Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

  • Thread starter Thread starter blueinsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People on media coverage still desperate to paint the general election as changing the Brexit game as if Labour don't want practically the same as Tory on the matter - completely overlooking the facts including SNP decline in seats and very little Lib Dem. Pathetic people.
 
The negativity is down to the UK's insistence on denying the bleeding obvious until reality smacks them round the head. May/Davis seemed to believe that they could get France and Germany to agree on parallel negotiations which the UK was repeatedly told was never going to happen. May allegedly asked Macron last week for his support for the UK's position and was rebuffed (again).

The other aspect is did we capitulate so quickly because the GE has left the Govt in an even weaker position? Are we going to agree to things for expediency sake given there is no guarantee the Govt will be around in 3 or 6 months time meaning we can't afford the time to argue issues properly? This does not bode well for the UK going forward.
The government went into the Brexit negotiations in bad faith. That was the plan from the beginning. They tried to get the smaller Eastern European states onside in a bid to divide and rule. They tried to drive wedges between members in the hope of creating a domino effect, with our right wing press banging on about which country would be the next to exit. Would it be Frexit, Nexit or Auxit. We weren't just going to leave home, we were going to knock the house down as well. The EU, quite understandably didn't like it very much. This is what Elmar Brok, a German MEP said about it: “The British government tries to divide and rule,” he said. “They believe they can take members of parliament out of certain nations … to win support by dividing us. If they try to negotiate while trying to interfere in our side then we can do that too. We can make a big fuss over Scotland. Or Northern Ireland.” Not really the way to win friends and influence people, is it.
 
So months after the EU said the sequence for talks will be divorce first, trade and future relations second and the UK stated no way and it will cause the mother of all rows we have on day 1 an agreement on the sequence for talks which is....(drum roll please). Divorce first, trade and future relations second. Cracking start by Davis.

This pic tells us a lot....

DCsWz4pWAAAKDyD.jpg


We're having our arse handed to us, but for Davis it doesn't matter, the price we're going to pay, all of us, is immaterial to him, because for him this is a culmination of a decades long political ambition to leave the EU. If you want to look for political zealotry, don't look to the likes of Corbyn, look to the Europhobes in the Tory Party.

Who is in charge?
Laura Kuennsberg, BBC political editor

It's often compared to a divorce - the UK wanted to talk about who gets the house and the CD collection at the same time as settling who pays for the kids' weddings in 20 years' time.

The EU on the other hand have been firm all along that the future arrangements could only be discussed once the terms of the initial split have been agreed.

The debate was called "parallelism versus sequentialism" and from this afternoon's press conference and the announcement of the procedure it is clear that the UK has lost.

Ministers believed they would be able to persuade the EU - the failure to do so has been described as a "total cave-in".

The discussion was even predicted by Mr Davis as likely to be the "row of the summer". The row won't happen because it seems the UK has already given in
 
Last edited:
This pic tells us a lot....

DCsWz4pWAAAKDyD.jpg


We're having our arse handed to us, but for Davis it doesn't matter, the price we're going to pay, all of us, is immaterial to him, because for him this is a culmination of a decades long political ambition to leave the EU. If you want to look for political zealotry, don't look to the likes of Corbyn, look to the Europhobes in the Tory Party.

Who is in charge?
Laura Kuennsberg, BBC political editor

It's often compared to a divorce - the UK wanted to talk about who gets the house and the CD collection at the same time as settling who pays for the kids' weddings in 20 years' time.

The EU on the other hand have been firm all along that the future arrangements could only be discussed once the terms of the initial split have been agreed.

The debate was called "parallelism versus sequentialism" and from this afternoon's press conference and the announcement of the procedure it is clear that the UK has lost.

Ministers believed they would be able to persuade the EU - the failure to do so has been described as a "total cave-in".

The discussion was even predicted by Mr Davis as likely to be the "row of the summer". The row won't happen because it seems the UK has already given in
If only Jeeza had shown up for that debate...
 
so you want a bad deal ?. I have suggested and others have that some remainers want the economy to fail and want the worst possible deal to say ' i told you so' and that we stay in the eu. why would you want a bad deal, where we could end up completely outside the eu in a terrible position.

