Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[shurlock]

Afternoon John.

 

i) I thought you didn't believe in forecasts;

ii) If you now do, how much is the UK economy forecast to grow over the same period?

[shurlock]

Most of our people had no idea what they were voting for? This is a very convenient line that is trotted out by the remoaners, paraphrased as the electorate is too thick to understand what their lords and masters tell them to do. They were either voting to remain in the EU or to leave it. It was all spelled out in black and white what that meant. It meant leaving the single market and the customs union, taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. They were also told that the economy would tank, unemployment would rise massively, house prices would tumble, there would be an emergency budget with tax rises, etc. Despite all this, they still voted by a majority to leave.

 

The deal will never be for us all, because there will always be remoaners who for whatever reason will not accept that we should leave the EU. As they cannot be accommodated by our leaving, then tough. They are in the same position as all of us who didn't want to be in the EU all those years. We try to go for a mutually beneficial Free Trade Arrangement that suits both us and the EU. If they want to set out to punish us for daring to leave and won't treat us fairly in that deal, then we leave on WTO terms and trade with them in the same way that most of the rest of the World does.

 

It isn't a cliff edge, or crashing out, nor will it be a disaster. Anybody who speaks in those terms is tending towards hysteria and should be ignored, as they are not being rational.

 

Keep dreaming. It was not on the ballot pal, however much you try to point to unenforceable comments made by Cameron and co at the height of project fear (which you're all too happy to dismiss). Leavers involved in the referendum campaign also acknowledge this.

 

Here's a nice summary for you:

 

 

Any response to that pal?

 

You can rage, froth, wail and head bang all you like Les; but the fact remains the leave campaign did not specify, and thus the leave vote could not endorse what Brexit actually meant. That, of course, was entirely deliberate: only by maintaining disparate and contradictory versions of Brexit could leave ever hope to win the referendum.

 

Finally why do you refuse to condemn GM's threats of violence?

Edited 13 December, 2018 by shurlock

[doddisalegend]

Most of our people had no idea what they were voting for? This is a very convenient line that is trotted out by the remoaners, paraphrased as the electorate is too thick to understand what their lords and masters tell them to do. They were either voting to remain in the EU or to leave it. It was all spelled out in black and white what that meant. It meant leaving the single market and the customs union, taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. They were also told that the economy would tank, unemployment would rise massively, house prices would tumble, there would be an emergency budget with tax rises, etc. Despite all this, they still voted by a majority to leave.

 

The deal will never be for us all, because there will always be remoaners who for whatever reason will not accept that we should leave the EU. As they cannot be accommodated by our leaving, then tough. They are in the same position as all of us who didn't want to be in the EU all those years. We try to go for a mutually beneficial Free Trade Arrangement that suits both us and the EU. If they want to set out to punish us for daring to leave and won't treat us fairly in that deal, then we leave on WTO terms and trade with them in the same way that most of the rest of the World does.

 

It isn't a cliff edge, or crashing out, nor will it be a disaster. Anybody who speaks in those terms is tending towards hysteria and should be ignored, as they are not being rational.

 

So wrong. For a start you had no idea what you where voting for otherwise you would be embracing May's deal which takes us out of the EU the fact you aren't is because you thought you where voting for something no one promised you on the ballot paper. The option was to leave there was nothing on the ballot paper to tell people what leave meant. If it was clearly marked out on the ballot paper we wouldn't have all the discussions about soft and hard Brexit the last two years. The fact that a lot of leavers project there own idea of what "leave" means to them on to the vote that doesn't mean that's what all the other people who voted leave also thought it meant The leavers aren't one united group in that sense. The only thing you can know for certain is the 48% who voted stay where all voting for the same thing because everyone knew what staying in the EU looked like.

 

I've said it all along the original referendum was flawed the deal with the EU should have come first so that everyone could see exactly what they where voting for on the ballot paper. Hell the leave vote might have even had a better majority if the deal was clearly set out before the referendum so everyone knew exactly where we stood I'm sure plenty of people voted stayed because leaving was an unknown quantity.

