Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[OldNick]

Threatening no deal is an empty vacuous gesture bought by almost no one. You seriously think the EU believe Brits are stupid enough to leave without a deal?. Well obviously one or two are but they’re just the comedy routine on a football forum

 

The EU know there is no majority in Parliament. All they have to do is watch tv or read the papers. Pretending otherwise weakens your position not strengthens it

It may be a vacuous gesture but so why the big talk about it? The deal the EU have given us is terrible, notice how they are all united, its because they know they are having their gateau and eating it. They realise that by not budging many are losing their nerve over here and we are divided.

[shurlock]

It seems that the BBC slipped up with its audience selection. They're supposed to represent the Remain side like the panel, not Leave. Nice to see an audience cheering proper Leave for a change, instead of the idiotic whooping from the Momentum yoof wing that are usually present supporting their Remain speakers' every word.

 

Could it be that the audience were so vociferous because they are very angry and heartily fed-up with the failure of government to deliver on their referendum vote and that they now perceive that Brexit may be thwarted? Or that on the panel was sat the most incompetent Shadow Home Secretary ever in Labour Party history?

 

As is usually the case with Remoaners like you, you arrogantly label Brexiteers as idiots, thus denigrating over half of the electorate, but those idiots were bright enough to realise that Abbott's and Labour's stance that they would not negotiate on a deal without taking no deal off the table is the most stupid negotiating position that they could possibly employ. They also despise talk of "peoples votes", as if it wasn't people who told them what they wanted in June 2016 and they are angered that the establishment didn't listen to them the first time around. As events during the past couple of weeks unfold and plots to overthrow Brexit begin to surface, so the electorate's anger will grow ever stronger until it reaches the point where it turns into direct action on the streets. Places like Derby and other leave voting cities in Labour's traditional industrial heartlands in the Midlands and North, are where the civil unrest will be strongest.

 

Still with the threats of violence Les. What are you going to do pal? Plough your mobility scooter into a crowd of remainers?

[saint si]

Still with the threats of violence Les. What are you going to do pal? Plough your mobility scooter into a crowd of remainers?

 

Don't listen to him. It's Project Fear. Everything will be fine with a second referendum if we just believe in it enough.

[shurlock]

It may be a vacuous gesture but so why the big talk about it? The deal the EU have given us is terrible, notice how they are all united, its because they know they are having their gateau and eating it. They realise that by not budging many are losing their nerve over here and we are divided.

 

 

Remind me how the EU managed to ensure that the sequencing of negotiations started with the withdrawal agreement (EU’s preference?) rather than talk of trade (UK’s preference)?

[doddisalegend]

Boris making his play to be next prime minster with a speech claiming Brexit can unite the country..... bit late for that I think.

 

Still at least he is following up with the usual favorites higher wages ( made possible by getting rid of all the low paid immigrants), less taxes, more money for hospitals and public transport a post Brexit world where everything is better and costs less...got to love politicans

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

Threatening no deal is an empty vacuous gesture bought by almost no one. You seriously think the EU believe Brits are stupid enough to leave without a deal?. Well obviously one or two are but they’re just the comedy routine on a football forum

 

The EU know there is no majority in Parliament. All they have to do is watch tv or read the papers. Pretending otherwise weakens your position not strengthens it

 

It comes as no surprise at all to me that you include yourself among those who do not comprehend the first principle of business negotiation, that one must be prepared to walk away from a bad deal. And then you go and shoot yourself in the foot by claiming that the EU don't believe that we would walk away from a lousy deal, therefore they have no incentive to improve it, thus confirming the whole point of that strategy. You arrogantly assume that you yourself are not part of the comedy routine on a football forum, when refusing to accept such a basic negotiation tactic makes you a prime candidate.

