Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38658998

Is it wise for a UK politician to link the phrase 'administer punishment beatings' and 'trade deals' as he's on his way to India to talk about trade deals on the UK's behalf? I mean, someone might easily forward the same advice to the Indian government just in case they plan not to give the UK the deal they want. Alternatively Hollande might ask whether the UK is still reluctant to give the Koh-in-Nooh back to its rightful owners. That would surely cause a healthy debate between the Indian PM and the UK foreign secretary.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But she is saying she wants special arrangements for this and special deal for that.
She is frightened of losing the City, service sector and investment
It's still the cake and eat it plan
Click to expand...
course she is frightened of losing the city thats obvious!
but saying she didn't go in saying i expect free trade while no free movement. course she said i want a custom deal, she wasn't gonna go in and say hey we will take whatever deal you want us too that would be daft, but their is a difference between saying hey i'd like to find a balanced deal that helps all sides as much as possible and having your cake and eating it.
Im not a May supporter and i would never vote for her in a million years, but she didn't go give a speech saying i want my cake an eat it.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
course she is frightened of losing the city thats obvious!
but saying she didn't go in saying i expect free trade while no free movement. course she said i want a custom deal, she wasn't gonna go in and say hey we will take whatever deal you want us too that would be daft, but their is a difference between saying hey i'd like to find a balanced deal that helps all sides as much as possible and having your cake and eating it.
Im not a May supporter and i would never vote for her in a million years, but she didn't go give a speech saying i want my cake an eat it.
Click to expand...

Well she wants as much as possible access to single market, she wants full control over borders, she barely want to pay anything for it and if the EU doesn't give her a deal then she will turn the UK into the next Cayman Islands. That's all for the mutual benefit of both EU and UK of course.
 
devilish said:
Well she wants as much as possible access to single market, she wants full control over borders, she barely want to pay anything for it and if the EU doesn't give her a deal then she will turn the UK into the next Cayman Islands. That's all for the mutual benefit of both EU and UK of course.
Click to expand...
Except the Cayman Islands have a small population and while we are letting firms not pay their taxes or lower taxes we still have services for our own population to finance from somewhere.
 
Cheesy said:
A key point. The Tories have often been mistrusted on key issues such as the NHS and education, and they've never quite shirked of the tag as a nasty, privileged party many give them, but their stomping ground, so to speak, has almost always been the economy - Thatcher painted herself as a tough, no nonsense figure coming in to fix Labour's irresponsible mess, and Cameron's Tories painted Labour as fiscally irresponsible during the Blair and Brown era, and aimed to appear more sensible through austerity. They've often created this image of a party that's kind of like a teacher or boss you don't like, but whose authority and ability you can respect all the same.

Brexit blows that out the water. As a party they're jumping into the unknown to an extent and taking a massive, irresponsible plunge, the sort of move they'd persecute an opponent for doing.
Click to expand...
The Tories would be in trouble if we weren't a country obsessed with immigration. Everything would be just through that prism and on that front, the Tories are well and good.
 
devilish said:
Well she wants as much as possible access to single market, she wants full control over borders, she barely want to pay anything for it and if the EU doesn't give her a deal then she will turn the UK into the next Cayman Islands. That's all for the mutual benefit of both EU and UK of course.
Click to expand...
And thats ok for Junck to do but not may?
 
devilish said:
Well she wants as much as possible access to single market, she wants full control over borders, she barely want to pay anything for it and if the EU doesn't give her a deal then she will turn the UK into the next Cayman Islands. That's all for the mutual benefit of both EU and UK of course.
Click to expand...
seriously what did you want her to say? she point black said she know's she can't stay part of the free market, but of course she is going t say id like to negotiate a deal where their are as few tariffs between us as possible.... thats just sensible, what did you want her to say, hey we'd like to give you as much money as possible and take any deal you give us on trade? or where leaving the EU so lets all throw up tariff walls and not try and make a deal? ...... people complaining about that part of the speech wouLd complain about what ever she said.

The tax haven threat for my money was not something i support, but on the other hand apart from that she had given a speech that was if anything too compromising and probably felt she had to make a statement saying hey while we accept we can't have our cake and eat it we won't be pushed around either. But setting up a tax haven is not something i agree with in anyway, and understand why people had issues with that part of the speech.
 
devilish said:
Well she wants as much as possible access to single market, she wants full control over borders, she barely want to pay anything for it and if the EU doesn't give her a deal then she will turn the UK into the next Cayman Islands. That's all for the mutual benefit of both EU and UK of course.
Click to expand...
Countries like Malta and the Isle of Man have also established differentiated tax regimes offering almost zero tax rates on profits distributed by parent companies and giving a great advantage to non-resident multinationals.

If its good enuff for Malta...
 