[Sheaf Saint]

Reports now on Twitter that the DUP have agreed to support Labour in a no confidence motion against the government.

 

This is big if it's true.

[shurlock]

Reports now on Twitter that the DUP have agreed to support Labour in a no confidence motion against the government.

 

This is big if it's true.

 

Got to be fake news.

[LGTL]

How the fuk are we going to leave the Customs Union and 'take control of our borders' when we're going to have a borderless entry into the UK via Ireland. The Ireland situation meant that the Brexit all the loonies were hoping for (that wasn't on the ballot paper BTW) was never, ever, going to happen. Did you really think they were going to have Her Majesty's Forces patrolling it again and just rip up the GFA? The mad Tories are supposedly annoyed at little old Ireland not knowing their place, whereas I for one say fair play to them.

 

In fact I think I predicted that Ireland would put the burner to any sort of meaningful Brexit on this thread not long after the referendum and alas, look what's happened. The ignorance towards that country is astonishing at times.

[LGTL]

Got to be fake news.

 

I don't think it would that surprising news. The DUP and that hideous woman are only in it for themselves, thy don't give a toss if it's with the Tories or Labour. May's plan effectively means NI are more closely alligned to Europe/Ireland than the rest of the UK, and Foster simply won't have it.

[Sheaf Saint]

Got to be fake news.

 

Don't shoot the messenger. I fully accept this may not be the most reliable of sources...

 

https://evolvepolitics.com/breaking-dup-reportedly-agree-to-support-labour-motion-of-no-confidence-against-tories/

[Lord Duckhunter]

Funny how blokes on a football forum think they know more about the Irish border, the GFA and the troubles, than David Trimble, who helped write it & Arlene Foster whose dad was shot by the IRA.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LGTL]

Funny how blokes on a football forum think they know more about the Irish border, the GFA and the troubles, than David Trimble, who helped write it & Arlene Foster whose dad was shot by the IRA.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Half an hour to sort out he said didn’t he?

 

Long half an hour.

[aintforever]

How the fuk are we going to leave the Customs Union and 'take control of our borders' when we're going to have a borderless entry into the UK via Ireland. The Ireland situation meant that the Brexit all the loonies were hoping for (that wasn't on the ballot paper BTW) was never, ever, going to happen. Did you really think they were going to have Her Majesty's Forces patrolling it again and just rip up the GFA? The mad Tories are supposedly annoyed at little old Ireland not knowing their place, whereas I for one say fair play to them.

 

In fact I think I predicted that Ireland would put the burner to any sort of meaningful Brexit on this thread not long after the referendum and alas, look what's happened. The ignorance towards that country is astonishing at times.

 

To be honest I think the Northern Ireland situation is a good enough reason alone to have a second refurendum. I don’t remember it being mentioned much before the last vote and it clearly has potential to cause problems with the peace process.

[Jonnyboy]

Don't shoot the messenger. I fully accept this may not be the most reliable of sources...

 

https://evolvepolitics.com/breaking-dup-reportedly-agree-to-support-labour-motion-of-no-confidence-against-tories/

 

That just says they have talked. Pretty meaningless.

[Sheaf Saint]

That just says they have talked. Pretty meaningless.

 

Yeah they have issued a correction now. Earlier they were saying an agreement had been made.

[Wes Tender]

So wrong. For a start you had no idea what you where voting for otherwise you would be embracing May's deal which takes us out of the EU the fact you aren't is because you thought you where voting for something no one promised you on the ballot paper. The option was to leave there was nothing on the ballot paper to tell people what leave meant. If it was clearly marked out on the ballot paper we wouldn't have all the discussions about soft and hard Brexit the last two years. The fact that a lot of leavers project there own idea of what "leave" means to them on to the vote that doesn't mean that's what all the other people who voted leave also thought it meant The leavers aren't one united group in that sense. The only thing you can know for certain is the 48% who voted stay where all voting for the same thing because everyone knew what staying in the EU looked like.