 

Nobody denies that there is a majority of Remain MPs in Parliament apparently not prepared to honour the instructions of their electorates and negotiate a proper Brexit and the EU should recognise that either a mutually acceptable trade deal should be negotiated, or we leave with no deal on WTO terms. If our Parliament is stupid enough to remove no deal as an option, the EU won't be able to believe their luck, and can proceed to treat us with contempt as a vassal state colony, What they fear most is us leaving on WTO terms and making a success of it, as we will. At the moment, that is the default position on 29th March at 11pm, unless either the EU offers a more acceptable solution to the impasse they created with the Irish backstop, or the Remoaner majority in the House comes up with some treachery to extend Article 50 or remove it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Of course you have to. It's basic business negotiating sense, despite Shurlock and Verbal not being able or willing to comprehend it.

 

If you take no deal off the table, don’t you effectively hand the EU a veto on whether we leave or not.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

Remind me how the EU managed to ensure that the sequencing of negotiations started with the withdrawal agreement (EU’s preference?) rather than talk of trade (UK’s preference)?

 

Simple. Total incompetence from the Vicar's daughter, the worst Tory PM ever.

[Wes Tender]

Still with the threats of violence Les. What are you going to do pal? Plough your mobility scooter into a crowd of remainers?

 

You're still unable to comprehend that if one forecasts a turn of events, that one is not necessarily advocating them. It's a simple concept, Shurlock. You are undoubtedly intelligent, so I fail to see why you are acting so thick.

 

Still with the infantile insults, Shurlock?

[shurlock]

Simple. Total incompetence from the Vicar's daughter, the worst Tory PM ever.

 

Because the EU used the threat of no deal to ensure its preferred sequencing. A threat is not credible when (i) you've already blinked once and (ii) it is going to hurt you significantly more than the other side.

[OldNick]

Because the EU used the threat of no deal to ensure its preferred sequencing. A threat is not credible when (i) you've already blinked once and (ii) it is going to hurt you significantly more than the other side.

That is not necessarily the point. Both sides will be hurt and whilst near term it will hurt us more, a terrible deal will hurt us much more as it is forever. The 39b may also be reduced. I dont advocate leaving without a deal but if we have to we must.

The deal as it stands gives us nothing. I voted to remain but also understand that in democracy the result has to be upheld.

[shurlock]

Did you watch Portillio & Alan Johnson take apart some Tory birds second referendum pitch. Although she was fit, she got schooled by those two. Portillio although a Brexiteer, was against a vote stating beforehand that in a parliamentary democracy a party advocating leaving in their manifesto was the way to leave, and Johnson ran Labour Remain campaign, so these aren’t ERG types.

 

 

Anyway the point they stumped her on was the question, Remain or ?. What was the “Leave “ option. It couldn’t be May’s deal because that couldn’t get through the house and was so heavily defeated that a few tweaks still wouldn’t get it through. Remain politicians claiming no deal is Armageddon with people dying, food shortages, medicines running out, hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost, etc etc, ruled that out. How can you seriously say all that, and then say “but you can vote for that if you want”. They’ve all been piously stating their working in the national interest to vote down May’s deal or stop no deal. They haven’t said no deal is the worst option but I’m sure we’ll be fine, but worse off. They’re saying things that if they believe are true, can not be contemplated as an option. So this only leaves another deal or a major change to May’s deal. In either case it’ll need EU approval, but also be able to pass in Parliament. If it can pass in Parliament the impasse has been cleared, negating the need for a “people’s vote”. Remember, those supporters are claiming they’re not trying to re run the original referendum just throwing it back to the people because parliament can’t get a deal through. By putting the Leave option on a second ballot, they’re showing that a version of Leave can get through. So why need a new vote.

 

Of course they’ll then have to pivot to telling the truth, that they actually want to reverse the decision. Johnson then claimed Leave would win and win by more in that case.

 

It was the best anti “people’s vote” analysis I’ve heard. Didn’t go down the anti democratic line, just pointed out the flaws in her “throw it back to the people because parliament is log jammed” line.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Their analysis was utter garbage pal.