Fener1907 said:
Preferably nothing.
Click to expand...
well granted i'd rather her and pretty much everyone involved with British politics say nothing and go live together in a big hole full off spikes, But in all fairness she been criticised for months for not saying her plans so she couldn't really say nothing
 
Nytram Shakes said:
well granted i'd rather her and pretty much everyone involved with British politics say nothing and go live together in a big hole full off spikes, But in all fairness she been criticised for months for not saying her plans so she couldn't really say nothing
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to have much good to say, so I'm still opting for nothing.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
well granted i'd rather her and pretty much everyone involved with British politics say nothing and go live together in a big hole full off spikes, But in all fairness she been criticised for months for not saying her plans so she couldn't really say nothing
Click to expand...

But do we consider that Johnson and Davies aren't talking for her? They complained about the eventuality of tarrifs, they talked about having access to the single market by paying for it and without FOM.
 
Obviously May's speech was in large part aimed at setting the tone for negotiations (i.e. we want to cooperate but we won't balk at just walking away), but it seems clear that she has taken the referendum as a mandate to leave without any EEA or Swiss-style quasi-membership.

As a remainer, I find it incredible that rights as a shareholder or bondholder in a company are protected by supermajority vote requirements for major issues but, as citizen, the country can change course irreversibly and disregard 40 years of history on the basis of 51.9%.
 
JPRouve said:
But do we consider that Johnson and Davies aren't talking for her? They complained about the eventuality of tarrifs, they talked about having access to the single market by paying for it and without FOM.
Click to expand...
i don't consider Johnson is talking for anyone but himself and try to ignore what he says at all costs and why he is foreign secretary is just mind blowing and beyond stupid...... but what he said what the EU would be insane if they imposed tariffs.
What Davis said in response to a question was that they would consider paying for access to the free market, which is very diffrent to saying we expect access to the free market if we pay for it.
 
The press across the EU are now ripping into May over her speech. Thanks Theresa, this really makes us U.K. citizens living in EU countries feel much more secure, you ridiculous Little Englander mannequin of a human being.
 
Will Absolute said:
Yeah. Because it's obvious no negotiations are necessary to establish the terms on which Britain leaves the EU.
Click to expand...

That's the contradiction though isn't it. If we don't get good terms we will walk, she said. Form what? From the things we find is necessary to negotiate before we leave the EU
 
Stanley Road said:
Yeah, you know what, we'll just move. Lifes easy, why complain about Brexit? They can just buy elsewhere. Easy
Click to expand...

I never said it would be easy. It'll increase costs, which will ultimately hit the poorest hardest. Remember them? The ones you pretend to give a shit about
 
MoskvaRed said:
Obviously May's speech was in large part aimed at setting the tone for negotiations (i.e. we want to cooperate but we won't balk at just walking away), but it seems clear that she has taken the referendum as a mandate to leave without any EEA or Swiss-style quasi-membership.

As a remainer, I find it incredible that rights as a shareholder or bondholder in a company are protected by supermajority vote requirements for major issues but, as citizen, the country can change course irreversibly and disregard 40 years of history on the basis of 51.9%.
Click to expand...

Especially when the campaign itself was a bit of a joke, with a PM who couldn't deflect the blame from immigration because it meant taking responsibility for his own failings, and a Leave campaign which made false claims regarding the NHS funding.
 
So, the UK, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and Australia it is. Is this a move towards creating an "Anglosphere" ?
 
Kentonio said:
The press across the EU are now ripping into May over her speech. Thanks Theresa, this really makes us U.K. citizens living in EU countries feel much more secure, you ridiculous Little Englander mannequin of a human being.
Click to expand...

Go home!
 
jackofalltrades said:
So, the UK, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and Australia it is. Is this a move towards creating an "Anglosphere" ?
Click to expand...

What I find bizarre about any supposed 'Anglosphere' if it's to happen is that if we genuinely aim to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands (which has often been the government's target), then any so-called Anglosphere would fly in the face of that.

Under Cameron (and May as Home Sec) we had control of non-EU migration but didn't seek to reduce it - presumably any reduction in immigration would have to come across the board, and thus also in these supposed Anglosphere countries.

I'm all fine for us to have a good relationship with said countries, and I'm happy to celebrate our history and shared culture with them, but I see no reason as to why relations with the US, Canada and Australia should be given priority over major European countries like France or Germany.
 
Kentonio said:
Check the internet. Major papers in Spain and Germany so far. I haven't heard about the French ones yet, but I can't see them taking Johnsons 'punishment beating' comments very well.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the WW2 movie comparisons, however tongue in cheek they may have been.
 
Cheesy said:
What I find bizarre about any supposed 'Anglosphere' if it's to happen is that if we genuinely aim to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands (which has often been the government's target), then any so-called Anglosphere would fly in the face of that.

Under Cameron (and May as Home Sec) we had control of non-EU migration but didn't seek to reduce it - presumably any reduction in immigration would have to come across the board, and thus also in these supposed Anglosphere countries.

I'm all fine for us to have a good relationship with said countries, and I'm happy to celebrate our history and shared culture with them, but I see no reason as to why relations with the US, Canada and Australia should be given priority over major European countries like France or Germany.
Click to expand...

Because all those complaints about 'immigration' have never had a damn thing to do with immigrants per se. As long as they're white native English speakers, there's never a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.