 

I've said it all along the original referendum was flawed the deal with the EU should have come first so that everyone could see exactly what they where voting for on the ballot paper. Hell the leave vote might have even had a better majority if the deal was clearly set out before the referendum so everyone knew exactly where we stood I'm sure plenty of people voted stayed because leaving was an unknown quantity.

 

You really are clueless believing you knew why I voted to leave. I knew exactly what I voted for and I know exactly what May has cobbled together. Don't patronise me and claim that I didn't know what I wanted.

 

Both you and Shurlock have used this ridiculous argument that because things weren't on the ballot paper, they are invalid. Well, how long should the ballot paper have been? In a General Election, should there be each party's manifesto on the ballot paper, or just the name of the candidate and their party? But this plebiscite wasn't a whole range of policy issues, it was simply a bilateral decision, leave or remain.

 

And it isn't a proper Brexit and I don't support it. The best description of it is BRINO, Brexit in name only. And you do your argument no good spouting the same old rubbish that the leave voters were all thick and didn't understand what they were voting for. Yes, there were many strands to it, sovereignty, immigration, economic reasons, and people had their own reasons and priorities for voting. That is their prerogative.

 

As for the contention that the deal with the EU should have come before the vote, then that really is the barmiest thing that you have ever said. If the EU wished us to remain in, are they more likely to offer us a good deal or a bad deal?

[aintforever]

The only thing you can know for certain is the 48% who voted stay where all voting for the same thing because everyone knew what staying in the EU looked like.

 

And 52% knew exactly what they didn’t want to be part of.

[shurlock]

You really are clueless believing you knew why I voted to leave. I knew exactly what I voted for and I know exactly what May has cobbled together. Don't patronise me and claim that I didn't know what I wanted.

 

Both you and Shurlock have used this ridiculous argument that because things weren't on the ballot paper, they are invalid. Well, how long should the ballot paper have been? In a General Election, should there be each party's manifesto on the ballot paper, or just the name of the candidate and their party? But this plebiscite wasn't a whole range of policy issues, it was simply a bilateral decision, leave or remain.

 

And it isn't a proper Brexit and I don't support it. The best description of it is BRINO, Brexit in name only. And you do your argument no good spouting the same old rubbish that the leave voters were all thick and didn't understand what they were voting for. Yes, there were many strands to it, sovereignty, immigration, economic reasons, and people had their own reasons and priorities for voting. That is their prerogative.

 

As for the contention that the deal with the EU should have come before the vote, then that really is the barmiest thing that you have ever said. If the EU wished us to remain in, are they more likely to offer us a good deal or a bad deal?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1009155543087362050

Edited 13 December, 2018 by shurlock

[doddisalegend]

And 52% knew exactly what they didn’t want to be part of.

 

 

Clearly which is why even now leavers can't decide what leave looks like..

[Lord Duckhunter]

Clearly which is why even now leavers can't decide what leave looks like..

 

This is a ridiculous statement. Leave will look like whatever the British people want it to look like. If they want a low tax, low regulated economy, then over time they’ll get that. If they want Corbynomics, nationalise everything socialist paradise they’ll get that. The British people will decide, far better way to run a sovereign country than 27 other nations dictating our regulations, immigration and tax policies.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cabbage_Face]

If we can’t get the simpletons on this forum to agree to any form of Brexit, we have zero chance of getting parliament to agree.

 

As Shurlock would say #MSSS

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Destroying one childish fantasy after another, Ivan Rogers latest intervention:

 

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/#

[shurlock]

This is a ridiculous statement. Leave will look like whatever the British people want it to look like. If they want a low tax, low regulated economy, then over time they’ll get that. If they want Corbynomics, nationalise everything socialist paradise they’ll get that. The British people will decide, far better way to run a sovereign country than 27 other nations dictating our regulations, immigration and tax policies.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Your understanding of the EU makes your claim that Jack Stephens is better than Harry Maguire almost insightful pal

[saint si]

I don't remember being asked to vote about ID cards....

 

He didn't say a referendum. He said "Can you name another vote where the decision was voted on again BEFORE the result was implemented."

