Another new Brexit thread

[Vic]

Er, no shit Sherlock, that's because it is???

But Leave we must, and it's a far better deal than May cobbled together.

Is that a whoosh? If Johnson's deal is worse for the EU than May's deal, how come no-one seems to be saying it?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Is that a whoosh? If Johnson's deal is worse for the EU than May's deal, how come no-one seems to be saying it?

Well I'd hardly expect the EU to be saying it, would you? And evidently it got more support in the HoC than May's deal ever did. May's deal potentially tied us in to the EU, under EU rules, forever, with no ability to get out of it. It was a diabolical deal and no wonder the EU loved it. They must have thought we were bonkers agreeing to that. Either accept whatever terms the EU deigned to offer at the end of transition, or be locked in, forever, with no unilateral exit option. Bloody brilliant from the EU's perspective, utterly shite and completely unacceptable from ours.

Johnson's deal unpicked all this, and allowed Francois and Redwood etc to support it. Obviously it's worse from the EU's perspective, but we cannot expect them to crow about that, can we.

 

[Vic]

Well I'd hardly expect the EU to be saying it, would you? And evidently it got more support in the HoC than May's deal ever did. May's deal potentially tied us in to the EU, under EU rules, forever, with no ability to get out of it. It was a diabolical deal and no wonder the EU loved it. They must have thought we were bonkers agreeing to that. Either accept whatever terms the EU deigned to offer at the end of transition, or be locked in, forever, with no unilateral exit option. Bloody brilliant from the EU's perspective, utterly shite and completely unacceptable from ours.

Johnson's deal unpicked all this, and allowed Francois and Redwood etc to support it. Obviously it's worse from the EU's perspective, but we cannot expect them to crow about that, can we.

The only reason it passed was it got rid of the backstop which meant the ERG could support it and also avoided a hard border in Ireland which meant it got support from anyone who could not support a hard border in Ireland.

My dog could have got a deal that put a border on the NI coast, without threatening No Deal.. And I've not got a dog.

 

[BobKowalski]

Well I'd hardly expect the EU to be saying it, would you? And evidently it got more support in the HoC than May's deal ever did. May's deal potentially tied us in to the EU, under EU rules, forever, with no ability to get out of it. It was a diabolical deal and no wonder the EU loved it. They must have thought we were bonkers agreeing to that. Either accept whatever terms the EU deigned to offer at the end of transition, or be locked in, forever, with no unilateral exit option. Bloody brilliant from the EU's perspective, utterly shite and completely unacceptable from ours.

Johnson's deal unpicked all this, and allowed Francois and Redwood etc to support it. Obviously it's worse from the EU's perspective, but we cannot expect them to crow about that, can we.

Damn you really did drink the kool-aid. May’s backstop deal was a U.K. request and an EU concession. The EU wanted a NI only deal but accepted May’s assertion that she could not divide our Union. Johnson went back to May’s original deal and accepted a customs border down the Irish Sea and moving checks to ports something Barnier wanted all along. An article from April has Barnier again talking about a NI only solution with custom checks in the Irish Sea and the need to ‘de-dramatise’ this issue of dividing the Union.

https://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-eu-irish-border-proposal-improved-brexit-red-lines/

 

[dave_blue12]

I'm not hanging on your every breath mate. In fact I'd go so far as to say it would be a complete waste of your time. I've been a life-long supporter of conservatives principles and I am not about to switch horses because of the IMO flawed opinions of some bloke on a football forum.

I realise that it is largely a waste of my time with you, your mind is closed.

However, I will say this and you may find if you care to research what I am about to say you may understand that my opinions are not so flawed

Austerity was not necessary, nor was it the correct course of action and the fact you say everyone including Labour agreed with it is disingenuous.
The correct course of action in the circumstances would have been to attempt to re-inflate the economy not choke it further with austerity. As I have said to you before a country is not a corner shop and should not be treated the as one. Macro-economics versus micro-economics. All the suffering that has ensued for that point and I don't use that word lightly has been unnecessary and avoidable.
This austerity also laid the groundwork for the leave vote in 2016 which will ultimately heap more suffering on the people of this country.
Our public services are in tatters and will not easily recover. If we Brexit I can see no hope of any recovery in the foreseeable future as the tax take falls in real terms with the economy,
Who is responsible for Brexit I wonder ? Yes, the Conservatives of course.