 

Why do claims of Armageddon mean that no deal or the WTO option could not be on a ballot paper? Aren't those claims just Project Fear MK II? Another projection, no different from claims of mass unemployment and punishment budgets made in the first referendum? On dopey Portillo and Johnson's logic, we shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place.

 

Of course, its not hard to find those projecting a bright future on no deal/WTO terms -no wishy-washy half-in, half-out but full control of our laws, borders and money; extrication from a failing protectionist EU and opportunities to engage fully and freely with the rest of the world where future economic action is likely to be yada yada yada.

 

Needless to say you have espoused one or all of these views in the past while dismissing project fear. So if you buy Johnson and Portillo's argument that no deal could not be on the ballot paper, you're either a bit thick or utterly disingenuous (though I suspect you're too thick to be disingenuous).

Edited 18 January, 2019 by shurlock

[shurlock]

That is not necessarily the point. Both sides will be hurt and whilst near term it will hurt us more, a terrible deal will hurt us much more as it is forever. The 39b may also be reduced. I dont advocate leaving without a deal but if we have to we must.

The deal as it stands gives us nothing. I voted to remain but also understand that in democracy the result has to be upheld.

 

I don't understand this.

 

As badly flawed as it is, the deal doesn't give us nothing and I am much more sympathetic to it as the least bad option than most. Danny Finkelstein (trigger warning Les) has been bang on the money here.

Edited 18 January, 2019 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

I don't understand this.

 

The deal doesn't give us nothing and I am much more sympathetic to it as the least bad option. Danny Finkelstein (trigger warning Les) has been bang on the money here.

 

Of course you don't understand it. You don't understand that walking away from a bad deal is a strong negotiating tactic, or that if somebody is not advocating violence if they merely predict it.

[shurlock]

Of course you don't understand it. You don't understand that walking away from a bad deal is a strong negotiating tactic, or that if somebody is not advocating violence if they merely predict it.

 

Les you wouldn't know a negotiation if it hit you in the face. Will you explain why the heads of the UK's biggest businesses who I assume have negotiating experience are desperate that no deal is taken off the table (see the DT's transcriptions of the Hammond, Barclay, Clark call)?

[Wes Tender]

Les you wouldn't know a negotiation if it hit you in the face. Will you explain why the heads of the UK's biggest businesses who I assume have negotiating experience are desperate that no deal is taken off the table (see the DT's transcriptions of the Hammond, Barclay, Clark call)?

 

Really? I have to negotiate business deals on a daily basis, as does Nick. How about you? Your naivety on basic negotiating tactics suggests you do not,

 

Regarding your second point, again, how naive can you really be? They want no deal removed from the table to produce precisely the sort of bad deal that May has come up with, hoping that it will lead to us remaining in the EU, under the protectionist cartel policies that stifle competition against them. There are veiled threats that if they are not allowed to try and stop a no deal Brexit that several Cabinet and middle ranking Ministers might resign. Well, I for one think that getting rid of Hammond, Gauke, Rudd and Clark would be a cause for celebration.

[benjii]

Les you wouldn't know a negotiation if it hit you in the face. Will you explain why the heads of the UK's biggest businesses who I assume have negotiating experience are desperate that no deal is taken off the table (see the DT's transcriptions of the Hammond, Barclay, Clark call)?

 

Stability.

 

Bug business doesn't want disruption. Disruption is the playingfield of challengers. Disruption is a threat to big business. Even the strongest advocate of no deal would, I think, acknowledge that no deal is more disruptive than a deal which reconstitutes membership as far as possible. If they don't, then they're a loony and not worth worrying about.

 

Big business favours stability, that's a bland truism. Why would you take a political risk when you're doing fine as a corporate CEO? There are a few outliers, like the Wetherspoon chap, but clearly the vast majority of big business leaders would not have wanted the referendum in the first place.

 

People have broader concerns than big business leaders.