 

ID cards were voted in to law by parliament (the elected representatives of the people, don't forget) in 2006, and then voted out again (by parliament) in 2010.

 

There were some trials, but nobody can claim it had been implemented.

[saint si]

And it isn't a proper Brexit and I don't support it.

 

So there is more than one type of Brexit? Proper Brexits and improper Brexits? Who could have imagined.

[RedArmy]

I've said it all along the original referendum was flawed the deal with the EU should have come first so that everyone could see exactly what they where voting for on the ballot paper. Hell the leave vote might have even had a better majority if the deal was clearly set out before the referendum so everyone knew exactly where we stood I'm sure plenty of people voted stayed because leaving was an unknown quantity.

 

David Cameron went to Brussels cap in hand to try and renegotiate our terms with them before the referendum and was rebuffed on everything. If anyone truly believed they would suddenly change their tune once we voted to leave and give us everything we wanted on a plate they were kidding themselves.

 

In fact their hard line tactics probably swayed a few more to want to leave their control. It was clear from that failure by Cameron that cutting all ties would be the only way to truly deliver Brexit.

[Lord Duckhunter]

He didn't say a referendum. He said "Can you name another vote where the decision was voted on again BEFORE the result was implemented."

 

ID cards were voted in to law by parliament (the elected representatives of the people, don't forget) in 2006, and then voted out again (by parliament) in 2010.

 

There were some trials, but nobody can claim it had been implemented.

 

What a load of pony, you know full well I meant a vote the public took part in. An election or a referendum, a national vote, not a parliamentary vote.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 13 December, 2018 by Lord Duckhunter

[Wes Tender]

So there is more than one type of Brexit? Proper Brexits and improper Brexits? Who could have imagined.

 

Brexit - the clue is in the name. Britain exiting the EU. You ask whether there is more than one form of Britain exiting the EU, shooting yourself in the foot as you do so. No doubt you are one of those who want a losers' second referendum because the thick electorate didn't understand what it involved, whether we would stay in either or both of the single market, the customs union, whether the ECJ would still have any sway over our laws, cease having to pay into the EU slush fund, whether we would have some kind of FTA or leave with no deal, etc.

 

So how can you insinuate that there can only be a Brexit or not a Brexit, and that there is nothing in between? Have you not heard politicians talking about soft brexits or hard brexits? If we are half in / half out, is that a Brexit? No, it isn't. Leaving on WTO terms is a hard or clean Brexit. Anything involving us not being able to arrange our own trade deals, having to obey ECJ rulings, paying into the slush fund or having to accept uncontrolled freedom of movement of EU citizens is a soft Brexit, or more accurately BRINO, Brexit in name only, i.e. not a proper Brexit.

 

Does that help you imagine it?

[Wes Tender]

I took one look at the panel on Question Time tonight and thought how bloody typical it was. Good old biased BBC, four Remoaners and one Brexiteer. Not worth watching. And they have the brass neck to claim impartiality.

[shurlock]

I took one look at the panel on Question Time tonight and thought how bloody typical it was. Good old biased BBC, four Remoaners and one Brexiteer. Not worth watching. And they have the brass neck to claim impartiality.

 

Come on Les you're only watching it because you have a thing for Jo Brand.

 

Angela Rayner looks like Iggy Pop in drag.

[buctootim]

Some of the papers are reporting that the reason May didn't get more support from the EU tonight was because she turned up without any concrete proposals or ideas. Despite Merkel interrupting her 10 minute speech three times to ask "what do you want?" May couldn't offer anything. Its beyond bizarre.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What I find odd with all of this, is that there is one simple issue with Brexit. It is not implementable without either ceding NI, or tearing up the GFA - neither of which can and will happen. Therefore Soft Brexit, Hard Brexit, or whatever you want to call it, is not possible.

