscepticism and tinpot nostalgia -all while avoiding any responsibility or questioning of your bizarro faith. Hence your thing for disaster porn. I’d pity your pathology if it didn’t affect the rest of us.

Edited 16 October, 2017 by shurlock

[scotty]

Show me where I’ve been peddling impending financial catastrophe? I’ve been as critical as anyone of outlandish forecasts. You might want to get your facts straight before talking s**t.

 

There are 100 pages here packed with dramatic howling from the remain camp about the economic holocaust that's going to push us back to the stone age. Take your pick. I don't subscribe to that view, any more than I do to some of the leave camps claims of a utopian world of milk and honey that awaits. Both sides of the argument have been so ridiculously overblown that rational debate about it has all but disappeared, not just here but all over the media. Personally I'd have preferred us to have stayed but I'm not particularly concerned that we're leaving, I've seen these dire predictions come and go literally for my whole life.

[shurlock]

There are 100 pages here packed with dramatic howling from the remain camp about the economic holocaust that's going to push us back to the stone age. Take your pick. I don't subscribe to that view, any more than I do to some of the leave camps claims of a utopian world of milk and honey that awaits. Both sides of the argument have been so ridiculously overblown that rational debate about it has all but disappeared, not just here but all over the media. Personally I'd have preferred us to have stayed but I'm not particularly concerned that we're leaving, I've seen these dire predictions come and go literally for my whole life.

 

Others may have done so; but I’ve always felt that forecasts without proper context and humility do more harm than good. Point estimates are particularly pernicious. Never mind the the way in which forecasts were communicated was highly cynical. Much of this can be traced to the campaign playbook of Lynton Crosby and George Osborne whose primary instinct is to use fear over the economy to bludgeon voters into submission.

 

If you read Tim Shipman’s account, many Labour politicians involved with the Remain campaign were deeply uncomfortable with this approach. Brexit proved them right, though the Tories -both Brexiteers and Remainers- don’t appear to have learned any lessons as they assume they can defeat Corbyn with similar tactics.

Edited 16 October, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

Germany not too different from the turn of the last century? The EU wanting to destroy the UK? Why don’t you think with your brain instead of your emotions. Better still why don’t you take ownership for your decision instead of whining and covering your ears. Read some history while you’re at it. Cheap xenophobia only makes you look even more of an unhinged zealot.

 

Perhaps you shouldn’t have been played for a fool and accepted all the fairytales you were told: how the UK held all the cards in negotiations; how the UK would enjoy the same level of access to the single market inside the EU as outside it; how an EU trade deal would be the easiest to get in human history; how the UK was going to sow up major trade deals around the world within 12-24 months of the referendum result. The list goes on. By contrast, those who’ve tried to inject some realism and accountability into matters in order to avoid the most damaging consequences of Brexit have been routinely accused of talking Britain down and undermining the cause.

 

Ultimately the EU is playing hardball just as the UK has been laying down red lines. It was the UK, if I recall, that threatened to reduce cooperation on security or treat EU citizens living in the UK as bargaining chips. The EU’s main crime, it seems, is insisting on the UK abiding by the same rules as everyone else with respect to the four freedoms, that it cannot have membership like access without membership like burdens (in practice, the UK has carved out numerous opt-outs and privileges which other member states don’t enjoy but that’s another story).

 

But keep telling yourself that the EU is trying to destroy the UK. The more you do so, the more you can luxuriate in your Euroscepticism and tinpot nostalgia -all while avoiding any responsibility or questioning of your bizarro faith. Hence your thing for disaster porn. I’d pity your pathology if it didn’t affect the rest of us.

 

Do you genuinely believe that Junker and co want Britain to be a success after Brexit?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

how the UK was going to sow up major trade deals around the world within 12-24 months of the referendum result.

 

 

Please post links where somebody on the leave side said major trade deals would be sown up within 12-24 months of the RESULT.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

Please post links where somebody on the leave side said major trade deals would be sown up within 12-24 months of the RESULT.