[benjii]

Thought I'd help out Lezzer by paraphrasing in more sober language. In the interests of balance.

 

Think of it like a golf handicap

[shurlock]

Really? I have to negotiate business deals on a daily basis, as does Nick. How about you? Your naivety on basic negotiating tactics suggests you do not,

 

Regarding your second point, again, how naive can you really be? They want no deal removed from the table to produce precisely the sort of bad deal that May has come up with, hoping that it will lead to us remaining in the EU, under the protectionist cartel policies that stifle competition against them. There are veiled threats that if they are not allowed to try and stop a no deal Brexit that several Cabinet and middle ranking Ministers might resign. Well, I for one think that getting rid of Hammond, Gauke, Rudd and Clark would be a cause for celebration.

 

No Les they want no deal removed from the table because it is the worst possible outcome for UK PLC and the millions it employs.

 

"Protectionist cartel policies" - big words from you pal (next time you'll be telling me that you've finally worked out what productivity means). I will point out that the head of Amazon UK was on the conference call with Hammond, Clark and Barclay demanding "comfort that no deal can be ruled out". Are Amazon feather bedded by EU "protectionist cartel policies" Les? The same EU that has launched a preliminary investigation into Amazon's use of merchant data? The same EU that ordered Amazon to repay €250m in back taxes for gaining illegal tax advantages? The same EU that is trying to rein in tech companies more generally - whether its tax avoidance, regulatory arbitrage, monopolistic practices or abuse of personal data?

 

Which is to say I wouldn't trust you (or OldNick) to run a sweet shop and negotiate the price of a jar of lemon bon bons or liquorice comfits.

 

Lets see what Nick Boles and Dominic Grieve come back with on Monday. You might want to start cutting out letters from the newspaper headlines for these two traitors...

Edited 18 January, 2019 by shurlock

[shurlock]

Thought I'd help out Lezzer by paraphrasing in more sober language. In the interests of balance.

 

Think of it like a golf handicap

 

So out of the ashes and disruption of no deal, we might see new behemoths emerge, led by Les, OldNick and Jihadi John?

 

Easily the best argument I've heard for no deal.

[100%Red&White]

Ahem, liquorice 'comfits'.

[shurlock]

Ahem, liquorice 'comfits'.

 

My apologies

[Wes Tender]

No Les they want no deal removed from the table because it is the worst possible outcome for UK PLC and the millions it employs.

 

"Protectionist cartel policies" - big words from you pal (next time you'll be telling me that you've finally worked out what productivity means). I will point out that the head of Amazon UK was on the conference call with Hammond, Clark and Barclay demanding "comfort that no deal can be ruled out". Are Amazon feather bedded by EU "protectionist cartel policies" Les? The same EU that has launched a preliminary investigation into Amazon's use of merchant data? The same EU that ordered Amazon to repay €250m in back taxes for gaining illegal tax advantages? The same EU that is trying to rein in tech companies more generally - whether its tax avoidance, regulatory arbitrage, monopolistic practices or abuse of personal data?

 

Which is to say I wouldn't trust you (or OldNick) to run a sweet shop and negotiate the price of a jar of lemon bon bons or liquorice comfits.

 

Lets see what Nick Boles and Dominic Grieve come back with on Monday. You might want to start cutting out letters from the newspaper headlines for these two traitors...

 

So these big corporations are solely concerned with what is best for the UK and its employees? How altruistic of them. None of them considered that the EU's protectionist policies that favoured them by stifling competition from smaller rivals were a factor in them wanting to remove a no deal option at all, neither did they even realise that via a no deal Brexit ending free movement, they might be deprived of much of their low paid workers and have to pay more to their employees. Amazon of course, is well known for this, so little wonder that they would be in favour of lobbying the Government to ditch the no deal option. As I said, you are as naive as they come.