[doddisalegend]

This is a ridiculous statement. Leave will look like whatever the British people want it to look like. If they want a low tax, low regulated economy, then over time they’ll get that. If they want Corbynomics, nationalise everything socialist paradise they’ll get that. The British people will decide, far better way to run a sovereign country than 27 other nations dictating our regulations, immigration and tax policies.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Your chatting ****e on the day you voted leave you and all the rest had no idea what leave looked like. We now know what leave looks like and your whining like a little girl because its not the leave you though you where getting.

[Weston Super Saint]

Your chatting ****e on the day you voted leave you and all the rest had no idea what leave looked like. We now know what leave looks like and your whining like a little girl because its not the leave you though you where getting.

 

Simply not true!

 

We know what a version of leave 'could' look like. Nothing has been agreed upon.

 

I've said it before and am happy to repeat myself, there are too many sticky fingers in too many pies (in both the UK and in Europe), for anything other than a hard brexit to be a reality.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Simply not true!

 

We know what a version of leave 'could' look like. Nothing has been agreed upon.

 

I've said it before and am happy to repeat myself, there are too many sticky fingers in too many pies (in both the UK and in Europe), for anything other than a hard brexit to be a reality.

 

How does a hard Brexit work with Northern Ireland?

[RedArmy]

Your chatting ****e on the day you voted leave you and all the rest had no idea what leave looked like. We now know what leave looks like and your whining like a little girl because its not the leave you though you where getting.

It's 'you're' you bloody thicko. It's no wonder you voted remain with intelligence like that.

[CB Fry]

Brexit - the clue is in the name. Britain exiting the EU. You ask whether there is more than one form of Britain exiting the EU, shooting yourself in the foot as you do so. No doubt you are one of those who want a losers' second referendum because the thick electorate didn't understand what it involved, whether we would stay in either or both of the single market, the customs union, whether the ECJ would still have any sway over our laws, cease having to pay into the EU slush fund, whether we would have some kind of FTA or leave with no deal, etc.

 

So how can you insinuate that there can only be a Brexit or not a Brexit, and that there is nothing in between? Have you not heard politicians talking about soft brexits or hard brexits? If we are half in / half out, is that a Brexit? No, it isn't. Leaving on WTO terms is a hard or clean Brexit. Anything involving us not being able to arrange our own trade deals, having to obey ECJ rulings, paying into the slush fund or having to accept uncontrolled freedom of movement of EU citizens is a soft Brexit, or more accurately BRINO, Brexit in name only, i.e. not a proper Brexit.

 

Does that help you imagine it?

We're leaving the European Union on March 29th, delivering precisely as directed by the result of the 2016 referendum.

 

You won, get over it.

[Guided Missile]

Today's more important news:

 

The European Central Bank is to halt its €2.6 trillion programme of bond purchases this month despite the deepening economic slowdown in the eurozone and the lack of any safety buffer against a deflation shock. The four-year blitz of emergency stimulus saved the European banking system and helped lift Europe out of an economic slump but has failed to generate self-sustaining momentum. Core inflation remains nailed to the floor at 1.1pc. Such a low level at this late stage of the cycle raises the risk of deflation and poisonous debt dynamics in the next recession.Mario Draghi, the ECB’s president, said quantitative easing had been a resounding success given the impossible circumstances. It was the “only driver of this recovery” at crucial moments.

Critics say the ECB waited too long before launching QE in early 2015 - six years after the US Federal Reserve - and allowed the deflationary forces to become lodged in parts of the system. It may now be trapped. The window is closing as the ageing global expansion fades. “It is the usual soothing babble from the ECB,” said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in Europe. “They are seriously underestimating the pace of the slowdown. China’s stimulus has run out and this is causing a world trade slowdown, with cascading effects through the global economy. ”Professor Mody, now at Princeton University, called it a grave policy error to declare ‘mission accomplished’ and cut off stimulus when it has failed to meet its inflation target and while growth is crumbling. Italy has one foot in recession. It faces an incipient credit crunch. Germany contracted in the third quarter. The Sentix index of business expectations for the eurozone has fallen to minus 18.8, the lowest since the EMU banking crisis in 2012.