 

Here you go, Pony. Clueless leaver Grayling on how it'll take 'a very short period time':

 

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/919841081063301120

[shurlock]

Please post links where somebody on the leave side said major trade deals would be sown up within 12-24 months of the RESULT.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Per Davo:

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

[shurlock]

Do you genuinely believe that Junker and co want Britain to be a success after Brexit?

 

No more than the government of the day here wants the EU to be a success. What is clear is that Juncker and co. don't want the integrity of the four freedoms which is the bedrock of the single market watered down.

[aintforever]

No more than the government of the day here wants the EU to be a success. What is clear is that Juncker and co. don't want the integrity of the four freedoms which is the bedrock of the single market watered down.

 

I take it by that you mean they don't want our Brexit to be a success?

[shurlock]

I take it by that you mean they don't want our Brexit to be a success?

 

I have no idea pal. I don’t think they particularly care - or at least, they care far less than you and the Jihadists think they do. What they do care about is defending the integrity of EU rules and institutions.

[buctootim]

I have no idea pal. I don’t think they particularly care - or at least, they care far less than you and the Jihadists think they do. What they do care about is defending the integrity of the EU rules and institutions.

 

Thats exactly it. The Brexiteers cant get their head around the idea that not everybody spends every waking hours thinking about Britain first and always. The EU care about the EU, as they should. If one of the 28 leave its business as usual, 'oh well very sad, bye, don't forget get to settle up the bill before you go'.

[aintforever]

I have no idea pal. I don’t think they particularly care - or at least, they care far less than you and the Jihadists think they do. What they do care about is defending the integrity of EU rules and institutions.

 

Then why are you dodging the question, you usually have an idea?

 

It is obvious that if we make a success of our Brexit then it may spell trouble for them if other countries follow suit. Why can you not just admit the obvious?

[buctootim]

It is obvious that if we make a success of our Brexit then it may spell trouble for them with other countries follow suit. Why can you not just admit the obvious?

 

You still havent found away round your logic gap. The EU is its members, its not some amorphous separate body. If there were other countries wanting leave they wouldnt allow a deal that sabotages Britain. If there aren't other countries wanting to leave then sabotaging Britain is pointless and self harming.

[aintforever]

You still havent found away round your logic gap. The EU is its members, its not some amorphous separate body. If there were other countries wanting leave they wouldnt allow a deal that sabotages Britain. If there aren't other countries wanting to leave then sabotaging Britain is pointless and self harming.

 

I understand that OK, it's you that seem too fail to understand that what the EU MPs want is a completely different to what their countries may decide they want.

 

Our MPs didn't want to leave the EU either.

[buctootim]

I understand that OK, it's you that seem too fail to understand that what the EU MPs want is a completely different to what their countries may decide they want.

 

Our MPs didn't want to leave the EU either.

 

But what you dont understand is that deals need to be approved by both the Parliament and the Council (ie made up of Government ministers / Prime Ministers of each country). Either can shoot it down.

[aintforever]

But what you dont understand is that deals need to be approved by both the Parliament and the Council (ie made up of Government ministers / Prime Ministers of each country). Either can shoot it down.

 

Yep, understand that. Like I said - our MPs didn't want to leave the EU either, and still don't. But if we make a success of Brexit and other populations round Europe decide to leave there is nothing any MPs can do about it.

[buctootim]

Yep, understand that. Like I said - our MPs didn't want to leave the EU either, and still don't. But if we make a success of Brexit and other populations round Europe decide to leave there is nothing any MPs can do about it.

 

So you've chosen to ignore the point about the ministers of national governments being able to veto the deal. I wonder why that would be?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Please post links where somebody on the leave side said major trade deals would be sown up within 12-24 months of the RESULT.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Here you go, Pony. Clueless leaver Grayling on how it'll take 'a very short period time':

 

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/919841081063301120

 

Per Davo:

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

 

So no links yet then. Keep looking, remember it’s 18-24 months from the date of the referendum RESULT.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

So no links yet then. Keep looking, remember it’s 18-24 months from the date of the referendum RESULT.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

18 months? Wrong. Twelve months have now passed since Davis own imposed date: where are all those wonderfully negotiated deals?