[benjii]

So these big corporations are solely concerned with what is best for the UK and its employees? How altruistic of them. None of them considered that the EU's protectionist policies that favoured them by stifling competition from smaller rivals were a factor in them wanting to remove a no deal option at all, neither did they even realise that via a no deal Brexit ending free movement, they might be deprived of much of their low paid workers and have to pay more to their employees. Amazon of course, is well known for this, so little wonder that they would be in favour of lobbying the Government to ditch the no deal option. As I said, you are as naive as they come.

 

Which EU policies stifle competition from smaller rivals? Genuine question.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Really? I have to negotiate business deals on a daily basis, as does Nick. How about you? Your naivety on basic negotiating tactics suggests you do not,

 

Regarding your second point, again, how naive can you really be? They want no deal removed from the table to produce precisely the sort of bad deal that May has come up with, hoping that it will lead to us remaining in the EU, under the protectionist cartel policies that stifle competition against them. There are veiled threats that if they are not allowed to try and stop a no deal Brexit that several Cabinet and middle ranking Ministers might resign. Well, I for one think that getting rid of Hammond, Gauke, Rudd and Clark would be a cause for celebration.

 

You negotiate business deals on a daily basis? You?

 

That you on the right, is it?

 

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Which EU policies stifle competition from smaller rivals? Genuine question.

 

It was probably the latest update to the Competition Commission in 1998, which aligned us with the stricter EU rules on buyouts or mergers...but luckily we won't have to follow this once we're free of the EU, and the larger companies can be free to vacuum up all the smaller companies, stifle competition and price fix through the various cartels we'll see formed.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Which EU policies stifle competition from smaller rivals? Genuine question.

 

The argument is that large companies are better able to cope with more regulations. A highly regulated economy makes it harder for small business to compete.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[whelk]

Really? I have to negotiate business deals on a daily basis, as does Nick. How about you? Your naivety on basic negotiating tactics suggests you do not,

 

Regarding your second point, again, how naive can you really be? They want no deal removed from the table to produce precisely the sort of bad deal that May has come up with, hoping that it will lead to us remaining in the EU, under the protectionist cartel policies that stifle competition against them. There are veiled threats that if they are not allowed to try and stop a no deal Brexit that several Cabinet and middle ranking Ministers might resign. Well, I for one think that getting rid of Hammond, Gauke, Rudd and Clark would be a cause for celebration.

 

This maybe unfair but I always thought you in a care home. Negotiating eh

[ashnats]

I’d like to clear up a myth about the deatherendum, and this idea that the old brexit voters to blame will not be around.

 

Thing is, everyone has gotten older since the last vote. Peoples voting preferences change as they get older and usually to the right.

 

The population demographics voting in a second vote will not be so different to last time, and if anything we have an ageing population so we can expect further shifts right.

 

Every floppy haired graduate comes out liberal and by the time they get older and realise how the world really is tend to shift away from believing what they were taught, and make judgements based on their own experience and opinions.

 

People who blame the elderly don’t seem to be aware that they willl be old one day, and they won’t be so different when they get there.

[benjii]

- Alright, Wes here. I need a price for 28m 4x2, 300 tungsten-tipped screws (16mm) and a bag of sand (British).

 

- Hi Wes. OK... ... der... let me see... plus that... and the sand.... that'll be £39.95.

 

- I'll walk away, so help me. Just try me, pal.

 

- I can call it £36

 

- Done.

 

 

It's exactly like Brexit.

[shurlock]

I’d like to clear up a myth about the deatherendum, and this idea that the old brexit voters to blame will not be around.

 

Thing is, everyone has gotten older since the last vote. Peoples voting preferences change as they get older and usually to the right.

 

The population demographics voting in a second vote will not be so different to last time, and if anything we have an ageing population so we can expect further shifts right.

 

Every floppy haired graduate comes out liberal and by the time they get older and realise how the world really is tend to shift away from believing what they were taught, and make judgements based on their own experience and opinions.