In that scenario where we still had a chance to stay in the EU, yes. However, that is highly unlikely and is therefore a moot point.

Either way, I am sure that we will be left with the shit end of the stick, especially with an incompetent, stupid fool in charge of negotiations. But that's okay, we will have Boris in charge and the likes of Michael Fallon in key positions. Let's grasp that rosy future and make good ole Blightly relevant again.
 
This pic tells us a lot....

DCsWz4pWAAAKDyD.jpg


We're having our arse handed to us, but for Davis it doesn't matter, the price we're going to pay, all of us, is immaterial to him, because for him this is a culmination of a decades long political ambition to leave the EU. If you want to look for political zealotry, don't look to the likes of Corbyn, look to the Europhobes in the Tory Party.

Who is in charge?
Laura Kuennsberg, BBC political editor

It's often compared to a divorce - the UK wanted to talk about who gets the house and the CD collection at the same time as settling who pays for the kids' weddings in 20 years' time.

The EU on the other hand have been firm all along that the future arrangements could only be discussed once the terms of the initial split have been agreed.

The debate was called "parallelism versus sequentialism" and from this afternoon's press conference and the announcement of the procedure it is clear that the UK has lost.

Ministers believed they would be able to persuade the EU - the failure to do so has been described as a "total cave-in".

The discussion was even predicted by Mr Davis as likely to be the "row of the summer". The row won't happen because it seems the UK has already given in
This one's just for you Fumble.
I just remembered a famous quote from Sir Geoffrey Howe's famous resignation speech when he laid into Thatcher big style.
He said, and funnily enough he was talking about Thatcher's attitude to Europe: "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."
The man was ahead of his time.
 
The government went into the Brexit negotiations in bad faith. That was the plan from the beginning. They tried to get the smaller Eastern European states onside in a bid to divide and rule. They tried to drive wedges between members in the hope of creating a domino effect, with our right wing press banging on about which country would be the next to exit. Would it be Frexit, Nexit or Auxit. We weren't just going to leave home, we were going to knock the house down as well. The EU, quite understandably didn't like it very much. This is what Elmar Brok, a German MEP said about it: “The British government tries to divide and rule,” he said. “They believe they can take members of parliament out of certain nations … to win support by dividing us. If they try to negotiate while trying to interfere in our side then we can do that too. We can make a big fuss over Scotland. Or Northern Ireland.” Not really the way to win friends and influence people, is it.
Difference is Scotland and Northern Ireland are our country, we aren't a union the bellend. The "United" part of our United Kingdom name, refers to the past event of two kingdoms joining together into one - which happened 104 years before Scottish and English parliaments dissolved into one.
 
In that scenario where we still had a chance to stay in the EU, yes. However, that is highly unlikely and is therefore a moot point.

Either way, I am sure that we will be left with the shit end of the stick, especially with an incompetent, stupid fool in charge of negotiations. But that's okay, we will have Boris in charge and the likes of Michael Fallon in key positions. Let's grasp that rosy future and make good ole Blightly relevant again.
I read somewhere yesterday that Brexit was more likely to put the "Little" in "England" rather than put the "Great" in "Britain"
 
This pic tells us a lot....

DCsWz4pWAAAKDyD.jpg


We're having our arse handed to us, but for Davis it doesn't matter, the price we're going to pay, all of us, is immaterial to him, because for him this is a culmination of a decades long political ambition to leave the EU. If you want to look for political zealotry, don't look to the likes of Corbyn, look to the Europhobes in the Tory Party.

Who is in charge?
Laura Kuennsberg, BBC political editor

It's often compared to a divorce - the UK wanted to talk about who gets the house and the CD collection at the same time as settling who pays for the kids' weddings in 20 years' time.

The EU on the other hand have been firm all along that the future arrangements could only be discussed once the terms of the initial split have been agreed.

The debate was called "parallelism versus sequentialism" and from this afternoon's press conference and the announcement of the procedure it is clear that the UK has lost.

Ministers believed they would be able to persuade the EU - the failure to do so has been described as a "total cave-in".