I could write a fucking book on the disgusting behaviour of this Tory Govt and it's callous disregard for the people it is supposed to serve but as you say it would be a waste of my time. You will carry on voting for these dreadful people. It is instructive that so may senior Tories have left the party, no longer able to stomach the actions of the current leadership.

BTW - it's pathetic for a grown man to 'support' a political party like he would a football team. Try growing up and applying some critical thinking.

 

[RabidCity]

I realise that it is largely a waste of my time with you, your mind is closed.

However, I will say this and you may find if you care to research what I am about to say you may understand that my opinions are not so flawed

Austerity was not necessary, nor was it the correct course of action and the fact you say everyone including Labour agreed with it is disingenuous.
The correct course of action in the circumstances would have been to attempt to re-inflate the economy not choke it further with austerity. As I have said to you before a country is not a corner shop and should not be treated the as one. Macro-economics versus micro-economics. All the suffering that has ensued for that point and I don't use that word lightly has been unnecessary and avoidable.
This austerity also laid the groundwork for the leave vote in 2016 which will ultimately heap more suffering on the people of this country.
Our public services are in tatters and will not easily recover. If we Brexit I can see no hope of any recovery in the foreseeable future as the tax take falls in real terms with the economy,
Who is responsible for Brexit I wonder ? Yes, the Conservatives of course.

I could write a fucking book on the disgusting behaviour of this Tory Govt and it's callous disregard for the people it is supposed to serve but as you say it would be a waste of my time. You will carry on voting for these dreadful people. It is instructive that so may senior Tories have left the party, no longer able to stomach the actions of the current leadership.

BTW - it's pathetic for a grown man to 'support' a political party like he would a football team. Try growing up and applying some critical thinking.

I completely disagree. Living within our means is essential, world economies are struggling and we did fantastically well to maintain growth during this difficult time.. to spend so frivolously with no guarantee of growth would be reckless and leave our children picking up the pieces.

 

[BobKowalski]

I completely disagree. Living within our means is essential, world economies are struggling and we did fantastically well to maintain growth during this difficult time.. to spend so frivolously with no guarantee of growth would be reckless and leave our children picking up the pieces.

Again. Countries are not a household, nor are they a company, there is no profit and loss account and we print our own money.

To grow you need to invest. You invest and borrow when rates are low and money is cheap. Both Tories and Labour are committed to borrowing lots more money. If you want fiscal prudence then vote LibDem as they are they only party proposing spending restraint. Incorrectly in my view.

 

[BobKowalski]

Some more flesh on the bone of everyone wants to gnaw our Brexit leg off (going with an animal agricultural theme here)...

https://borderlex.eu/2019/11/15/dem...rexit-trq-splits-starts-to-affect-farm-trade/

 

[Chippy_boy]

The only reason it passed was it got rid of the backstop which meant the ERG could support it and also avoided a hard border in Ireland which meant it got support from anyone who could not support a hard border in Ireland.

My dog could have got a deal that put a border on the NI coast, without threatening No Deal.. And I've not got a dog.

What an amusing segue, but never mind, I am used to it. You asked why it's worse for the EU, I explained why.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Damn you really did drink the kool-aid. May’s backstop deal was a U.K. request and an EU concession. The EU wanted a NI only deal but accepted May’s assertion that she could not divide our Union. Johnson went back to May’s original deal and accepted a customs border down the Irish Sea and moving checks to ports something Barnier wanted all along. An article from April has Barnier again talking about a NI only solution with custom checks in the Irish Sea and the need to ‘de-dramatise’ this issue of dividing the Union.

https://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-eu-irish-border-proposal-improved-brexit-red-lines/

Again, all rather irrelevant. Whether this type of deal was being considered before is not being debated, so I've no clue why you lot keep going on about it. It must be about the 10th time I've heard it, whilst your side completely gloss over the fact that it's worse for the EU than the deal they had already "banked". Me thinks thou doth protest rather too much.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Some more flesh on the bone of everyone wants to gnaw our Brexit leg off (going with an animal agricultural theme here)...

https://borderlex.eu/2019/11/15/dem...rexit-trq-splits-starts-to-affect-farm-trade/

You do realise this is mainly directed at the EU? (And that the UK is a secondary party in this dispute.)

 

[BlueAnorak]

I agree.

Sadly it seems the electorate of our country are swayed by simplistic tribal messages. You only have to read for 5 minutes on here to see that is true.