 

The ECB is hitting technical and political limits. Its balance sheet has soared to 42pc of GDP. There is a scarcity of high-grade assets to buy. The bank pinned its colours to the mast long ago by stating that further purchases might be tantamount to monetary financing of deficits, risking a violation of EU treaty law. A German-led bloc of monetary hawks is using this to shut the programme.

Behind this lies a further worry. A side-effect of QE is an explosion in the Target2 liabilities of southern central banks within the ECB’s internal payment system. The Bank of Italy’s ‘debt’ to the ECB has reached €492bn, while the Bundesbank’s ‘credits’ have hit €928bn. This causing a political storm in Germany since it amounts to covert financing for capital flight from Italy without democratic assent from the German parliament. Losses could be huge in a euro break-up scenario. “Italy is the fault line. The ECB is the only organization buying its debt and this is about to stop,” said Prof Mody. “Italy’s real interest rate is around 2.5pc and it is the real interest that counts. With a growth rate near zero this is unbearable. The underlying numbers are cruel. Slow, creeping debt-deflation is inevitable and will become progressively worse,” he said. Prof Mody said the ECB has also been soaking up most of the net debt issuance of Spain and Portugal. “They are declared model performers but will we will see what happens when the tide recedes,” he said. He said the EU authorities had become obsessed with the minutiae of Italy’s budget deficit, seemingly oblivious to the much more potent issues about to engulf them. “They are like a drunk man looking under the lamppost because that is where the light is. They don’t seem to realize that the tsunami of rising world interest rates and slowing trade is about to sweep them away,” he said

 

Obviously, the f***ers have tried to hide the news behind their ambush of May. I say get into the lifeboats ASAP...

[Wes Tender]

Some of the papers are reporting that the reason May didn't get more support from the EU tonight was because she turned up without any concrete proposals or ideas. Despite Merkel interrupting her 10 minute speech three times to ask "what do you want?" May couldn't offer anything. Its beyond bizarre.

 

She really is totally useless. All she had to say to them was that as things stood she could not get the backstop through Parliament and that therefore we wouldn't be signing the deal with the backstop as it was, disallowing us from leaving it unilaterally and without a termination date. Unless they amended it to be acceptable to our Parliament, we could not sign it, so they would force us into trading with them through WTO terms. Under those circumstances we would not be paying them the £39 billion. Simple.

[saint si]

Brexit - the clue is in the name. Britain exiting the EU. You ask whether there is more than one form of Britain exiting the EU, shooting yourself in the foot as you do so. No doubt you are one of those who want a losers' second referendum because the thick electorate didn't understand what it involved, whether we would stay in either or both of the single market, the customs union, whether the ECJ would still have any sway over our laws, cease having to pay into the EU slush fund, whether we would have some kind of FTA or leave with no deal, etc.

 

So how can you insinuate that there can only be a Brexit or not a Brexit, and that there is nothing in between? Have you not heard politicians talking about soft brexits or hard brexits? If we are half in / half out, is that a Brexit? No, it isn't. Leaving on WTO terms is a hard or clean Brexit. Anything involving us not being able to arrange our own trade deals, having to obey ECJ rulings, paying into the slush fund or having to accept uncontrolled freedom of movement of EU citizens is a soft Brexit, or more accurately BRINO, Brexit in name only, i.e. not a proper Brexit.

 

Does that help you imagine it?

 

You seem to be arguing with yourself. My point is precisely that there are infinite different forms Brexit can take and most of your above rambling is saying the same thing.

 

Given that we now agree on that, it also follows that on referendum day nobody knew which of these forms would ultimately transpire. Even today we don't know for sure, though we certainly have a better idea of what forms it cannot take.

 

Hence the phrase "you didn't know what you were voting for". It's not a personal attack, or a critique on anyone's intellect, it's just a point of demonstrable fact.

 

(and aside to this, the PM's deal and future relationship is actually for a hard brexit as originally defined. i.e. leaving the single market. You lot are reading too much in to the withdrawal agreement which simply means we have to quite sensibly go through a transition phase to get there)

[Wes Tender]

You seem to be arguing with yourself. My point is precisely that there are infinite different forms Brexit can take and most of your above rambling is saying the same thing.