 

More horse****

Edited 16 October, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

So you've chosen to ignore the point about the ministers of national governments being able to veto the deal. I wonder why that would be?

 

I don't get your point. The fact that any one country can veto the deal makes any chance of us getting a half decent deal near impossible IMO. There is bound to be at least one country who take a hardline position.

 

Your idea that these governments will want us to have a good deal in case they decide to leave at some point in the future is complete nonsense. They will all currently be pro EU governments, if their electorate turns anti EU they will be out of a job anyway.

[Guided Missile]

If only we were as quick and successful as the EU, at negotiating trade deals....

[shurlock]

If only we were as quick and successful as the EU, at negotiating trade deals....

 

A telltale sign of a complete amateur or fraud in this area is someone who blindly counts up the number of trade deals without interrogating their depth, focuses only on tariffs at the exclusion of nontrade barriers and reduces trade to trade in goods rather than trade in goods and services.

 

Other things being equal, deeper and more comprehensive trade deals which encompass nontrade barriers and services take significantly longer -and larger entities with greater clout, in turn, stand a better chance of securing concessions in these highly contested and protected areas. Try viewing the world in its complexity rather than through the eyes of a provincial micro-businessman, John.

 

And yes I know you read my posts, snitch

Edited 16 October, 2017 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

A telltale sign of a complete amateur or fraud in this area is someone who blindly counts up the number of trade deals without interrogating their depth, focuses only on tariffs at the exclusion of nontrade barriers and reduces trade to trade in goods rather than trade in goods and services.

 

Other things being equal, deeper and more comprehensive trade deals which encompass nontrade barriers and services take significantly longer -and larger entities with greater clout, in turn, stand a better chance of securing concessions in these highly contested and protected areas. Try viewing the world in its complexity rather than through the eyes of a provincial micro-businessman, John.

 

And yes I know you read my posts, snitch [emoji38]

The challenge is getting 28 member states to agree to anything. That is why the EU are generally ****e at trade deals. They have only one deal with a world top 10 economy. Utterly pathetic!!

 

Lets look at GDPR. The legislation was passed in May 2016. There's a two year period for businesses to comply. Most businesses are paralysed waiting for the ICO to issue guidance on key areas. The problem is that the ICO can't issue guidance because they have to agree with their 27 equivalents how the law will be enforced... guss what. They can't agree. The clock is ticking and there is 8 months left. A complete shambles and typical of how the EU works...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

The challenge is getting 28 member states to agree to anything. That is why the EU are generally ****e at trade deals. They have only one deal with a world top 10 economy. Utterly pathetic!!

 

What does this even mean? Four of those 'top ten economies' are in the EU!

 

Besides, if the EU are 'utterly pathetic', where does that leave the US? It has a few more FTAs (14) but again only one with a top ten economy - the bottom one, Canada. And it's busily destroying even that.

[shurlock]

The challenge is getting 28 member states to agree to anything. That is why the EU are generally ****e at trade deals. They have only one deal with a world top 10 economy. Utterly pathetic!!

 

Lets look at GDPR. The legislation was passed in May 2016. There's a two year period for businesses to comply. Most businesses are paralysed waiting for the ICO to issue guidance on key areas. The problem is that the ICO can't issue guidance because they have to agree with their 27 equivalents how the law will be enforced... guss what. They can't agree. The clock is ticking and there is 8 months left. A complete shambles and typical of how the EU works...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

So you’re another one who erroneously equates success with quantity. The evidence suggests that most FTAs make little difference to export volumes in the absence of deeper trade integration -the latter of which is very complex and time-consuming. Halfwits can wave agreements around as proof of success but their value is often little more than symbolic. It may be news to you; but there’s a reason why difficult things are, how do I put it, difficult.