However, with my simplistic head on I did find them turning Johnson's 'fuck business' around on him amusing.

I would also find it hugely amusing if Johnson lost his seat, given the complete contempt he shows for the people of this country. Watching Prince Andrew last night he reminded me of Johnson. The same air of entitlement.

Very unlikely to happen, though not impossible. Labour are losing out to the Lib Dems in London opinion polls. Also Boris would still have won in 2017 if every Lib Dem and Green had voted Labour.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Got to feel sorry for Remainers.
To Remain they have to hope Magic Grampa will back a 2nd referendum (big if) and he only gets a minority government supported by the SNP and Lib Dems. Worst of all they'll have to except a fairly socialist agenda.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Got to feel sorry for Remainers.
To Remain they have to hope Magic Grampa will back a 2nd referendum (big if) and he only gets a minority government supported by the SNP and Lib Dems. Worst of all they'll have to except a fairly socialist agenda.

If we assume that Leave was mainly voted by those in left behind communities, I’d suggest a fairly socialist agenda would probably be best for those communities

After all these years, I’m not overly sure what a working class man/women in (say) Sunderland thinks is going to happen if/when a pretty right-wing Tory government takes us out of the EU? I’m not saying things are great now, they are not, but I’m in the dark as to what will improve for those communities?

 

[BobKowalski]

You do realise this is mainly directed at the EU? (And that the UK is a secondary party in this dispute.)

Really? Huge breaking news.

 

[mcfc1632]

"Person says something prior to negotiations".

Well shock horror. Huge NON story here.

I'll file that next to "PM Johnson has stated that if an agreement is to be reached it goes by way of eliminating the backstop. This is of course unacceptable and not within the mandate of the European council,” - Michel Barnier, shortly before renegotiating the WA and removing the all-UK backstop.

Steady on!!

There are some on here so deep in denial that they refuse to accept that the risk of no-deal caused the EU to move their position i.e. their previous refusal to reopen the WA and remove the unfettered backstop

Mind you - there are some on here that never understood the full purpose of the unfettered backstop and how ruinous that would have been for the UK and therefore why the EU were very keen to retain it

 

[mcfc1632]

Missing the point a bit there mate. To spell it out, the point being that people say all sorts of things prior to negotiations, only to concede them later. They said no way, no how would they be renegotiating the WA or the backstop, and yet when faced with just a tiny bit of pressure, they did.

Reality = Inconvenient truths

 

[mcfc1632]

Not this shit again, please. What do you not understand about the EU's unequivocable, non-negotiable, fixed, immovable position that the WA and backstop could not be renegotiated under ANY circumstances???? How hard is that to get your head around?

Show me a quote from anyone saying "We are not regotiating the WA and backstop unless you revert to a set of negotiations we were considering earlier". No such statement exists, so please stop with this shite. The EU said no changes could be accepted, and then changed their tune when threatened with us leaving come what may by October 31st. This is an undenial objective statement of what happened.

You *might* dispute what drove the EU to reconsider. But any assertion that they re-opened the negotiations because we started considering a previous option, holds no water. Why? Because the deal Johnson has negotiated is WORSE for the EU. So why would they suddenly have decided to bin something better (from their perspective) and accept something worse, without other pressures? It is a bankrupt argument which holds no water. It is just wrong.

The answer is that the need for denial is so strong in some they are able to lie to themselves to avoid inconvenient truths

 

[Coatigan]

If we assume that Leave was mainly voted by those in left behind communities, I’d suggest a fairly socialist agenda would probably be best for those communities

After all these years, I’m not overly sure what a working class man/women in (say) Sunderland thinks is going to happen if/when a pretty right-wing Tory government takes us out of the EU? I’m not saying things are great now, they are not, but I’m in the dark as to what will improve for those communities?

The bbc interviewed them. They think lefty PC snowflake elites waved in lots of foreigners who are to blame for everything, and when we leave they will magically disappear. The sunderland man was 2016's workington man. Farage certainly found his hook.

 

[mcfc1632]

Again, all rather irrelevant. Whether this type of deal was being considered before is not being debated, so I've no clue why you lot keep going on about it. It must be about the 10th time I've heard it, whilst your side completely gloss over the fact that it's worse for the EU than the deal they had already "banked". Me thinks thou doth protest rather too much.

Denial is the method

Being unable to accept that they were plain wrong is the reason