 

Given that we now agree on that, it also follows that on referendum day nobody knew which of these forms would ultimately transpire. Even today we don't know for sure, though we certainly have a better idea of what forms it cannot take.

 

Hence the phrase "you didn't know what you were voting for". It's not a personal attack, or a critique on anyone's intellect, it's just a point of demonstrable fact.

 

(and aside to this, the PM's deal and future relationship is actually for a hard brexit as originally defined. i.e. leaving the single market. You lot are reading too much in to the withdrawal agreement which simply means we have to quite sensibly go through a transition phase to get there)

 

Thanks for confirming that there are many forms of Brexit. Your previous post seemed to suggest that there weren't. Perhaps you just worded your post badly.

 

There aren't "infinite" types of Brexit. There are certainly a few variations, but you see, it is this sort of woolly opinion from you that leads to the appearance of your confusion.

 

And you are also confused about what constitutes a hard Brexit too. It isn't just leaving the single market, it is leaving without a trade deal with the EU and trading under WTO terms. What your lot like to call "crashing out," "going over a cliff edge" etc.

 

There is nothing much wrong with the concept of a withdrawal agreement or an implementation period, whatever they like to call it. It is the so-called "backstop" arrangement that is the problem. Read up on it.

[Guided Missile]

I should thank this thread (Bexy?) for highlighting this tweet. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it is from October and seems to be the only rational explanation for what is going on. Otherwise, our government really is dumb...

 

Numerous sources have confirmed the British government is deliberately aiming for a no deal Brexit outcome in order to take advantage of extended powers available to them under the scenario - including civil contingencies and so-called Henry VIII. The Chequers plan is a ploy designed to engage the EU in distraction from the desired British outcome and create a false narrative at home in the UK that the EU are responsible. Sources claim emergency legislation is being prepared for January next year (2019) when the Withdrawal Act no deal deadlines pass - this would be 29/01 and the civil contingencies secretariat have been convened as per leaked Hammond notes recently, adding credibility. The British government aims to prevent France and other EU countries from properly preparing for no deal by continuing to falsely engage in the negotiations in bad faith, keeping the EU27 from moving from early stage plans to contingency measures as long as possible. The British government hopes this collateral damage will add to planned disruption around the EU election processes next spring and they will use dissident relationships to further this - likely to include Orban. On Ireland: The British government hopes the EU will be forced to move first and install a hard border in Ireland in order to avoid blame itself for a situation it has created. Further sources claim the data harvested during Repeal 8th will be used in some "unity" campaigns. The British government has progressed trade talks with the US to the point of potential emergency supply, moving substantially beyond informal discussions - though the Trump administration should not be taken at its word, a degree of reliance on this has been factored in UK side.The government intends to create a tax haven on the EU's doorstep to exploit financial service deregulation. This speaks for itself.

11:25 am - 1 Oct 2018

[Johnny Bognor]

What I find odd with all of this, is that there is one simple issue with Brexit. It is not implementable without either ceding NI, or tearing up the GFA - neither of which can and will happen. Therefore Soft Brexit, Hard Brexit, or whatever you want to call it, is not possible.

 

It looks more like a semi lob-on Brexit

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It looks more like a semi lob-on Brexit

 

Well, I think we can all agree that whatever Brexit it is, Brexiteers have been spun a cock and balls story.

[OldNick]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/revealed-how-much-it-will-cost-to-travel-to-the-eu-after-brexit/ar-BBQWlka?ocid=spartanntp

[Cabbage_Face]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/revealed-how-much-it-will-cost-to-travel-to-the-eu-after-brexit/ar-BBQWlka?ocid=spartanntp

 

Is the world just made up of EU countries then? Stupid story really. I'll just go elsewhere if it costs too much. Simple really.

 

7 Euros charge, hardly bank breaking stuff.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Simply not true!

 

We know what a version of leave 'could' look like. Nothing has been agreed upon.

 

I've said it before and am happy to repeat myself, there are too many sticky fingers in too many pies (in both the UK and in Europe), for anything other than a hard brexit to be a reality.