 

As noted before, nontrade barriers are often the real culprit since import tariffs are already low in many cases. Thus, efforts such as extending mutual recognition of technical standards can play an important role in facilitating trade. Here, yet again, the reality is complex than crude, bombastic statements like “the EU has only one deal with a top 10 world economy”. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-555_en.htm (as a small but illustrative case in point).

 

Don’t get me wrong: the EU can be cumbersome and this is not only attributable to the inherent complexity and ambition of the initiatives it is trying to oversee. Institutions can be improved and reformed. But again in the real world of trade-offs, not the fantasy land of many Brexiters, there is no cake which can be simulataneously had and eaten. Negotiating trade deals on behalf of 28 countries may take more time: the flip side is that it gives those countries far more clout than they would enjoy if they were to negotiate individually. Two desirable goals -speed and influence- are in mutual conflict. Welcome to the real world Baldrick.

 

Of course, it would be easy to resolve this by overriding member states preferences and relaxing rules on unanimity; but then that would be undemocratic. What is it that you want? Am still undecided whether this is another symptom of shoddy logic and wishful thinking by Brexiteers or just pure, rank hypocrisy.

Edited 16 October, 2017 by shurlock

[shurlock]

The Hun are trying to destroy us. Can't we use one of those many cards we hold?

 

May backs down from Brexit showdown after Merkel rebuff

 

https://www.ft.com/content/8f331a3a-b289-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399

 

#twoworldwarsandoneworldcup

[Lord Duckhunter]

18 months? Wrong. Twelve months have now passed since Davis own imposed date: where are all those wonderfully negotiated deals?

 

More horse****

 

You said 18-24 months from referendum RESULT. Still waiting for the links. There’s no way you’d have just made it up, so surprised there’s no links or direct quotes. I’ll ask again , who said we’d have trade deals sown up by June 2018?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

You said 18-24 months from referendum RESULT. Still waiting for the links. There’s no way you’d have just made it up, so surprised there’s no links or direct quotes. I’ll ask again , who said we’d have trade deals sown up by June 2018?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Davis said 12-24 months from September 2016. I trust you can read and add up. 13 months on, I thought we might have some good news by now. No evidence of that yet though, pal. Now only 11 months to get the rest done. Davo said so after all. Tick tock...

Edited 16 October, 2017 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

Davis said 12-24 months from September 2016. I trust you can read and add up. 13 months on, I thought we might have some good news by now. No evidence of that yet though, pal. Now only 11 months to get the rest done. Davo said so after all. Tick tock...

And reading that piece, the date of September 9th was assuming that date being the appointment of Cameron's replacement following the full process of the Tory leadership contest. This was the only thing actually delaying the kicking off of all of these piece of pi ss trade deals.

 

So in reality we can assume deadly David actually meant 12-24 months from the appointment of the new Prime Minister, which turned out to be in July, so just over a couple of weeks so after the referendum RESULT.

 

Tick tock indeed.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Still no quotes or links to anyone claiming trade deals will be sown up by June ‘18, I’m starting to doubt any exist . Hopefully tomorrow, you’ll dig some out.

 

“ I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners” . Is not in any way shape or form, a promise that trade deals will be sown up by 18-24 months of the result. “I would expect”, had she done so, we'd be well on our way to utopia.

 

 

Just shows the complete Horlicks the Remain PM has made of the whole process. Nobody on the Remain side should have been allowed anywhere near the great offices of state, until the whole thing was sorted. The person in charge -remain , A50 timing -remain , election decision- remain, the bloke with the purse strings - remain, NHS- remain, Immigration-remain , Justice - remain . It's a remain government ****ing things up, so it seems rather bizarre to blame Leave. A competent PM would have started talks when DD "expected" them to.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 17 October, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[hutch]

As the great man said,

 

It ain't much I'm asking, I heard him say,

Gotta find me a future move out of my way,

I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now,

I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now.

 

 

It'll take 20 years++ to unwind our position, but so what. Things will be different. Different isn't necessarily worse. Or better. Some will gain and some will lose.