 

People who blame the elderly don’t seem to be aware that they willl be old one day, and they won’t be so different when they get there.

 

Yes and no. There are certainly age effects e.g. how people change as they get older. But there are also cohort effects – the impact of being born in a particular time, region, period and/or sharing similar life experiences. In other words, it may be true that people become more conservative as they get older; but there may also be something special or different about being born in the UK or the South of England in the 1950s or 1960s and growing up thereafter that shapes political preferences and makes them more conservative. You just have to look at Les and LD who've lost their s**t and been waging war with the EU for nearly three decades. They were the future once

Edited 18 January, 2019 by shurlock

[buctootim]

The argument is that large companies are better able to cope with more regulations. A highly regulated economy makes it harder for small business to compete.

lk

 

Nice try but a single market with a single set of regulations across 27 countries gives an advantage to smaller companies because they only have to master one regulatory regime

[sandwichsaint]

I’d like to clear up a myth about the deatherendum, and this idea that the old brexit voters to blame will not be around.

 

Thing is, everyone has gotten older since the last vote. Peoples voting preferences change as they get older and usually to the right.

 

The population demographics voting in a second vote will not be so different to last time, and if anything we have an ageing population so we can expect further shifts right.

 

Every floppy haired graduate comes out liberal and by the time they get older and realise how the world really is tend to shift away from believing what they were taught, and make judgements based on their own experience and opinions.

 

People who blame the elderly don’t seem to be aware that they willl be old one day, and they won’t be so different when they get there.

 

Think this has already been priced in though? The deatherendum date was calculated by mapping the percentage vote of the various demographics as voted for in 2016, onto the population as it stands now. It is counter-intuitive, we do have an ageing population over-all but the actual numbers in each cohort are such that we have just passed that tipping point. Go figure, maths and stats do funny things, not sure I've explained it very well but it makes sense to me.

[Verbal]

Yes and no. There are certainly age effects e.g. how people change as they get older. But there are also cohort effects – the impact of being born in a particular time, region, period and/or sharing similar life experiences. In other words, it may be true that people become more conservative as they get older; but there may also be something special or different about being born in the UK or the South of England in the 1950s or 1960s and growing up thereafter that shapes political preferences and makes them more conservative. You just have to look at Les and LD who've lost their s**t and been waging war with the EU for nearly three decades. They were the future once

 

The older and Jihadist wing of Brexiteers all seem to have one thing in common. They were beneficiaries of Thatcherism. What Brexit has very much in common with Thatcherism is its willingness to destroy huge swathes of Britain in order to focus wealth on the City and private property. Anyone who knew Liverpool in the 1980s, or places like Corby, would have seen the devastating effects of de-industrialisation on people and places wrought by Thatcherism. Brexit Jihadists of a certain age seem to have a folk memory of that - and view the economic carnage of no deal as a modern variant of the Thatcherite wipe-out of British manufacturing.

 

So it's no wonder that the typical Brexit jihadist is pale stale, close to or at pensionable age, cosseted and intellectually dulled by the banalities of Thatcherite zealotry.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Nice try but a single market with a single set of regulations across 27 countries gives an advantage to smaller companies because they only have to master one regulatory regime

 

I wasn’t saying it was right or wrong, I was just explaining the rational behind the comment . Do try to keep up.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

I don't understand this.

 

As badly flawed as it is, the deal doesn't give us nothing and I am much more sympathetic to it as the least bad option than most. Danny Finkelstein (trigger warning Les) has been bang on the money here.

I am sympathetic to the deal but it is bad as we will still be under the jurisdiction of the Eu as the deal supersedes anything our law. The backstop if I understand correctly will stay in place until the EU decide to drop it. In that time we have to abide by any regulation/law that the EU puts in place even if it is against our national interests. In theory they could make always saying we can only fish cod to a certain size but everyone else bigger, far fetched but Im sure you get the drift of it. We wont have any say at all as we have left nd our veto lost. Revoke Article 50 and flop back in or leave without a deal that really is the option. Half baked deals will leave us very unhappy and we will have no advantages.