 

He’s calling people thick, but seems to confuse the future relationship with the withdrawal agreement. This happens all the time with the alleged “brightest” of our electorate . Lucas was at it last night on QT.

 

We’re no nearer knowing what Brexit looks like now, than we were the day we voted. What we do know is what the cost/terms of leaving are, if we sign up to May’s turd. The political declaration is so wholly that it can be interpreted in anyway. It could turn out to be the simplest trade deal ever negotiated, it could be a comprehensive FTA, could be Norway+ or a bespoke deal. The only thing it can’t be (under May’s turd) is a permanent “no deal”, but that’s not the preferred option of anyone.

 

A50 was written in such a way that these issues were inevitable, unless the EU seriously thought you’d walk away without a withdrawal agreement. Even now they have absolutely no incentive or reason to water down the backstop. Why would they, when May has made in very clear she won’t contemplate a no deal withdrawal. Even if you think no deal is the most horrendous thing that could ever happen, you can’t allow the other side to know that. The worst victim of a no deal withdrawal will be Eire, but they are not wetting their pants over it like our lightweight politicians are. They maybe in private, but they’re not giving the other side (The UK) that vibe. We are.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 14 December, 2018 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

I should thank this thread (Bexy?) for highlighting this tweet. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it is from October and seems to be the only rational explanation for what is going on. Otherwise, our government really is dumb...

"

Numerous sources have confirmed the British government is deliberately aiming for a no deal Brexit outcome in order to take advantage of extended powers available to them under the scenario - including civil contingencies and so-called Henry VIII. The Chequers plan is a ploy designed to engage the EU in distraction from the desired British outcome and create a false narrative at home in the UK that the EU are responsible. Sources claim emergency legislation is being prepared for January next year (2019) when the Withdrawal Act no deal deadlines pass - this would be 29/01 and the civil contingencies secretariat have been convened as per leaked Hammond notes recently, adding credibility. The British government aims to prevent France and other EU countries from properly preparing for no deal by continuing to falsely engage in the negotiations in bad faith, keeping the EU27 from moving from early stage plans to contingency measures as long as possible. The British government hopes this collateral damage will add to planned disruption around the EU election processes next spring and they will use dissident relationships to further this - likely to include Orban. On Ireland: The British government hopes the EU will be forced to move first and install a hard border in Ireland in order to avoid blame itself for a situation it has created. Further sources claim the data harvested during Repeal 8th will be used in some "unity" campaigns. The British government has progressed trade talks with the US to the point of potential emergency supply, moving substantially beyond informal discussions - though the Trump administration should not be taken at its word, a degree of reliance on this has been factored in UK side.The government intends to create a tax haven on the EU's doorstep to exploit financial service deregulation. This speaks for itself."

 

Of course that pre-supposes that nobody in the EU will read that paragraph.

[OldNick]

Is the world just made up of EU countries then? Stupid story really. I'll just go elsewhere if it costs too much. Simple really.

 

7 Euros charge, hardly bank breaking stuff.

Its a true story, but another niggle we have to go through. Much like the visa for the US , its there and we have to pay it. It is just another new thing that will cost us, but as you say its only £7 but a family of 4 its £28

[OldNick]

The EU will give us nothing as they know that the chances of a second referendum increase by the day.

[Saint_clark]

Its a true story, but another niggle we have to go through. Much like the visa for the US , its there and we have to pay it. It is just another new thing that will cost us, but as you say its only £7 but a family of 4 its £28

It's £6.30...every 3 years. So for a family of 4 it's £8.40 a year...Anyone who spins this as a negative is a moron, it's significantly cheaper then visas to other countries and the EU have said we will have access to this deal or no deal.

 

Sent from my SM-J600FN using Tapatalk

[Orange]

Well, I think we can all agree that whatever Brexit it is, Brexiteers have been spun a cock and balls story.

 

You really are so up your own arse you think anyone with a different perspective has been 'duped' or 'fooled', don't you? Epitome of the metro elite.