 

Just a small issue I read yesterday about the M20 becoming a lorry park if we have hard customs borders at Dover and Folkestone. You don't think that if hauling by truck becomes a problem the smarter operators will shift to containers? Would anybody argue that fewer Bulgarian truck drivers on the M1 is a bad thing?

[CB Fry]

Still no quotes or links to anyone claiming trade deals will be sown up by June ‘18, I’m starting to doubt any exist . Hopefully tomorrow, you’ll dig some out.

 

“ I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners” . Is not in any way shape or form, a promise that trade deals will be sown up by 18-24 months of the result. “I would expect”, had she done so, we'd be well on our way to utopia.

 

 

Just shows the complete Horlicks the Remain PM has made of the whole process. Nobody on the Remain side should have been allowed anywhere near the great offices of state, until the whole thing was sorted. The person in charge -remain , A50 timing -remain , election decision- remain, the bloke with the purse strings - remain, NHS- remain, Immigration-remain , Justice - remain . It's a remain government ****ing things up, so it seems rather bizarre to blame Leave. A competent PM would have started talks when DD "expected" them to.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"*I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.

 

So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU.*"

 

You can pretend that article doesn't say what it says but it's pretty clear that it does. He expects us to have the US and others in the bag before we've even left the EU offically. The effing retard.

 

12 and 24 months after the appointment of the new Prime Minister.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

12 and 24 months after the appointment of the new Prime Minister.

 

 

Not the referendum result then? Where’s that quote

 

The claim was the leave side told us that trade deals “would” be “sown up” 18-24 months from the “result”. The link posted said if the new PM started trade talks immediately ( which she didn’t) , he expected the negotiation phrase to be completed in that timescale. There’s clearly a difference. Maybe in his excitement to post more negative rubbish he made an error, perhaps he should have posted “ We were promised that IF the new PM started trade talks immediately( which she didn’t) we could have the negotiation phase completed within 18-24 months of her appointment, 2.5 months after the result ”, but he didn’t . He claimed the promise was they’d be sown up 18-24 months after the result. Of course, there could be a link to someone promising that, but it seems to be taking a while to find it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 17 October, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[Verbal]

Not the referendum result then? Where’s that quote

 

You really are desperate. That article by Davis, and therefore that claim, dates from 14 July 2016. It hardly invalidates Shylock's point.

[Johnny Bognor]

So you’re another one who erroneously equates success with quantity. The evidence suggests that most FTAs make little difference to export volumes in the absence of deeper trade integration -the latter of which is very complex and time-consuming. Halfwits can wave agreements around as proof of success but their value is often little more than symbolic. It may be news to you; but there’s a reason why difficult things are, how do I put it, difficult.

 

As noted before, nontrade barriers are often the real culprit since import tariffs are already low in many cases. Thus, efforts such as extending mutual recognition of technical standards can play an important role in facilitating trade. Here, yet again, the reality is complex than crude, bombastic statements like “the EU has only one deal with a top 10 world economy”. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-555_en.htm (as a small but illustrative case in point).

 

Don’t get me wrong: the EU can be cumbersome and this is not only attributable to the inherent complexity and ambition of the initiatives it is trying to oversee. Institutions can be improved and reformed. But again in the real world of trade-offs, not the fantasy land of many Brexiters, there is no cake which can be simulataneously had and eaten. Negotiating trade deals on behalf of 28 countries may take more time: the flip side is that it gives those countries far more clout than they would enjoy if they were to negotiate individually. Two desirable goals -speed and influence- are in mutual conflict. Welcome to the real world Baldrick.

 

Of course, it would be easy to resolve this by overriding member states preferences and relaxing rules on unanimity; but then that would be undemocratic. What is it that you want? Am still undecided whether this is another symptom of shoddy logic and wishful thinking by Brexiteers or just pure, rank hypocrisy.

 

Quality is just as important as quality me ol pedigree chum (that's why I wouldn't go supermarket own brand dog food)!!

 

We have currently quality agreements with...

Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Andorra, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Kosovo, Lebanon, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, Palestine, Serbia

 

Impressive work, don't you think???? The champagne corks must have been popping in the Shurlock household when the EU finally managed to secure a deal with Akrotiri LOL (I had to look up where the **** that was)

 

The only sizable countries are Chile, Egypt, Iceland, Jordan, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. Having deals with these economic powerhouses, I can see why the remainers don't want to go. So can we stop talking about EU trade deals now, because quite frankly they are hardly setting the world alight..

Edited 17 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[Lord Duckhunter]

You really are desperate. That article by Davis, and therefore that claim, dates from 14 July 2016. It hardly invalidates Shylock's point.

 

Pony, not only is the timing out, it’s not from the date of the article , but the date of the new PM. But the whole premise is based on May starting trade talks, she didn’t. Where is the link to a leaver stating deals would be “sown up” ( not the negotiation phase completed, because that’s impossible under A50). Sown up implies, done ,dusted , signed.

 

If I said “ I expect MP to play Forster in goal sat , and therefore we will beat WBA easily” , am I wrong if MP plays Josh Sims in nets and we lose 6-5?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Window Cleaner]

Pony, not only is the timing out, it’s not from the date of the article , but the date of the new PM. But the whole premise is based on May starting trade talks, she didn’t. Where is the link to a leaver stating deals would be “sown up” ( not the negotiation phase completed, because that’s impossible under A50). Sown up implies, done ,dusted , signed.

 

If I said “ I expect MP to play Forster in goal sat , and therefore we will beat WBA easily” , am I wrong if MP plays Josh Sims in nets and we lose 6-5?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Sewn up implies done, dusted and any other expression meaning completed or terminated. Sown up, well I don't know what that means really, sown up the top field perhaps.

 

Not of any great importance but as you make a point of explaining what "sown up" means perhaps getting it right is preferable in this case.

[buctootim]

Quality is just as important as quality me ol pedigree chum (that's why I wouldn't go supermarket own brand dog food)!!

 

We have currently quality agreements with...

Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Andorra, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Kosovo, Lebanon, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, Palestine, Serbia

 

Impressive work, don't you think???? The champagne corks must have been popping in the Shurlock household when the EU finally managed to secure a deal with Akrotiri LOL (I had to look up where the **** that was)

 

The only sizable countries are Chile, Egypt, Iceland, Jordan, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. Having deals with these economic powerhouses, I can see why the remainers don't want to go. So can we stop talking about EU trade deals now, because quite frankly they are hardly setting the world alight..

 

 

Every time I think you coudn't find a new subject to demonstrate less knowledge, you excel yourself. China has 14 trade agreements, the US has 20, the EU has 50 not counting the free trade within its 28 members - making a total of 78. ****ing read something man, you make a **** of yourself on every subject.

[Johnny Bognor]

Every time I think you coudn't find a new subject to demonstrate less knowledge, you excel yourself. China has 14 trade agreements, the US has 20, the EU has 50 not counting the free trade within its 28 members - making a total of 78. ****ing read something man, you make a **** of yourself on every subject.

 

I was only counting those in full force, of which there are 32 (most of which include places some people have never heard of). Of these, customs unions with countries like Andorra or San Marino are not getting me that excited. Sorry.

 

If you want to include those that are provisional, partial or agreed but not signed, then go you.

 

They're all here...

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place

 

Sadly, I am still underwhelmed

Edited 17 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

Pony, not only is the timing out, it’s not from the date of the article , but the date of the new PM. But the whole premise is based on May starting trade talks, she didn’t. Where is the link to a leaver stating deals would be “sown up” ( not the negotiation phase completed, because that’s impossible under A50). Sown up implies, done ,dusted , signed.

 

If I said “ I expect MP to play Forster in goal sat , and therefore we will beat WBA easily” , am I wrong if MP plays Josh Sims in nets and we lose 6-5?

 

The more you disappear into meaningless small print, Lord Pony, the more fatuous you look. Quit while you're only miles behind.