The discussion was even predicted by Mr Davis as likely to be the "row of the summer". The row won't happen because it seems the UK has already given in
The EU's turn to say "No, No, No".
Fuck me, I've never seen so much Karma in my life.
We ain't seen nothing yet.
 
If this is the calibre of knowledge and awareness we are dealing with from the Brexiteers then I'm not surprised we are in the shit we are in.
I really hope you are not being serious. Are you?
I hope that's a clarkie because I've dedicated significant time over a number of years studying the history of these isles so know the intricacies of it very well and to a much higher degree than most of the population.

People get caught up on the "United" part of our name and think it is an organised political union. It is not. Scottish, NI and Welsh assemblies are retrospective and quite recent - they are devolvement from a single centre of power. I may have edited my post after you read it, so you may want to re-read it. The whole territory of the UK could have easily been named Scotland if decisions had been taken differently, then there would be no concept of the home nations that confuses people about the UK today. On the international stage we are a single country and nation, so Mr. Brok can swivel. He sums up the arrogance of the EU in thinking they can force their United States of Europe agenda over countries they have zero rights in sovereignty over.

In reference to calibre of knowledge and awareness of this Brexiter, perhaps if most here shared similar, people wouldn't be so quick to ruin our history and culture going forward in their misunderstanding of who we are and how long it took to reach the natural conclusion of territories into a united island as one entity of power (and uniform culture again) after foreign invaders seizing power as the elite.
 
Last edited:
Difference is Scotland and Northern Ireland are our country, we aren't a union the bellend. The "United" part of our United Kingdom name, refers to the past event of two kingdoms joining together into one - which happened 104 years before Scottish and English parliaments dissolved into one.
They are not your countries but a voluntary union created by an Act of Parliament. Regardless of when the Union was constituted it is still a union. It's why the Loyalists in Northern Ireland are referred to as Unionists and the DUP is the Demoratic Unionist Party and why the full name of the Tory party is the Conservative and Unionist Party. It's why the Scots would have been entitled to become independent had they voted Yes in the referendum.
You might want to get your facts straight before you start calling people bellends.
 
I hope that's a clarkie because I've dedicated significant time over a number of years studying the history of these isles so know the intricacies of it very well and to a much higher degree than most of the population.

People get caught up on the "United" part of our name and think it is an organised political union. It is not. Scottish, NI and Welsh assemblies are retrospective and quite recent - they are devolvement from a single centre of power. I may have edited my post after you read it, so you may want to re-read it. The whole territory of the UK could have easily been named Scotland if decisions had been taken differently, then there would be no concept of the home nations that confuses people about the UK today. On the international stage we are a single country and nation, so Mr. Brok can swivel. He sums up the arrogance of the EU in thinking they can force their United States of Europe agenda over countries they have zero rights in sovereignty over.

In reference to calibre of knowledge and awareness of this Brexiter, perhaps if most here shared similar, people wouldn't be so quick to ruin our history and culture going forward in their misunderstanding of who we are and how long it took to reach the natural conclusion of territories into a united island as one entity of power.
But it's only united because the respective countries choose for it to be united. If the Scottish referendum had gone the other way we wouldn't even be having this conversation now. It's a union because it's constituted by an act of parliament and it could be dissolved by one. Scotland doesn't have the same status as Yorkshire for example.
 
This one's just for you Fumble.
I just remembered a famous quote from Sir Geoffrey Howe's famous resignation speech when he laid into Thatcher big style.
He said, and funnily enough he was talking about Thatcher's attitude to Europe: "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."
The man was ahead of his time.

Would that be the same Geoffrey Howe whose criticism was famously likened to "being savaged by a dead sheep"?

I can see why you admire him when you've simultaneously wet your pampers before negotiations have started in earnest and cum prematurely at the prospect of their failure.

You're in good company though so carry on salivating.

Good night.
 
Would that be the same Geoffrey Howe whose criticism was famously likened to "being savaged by a dead sheep"?

I can see why you admire him when you've simultaneously wet your pampers before negotiations have started in earnest and cum prematurely at the prospect of their failure.

You're in good company though so carry on salivating.

You must feel increasingly deflated by all this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top