I always respect your posts as you are well gemmed up on the subject and I only skim over it, but I do believe Iam more experienced in negotiating (sometimes you get it wrong of course) but giving away a bargaining chip as much as the EU pretend it does not matter is not clever.

[OldNick]

You negotiate business deals on a daily basis? You?

 

That you on the right, is it?

 

Probably more like me Jeff, but I will say you couldn't even negotiate people to stop parking in front of your gate and so perhaps you are on soft ground there.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Probably more like me Jeff, but I will say you couldn't even negotiate people to stop parking in front of your gate and so perhaps you are on soft ground there.

 

That got sorted years ago - and I got a new drive and 5m electric gate out of it, so maybe I'm better at it than you think...

[OldNick]

That got sorted years ago - and I got a new drive and 5m electric gate out of it, so maybe I'm better at it than you think...

Id have got 6m electric gate and a gateman lol. Only teasing UJ Edited 19 January, 2019 by OldNick

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Id have got 6m electric gate and a gateman lol. Only teasing UJ

 

My gateman's left due to Brexit unfortunately.

[OldNick]

If we flop back into the EU, how will the rest of the world judge us. A trading nation that cant keep its word will be a humiliation, forget the economics of this but we will be harmed in so many ways. Once back we will be treated with disrespect imo

[Jonnyboy]

That got sorted years ago - and I got a new drive and 5m electric gate out of it, so maybe I'm better at it than you think...

 

#loadsamoney

[Unbelievable Jeff]

#loadsamoney

 

???

[aintforever]

If we flop back into the EU, how will the rest of the world judge us. A trading nation that cant keep its word will be a humiliation, forget the economics of this but we will be harmed in so many ways. Once back we will be treated with disrespect imo

 

Didn’t Ireland twice redo refurendums? I don’t think other countries really give a sh!t.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Didn’t Ireland twice redo refurendums? I don’t think other countries really give a sh!t.

 

The Irish voted against the Nice and Lisbon treaties and had second referenda both times.

 

The Danes voted against Maastricht before voting again.

 

The French & Dutch both voted against the EU constitution but rather than risk another vote, came up with a different wheeze. They changed the name to Lisbon treaty and denied their people a vote.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Didn’t Ireland twice redo refurendums? I don’t think other countries really give a sh!t.

Yep. Britain is pretty narcissistic but in reality nobody really pays much attention to the local politctical difficulties in other countries

[van Hanegem]

Yep. Britain is pretty narcissistic but in reality nobody really pays much attention to the local politctical difficulties in other countries

 

Can’t speak for other European countries but in the Netherlands people are concerned with what’s happening in British politics right now. Not just because of the 450 billion in investments in the UK or job losses in the fishing industry and so on but also what will happen to families and friends in the UK.

 

There are also people who think it’s ridiculous that the EU is willing to take such a risk by not giving in a little more. Merkel&co underestimated the danger of a no deal Brexit back in 2016 and now they’re doing it again. How can they be willing to accept that the UK is going to be in a complete chaos with all the consequences for the other European countries? Of course there are also europhiles who see the sunny side of the mess in the UK: “at least there’s no more talk of a Nexit”.

[whelk]

Raab is such a smug fcker.

[Batman]

German and Dutch business leaders are afraid of no deal for Brexit.

German business leaders are now pressuring Merkal to make compromises before it is too late.

 

Of course, let’s take no deal off the table and lose any leverage there is. Whether we want it or not

[CB Fry]

German and Dutch business leaders are afraid of no deal for Brexit.

German business leaders are now pressuring Merkal to make compromises before it is too late.

 

Of course, let’s take no deal off the table and lose any leverage there is. Whether we want it or not

Just German and Dutch project fear. They all survived World War Two so surviving another country leaving the EU really should be an absolute piece of pi ss.