[buctootim]

I was only counting those in full force, of which there are 32 (most of which include places some people have never heard of). Of these, customs unions with countries like Andorra or San Marino are not getting me that excited. Sorry.

 

If you want to include those that are provisional, partial or agreed but not signed, then go you.

 

They're all here...

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place

 

Sadly, I am still underwhelmed

 

Odd that you missed out the biggest countries and only cited the smallest. Seriously?

 

EU trade within the bloc alone, even without the external trade agreements is far far more substantive and meaningful than anything China or the US have been able to negotiate. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/index.shtml or this https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements?

Edited 17 October, 2017 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

Odd that you missed out the biggest countries and only cited the smallest. Seriously?

 

EU trade within the bloc alone, even without the external trade agreements is far far more substantive and meaningful than anything China or the US have been able to negotiate. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/index.shtml or this https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements?

 

Errr, that's kind of obvious. But as a block, negotiating deals with places that some people have never heard of is hardly inspiring. Bearing in mind that in many cases, tariffs are still in place.

 

I get that the size of the EU gives negotiating power, however getting 28 countries to agree pretty much negates this power and partially explains why Remainers (and leavers) need to look up some of the countries on a map.

 

Anyway, I'm off to see if we can export services to Akrotiri and Dhekelia, because these ones are new to me ROFL

[buctootim]

Errr, that's kind of obvious. But as a block, negotiating deals with places that some people have never heard of is hardly inspiring. Bearing in mind that in many cases, tariffs are still in place.

 

I get that the size of the EU gives negotiating power, however getting 28 countries to agree pretty much negates this power and partially explains why Remainers (and leavers) need to look up some of the countries on a map.

 

Anyway, I'm off to see if we can export services to Akrotiri and Dhekelia, because these ones are new to me ROFL

 

Like the other Brexiteers here, you get found out repeatedly and have nothing to offer. The EU has far more substantive and numerous external trade agreements than either China or the US. Either deal with it and come up with a meaningful argument about why it doesn't matter or accept it. This stupid posturing whilst sticking your head in the sand just makes you look both thick and dishonest.

[Johnny Bognor]

Like the other Brexiteers here, you get found out repeatedly and have nothing to offer. The EU has far more substantive and numerous external trade agreements than either China or the US. Either deal with it and come up with a meaningful argument about why it doesn't matter or accept it. This stupid posturing whilst sticking your head in the sand just makes you look both thick and dishonest.

 

Hey, if a customs union with the Faroe Islands floats your boat, crack on.

 

Remainers scoff at the UK's chances of negotiating trade deals, but when you look at the EU's performance (we're not in China or the US, by the way), bar a handful of countries (Canada, S Korea), most of them (or at least the one's we've heard of) have GDP that's equivalent to the Isle of Wight FFS.

 

Negotiating trade deals is incredibly difficult and when you have effectively 29 countries at the table (The EU's 28+1), the more difficult it gets. A bilateral deal is far easier to put together.

 

Chile has deals covering countries with collective GDP five times the EU’s deals!! Even Iceland (population less than Croydon) has a trade agreement with China – as does Switzerland.

 

So I'm afraid I am still underwhelmed... and waiting to be impressed.

Edited 17 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

China

Georgia, Australia, Korea, Switzerland, Iceland, Costa Rica, Peru, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Pakistan, Hong Kong and Macao

 

US

Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru and Singapore

 

EU

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Norway, Palestinian Authority, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey plus Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

Edited 17 October, 2017 by buctootim

[shurlock]

Still no quotes or links to anyone claiming trade deals will be sown up by June ‘18, I’m starting to doubt any exist . Hopefully tomorrow, you’ll dig some out.

 

“ I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners” . Is not in any way shape or form, a promise that trade deals will be sown up by 18-24 months of the result. “I would expect”, had she done so, we'd be well on our way to utopia.

 

 

Just shows the complete Horlicks the Remain PM has made of the whole process. Nobody on the Remain side should have been allowed anywhere near the great offices of state, until the whole thing was sorted. The person in charge -remain , A50 timing -remain , election decision- remain, the bloke with the purse strings - remain, NHS- remain, Immigration-remain , Justice - remain . It's a remain government ****ing things up, so it seems rather bizarre to blame Leave. A competent PM would have started talks when DD "expected" them to.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Stop insulting people's intelligence. At least, have the decency to provide a full quote instead of being a weasel.

 

So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.

 

(my emphasis in bold)

 

And there's this beauty to conclude Davis discussion of trade where the emphasis is on what will be done:

 

Now the new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit from the EU, but they will be fully negotiated and therefore understood in detail well before then.

 

Negotiated in full. Understood in detail. Sounds pretty sewn up to me. Just a formality as we wait for the agreements to take effect upon departing the EU.

 

 

So yes after the referendum result (did I say immediately after?another desperate fabrication of yours), Davo raised expectations with claims that are either wilfully disingenuous or wishful thinking or utterly ignorant.

 

Critically we are now 13+ months on -and thus inside Davo's 12-24 month window, regardless of which start date -4.41am on June 24, July 13 or September 9- you vainly gristle over.*

 

Yet there's no evidence that any serious progress has been made against thrse targets. But hey Davo still has 11 months to pull a rabbit out of the hat and meet the more conservative end of his claim. Look forward to reconvening again on September 9 2018.

 

Of course, there is a slight hitch in all this: the overwhelming consensus is that the UK cannot begin negotiations, let alone complete in full them till it's obligations with the EU formally come to an end, thus rendering Davo's little fantasy entirely moot. Speak volumes.

 

Really hurts to admit you've made a complete hard Brexit of yourself, doesn't it pal?

 

 

*Its 12-24 months, not 18-24 months as you repeatedly claim. Then again it contradicts your argument, so better to make things up.

Edited 17 October, 2017 by shurlock

[shurlock]

Quality is just as important as quality me ol pedigree chum (that's why I wouldn't go supermarket own brand dog food)!!

 

We have currently quality agreements with...

Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Andorra, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Kosovo, Lebanon, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, Palestine, Serbia

 

Impressive work, don't you think???? The champagne corks must have been popping in the Shurlock household when the EU finally managed to secure a deal with Akrotiri LOL (I had to look up where the **** that was)

 

The only sizable countries are Chile, Egypt, Iceland, Jordan, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. Having deals with these economic powerhouses, I can see why the remainers don't want to go. So can we stop talking about EU trade deals now, because quite frankly they are hardly setting the world alight..

 

And? Seems as if Buctootim has listed things for you.

 

Ultimately you seem forget the mother of all trade agreements, the slew of initiatives that the EU has overseen to enlarge and deepen the single market, creating the largest and most comprehensive trading bloc in the world. It pîsses over every other trade arrangement on virtually every conceivable measure.

 

Given that distance matters critically to trade, it's bit of an omission, isn't it? Sometimes the most cunning plan is staring you in the face, Baldrick.

 

I don't feel we're quite ready to remove the training wheels just yet if you hope to last more than 5 seconds in a debate with potato face O'Brien. Keep plugging away.

Edited 17 October, 2017 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

And?

 

You seem forget the mother of all trade agreements, the slew of initiatives that the EU has overseen to enlarge and deepen the single market, creating the largest and most comprehensive trading bloc in the world.

 

Given that distance matters critically to trade, it's bit of an omission, isn't it? Sometimes the most cunning plan is staring you in the face, Baldrick.

 

I don't feel we're quite ready to remove the training wheels just yet if you hope to last more than 5 seconds in a debate with potato face O'Brien. Keep plugging away.

 

Hey Shurlock, you're wasting your time on here. Don't you know we have a trade deal with Akrotiri??? It's an island near Greece with a population of 7,700. They might be up for a bit of consultancy LOLOLOL

 

(It is clear that I am talking about external trade deals and their "success" on these is a bit ****e).

Edited 17 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor