Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
NinjaFletch said:
I read recently that there's actually an absolute chasm between the two positions on citizens rights. The EU means one thing, and the UK another. So whilst they're both saying the same thing, it's far from being easy to resolve.

From the FAZ report over the weekend:

“For May it is no problem – EU citizens should be treated simply according to British law as other third-country nationals,” FAZ said, adding this was “a big problem for Juncker”.

The article said: “After all, they now enjoy many special rights which should be maintained as far as possible. There are tricky questions to be solved, not just on the right of residence. Health insurance, for example.”
Click to expand...

Yes. This is why I mentioned the reporting over the last week. I am not sure what to make of this at all...

Premise One - It is true, Theresa May said EU Citizens could have the same rights as every non-EU country.

If this is the case, most likely she did it as an opening gambit, or has completely lost her mind. Or perhaps misspoke. Or maybe she doesn't understand the position she is meant to be taking.

Premise Two - It is not true.

Either the EU are playing silly buggers, or perhaps they simply misunderstood (lost in translation).

After initially believing that the first premise was more likely, I now think the second one is. The government knows this is a big issue; it's right there in black and white on the government page.
 
rcoobc said:
Yes. This is why I mentioned the reporting over the last week. I am not sure what to make of this at all...

Premise One - It is true, Theresa May said EU Citizens could have the same rights as every non-EU country.

If this is the case, most likely she did it as an opening gambit, or has completely lost her mind. Or perhaps misspoke. Or maybe she doesn't understand the position she is meant to be taking.

Premise Two - It is not true.

Either the EU are playing silly buggers, or perhaps they simply misunderstood (lost in translation).

After initially believing that the first premise was more likely, I now think the second one is. The government knows this is a big issue; it's right there in black and white on the government page.
Click to expand...

I would side with the option that May has a boner about immigration and doesn't know what she's doing. So I guess that puts me in Premise One. I guess we'll see once she's won the election.
 
rcoobc said:
Yes. This is why I mentioned the reporting over the last week. I am not sure what to make of this at all...

Premise One - It is true, Theresa May said EU Citizens could have the same rights as every non-EU country.

If this is the case, most likely she did it as an opening gambit, or has completely lost her mind. Or perhaps misspoke. Or maybe she doesn't understand the position she is meant to be taking.

Premise Two - It is not true.

Either the EU are playing silly buggers, or perhaps they simply misunderstood (lost in translation).

After initially believing that the first premise was more likely, I now think the second one is. The government knows this is a big issue; it's right there in black and white on the government page.
Click to expand...

If she actually believes number one then she is utterly out of her fecking mind.
 
Kentonio said:
The EU's growth is slow and steady, without the big fluctuations you see elsewhere. In the last two years for example the EU growth rate has moved between 1.8 and 2.2%. In the US that rate has fluctuated between 0.7 and 3.5%. People throw out terms like 'stagnant' all the time, as part of an anti-EU narrative. Europe is an economic powerhouse, and one of the two biggest on the planet.
Click to expand...

But patchy for all that (geographically and age wise), and possessing of serious structural issues surrounding the Euro.


Kentonio said:
One of the biggest obstacles was the UK. Guess what..
Click to expand...

Britain has little to do with the spending priorities of other nations, or the inherent political will to undertake risky military operations. It also requires a greater unity with regard to foreign policy.


NinjaFletch said:
I read recently that there's actually an absolute chasm between the two positions on citizens rights. The EU means one thing, and the UK another. So whilst they're both saying the same thing, it's far from being easy to resolve.

From the FAZ report over the weekend:

“For May it is no problem – EU citizens should be treated simply according to British law as other third-country nationals,” FAZ said, adding this was “a big problem for Juncker”.

The article said: “After all, they now enjoy many special rights which should be maintained as far as possible. There are tricky questions to be solved, not just on the right of residence. Health insurance, for example.”
Click to expand...
rcoobc said:
Yes. This is why I mentioned the reporting over the last week. I am not sure what to make of this at all...

Premise One - It is true, Theresa May said EU Citizens could have the same rights as every non-EU country.

If this is the case, most likely she did it as an opening gambit, or has completely lost her mind. Or perhaps misspoke. Or maybe she doesn't understand the position she is meant to be taking.

Premise Two - It is not true.

Either the EU are playing silly buggers, or perhaps they simply misunderstood (lost in translation).

After initially believing that the first premise was more likely, I now think the second one is. The government knows this is a big issue; it's right there in black and white on the government page.
Click to expand...


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/leaked-documents-eu-tough-line-brexit-negotiations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...itizens-living-uk-should-remain-jurisdiction/

So it could also be the case that she was attempting to see off plans for the widespread continued involvement of the ECJ-law.

Bills and judges aside, allaying the fears of existing residents really ought to be possibly within a matter of months.
 
Last edited:
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
But patchy for all that (geographically and age wise), and possessing of serious structural issues surrounding the Euro.




Britain has little to do with the spending priories of other nations, or the inherent political will to undertake risky military operations. It also requires a greater unity with regard to foreign policy.






https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/leaked-documents-eu-tough-line-brexit-negotiations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...itizens-living-uk-should-remain-jurisdiction/

So it could also be the case that she was attempting to see off plans for the widespread continued involvement of the ECJ-law.

Bills and judges aside, allaying the fears of existing residents really ought to be possibly within a matter of months.
Click to expand...

They could reach an agreement in principle maybe, but I don't see how platitudes will help. And given that:

Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately. The Union will approach the negotiations with unified positions, and will engage with the United Kingdom exclusively through the channels set out in these guidelines and in the negotiating directives. So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union.
Click to expand...


Even if this issue is agreed in principle a no-deal Brexit would scupper it.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
But patchy for all that (geographically and age wise), and possessing of serious structural issues surrounding the Euro.
Click to expand...

Yet Germany who are not only in the Euro but one of the big backers of the project have a significantly lower debt to gdp than we do, and better growth. As for the geographical disparity, that's kind of the whole point of the EU. It lifts the poorer countries to create not only better opportunities for those citizens, but also a wealthier trading bloc for everyone else. You're naturally going to have disparities between different parts of the union just like you have geographical patchiness in the UK and the US. Compare the south east to the north west, are they comparable economically?

Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Britain has little to do with the spending priories of other nations, or the inherent political will to undertake risky military operations. It also requires a greater unity with regard to foreign policy.
Click to expand...

There have been significant efforts on the continent to move towards closer union, and the UK have been one of the countries most obstructing that progress. Now the UK are out, it will be much easier to move forward on cooperation in a number of different fields, including the military. Most European countries don't have the same nationalistic love affair with the armed forces that the UK do, and the idea of international military cooperation isn't a huge propaganda issue like in Britain.

I don't know why an 'inherent political will to undertake risky military operations' would be relevant incidentally, you can have a superpower level of military defence without needing to become highly interventionist at the same time. Look at China if you need an example.
 
Kentonio said:
Yet Germany who are not only in the Euro but one of the big backers of the project have a significantly lower debt to gdp than we do, and better growth. As for the geographical disparity, that's kind of the whole point of the EU. It lifts the poorer countries to create not only better opportunities for those citizens, but also a wealthier trading bloc for everyone else. You're naturally going to have disparities between different parts of the union just like you have geographical patchiness in the UK and the US. Compare the south east to the north west, are they comparable economically?.
Click to expand...
The next 10 pages will be solely debating this paragraph
 
vidic blood & sand said:
What people in this thread do not understand is that the UK's bargaining position with the EU is VERY VERY strong, and European nations can either mutually benefit with us from sensible negotiations, or the EU can hurt both us and our European partners for the sake of the EU's agenda to gain more influence for it's own purpose.
Click to expand...

Ah the hallmark of the internet know-it-all.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
What people in this thread do not understand is that the UK's bargaining position with the EU is VERY VERY strong, and European nations can either mutually benefit with us from sensible negotiations, or the EU can hurt both us and our European partners for the sake of the EU's agenda to gain more influence for it's own purpose.
Click to expand...

Put the question the other way, does the UK or the EU have the stronger bargaining position? Answers on a postcard to Boris Johnson c/o Walthamstow Chocolate Cake Company (Gü), Cloud Cuckoo Land
 
vidic blood & sand said:
After a failed attempt to seek reform.

You obviously don't remember that Cameron always talked about Britain prospering in a REFORMED EU, not the EU as it is. Most EU member states understand that the EU has to be reformed, but it refuses to be.
Click to expand...

The EU is a union of 27 truly independent countries. Its not some bogus group with 1 big country and some minor regions tagged to it which simply moan and obey. Its very difficult to bring forward a reform although things are indeed changing (ex CETA)

That's not concern anymore isn't it? You voted out of Europe and you made it quite clear you won't be paying those 250m something a week (it was far less but oh well) who will now go to the NHS or something of the kind.


Tariffs affect sellers. LOL
Click to expand...

Exactly. The UK sells 47% of its products and services to Europe. Now imagine if that is slapped with tariffs. Sure there's a trade deficit in favour of the UK when compared to the EU as a whole. However thats a wrong way to see it. As said its a union of 27 truly independent countries all armed with a veto. Why would (lets say) Austria care if Italy had a trade deficit with the UK? You'll have to appease 27 nations mate.




The US didn't bail us out. They joined with us against an evil regime. We spearheaded important strategic victories in WWII without direct US involvement, while suffering civilian losses for the sake of the war effort.
Can't believe you see it as the US bailing us out. Today we could keep Russia at bay when when combined with the French and Italian military, unless nukes were involved of course, which wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

It depends which war. In WW1 it was the US. In WW2 the war was won by the Russians on Russian soil. The US helped the UK (and us, other countries under British colonial rule) to peek out of our blankets and try and hit back. Prior to operation Barbarossa Europe was getting a hammering. The UK is lucky that its troops fled from Dunkirk in an orderly fashion (and Hitler was an idiot) else things would be way more humiliating for us (and I repeat us as Europe ie including the UK).



Intel costs, but we would not think twice about cooperating with out European friends, and this shows how much we need each other. Yes?
Click to expand...

and I am certain they will do the same. Trade deals are a different matter altogether.


According to Obama.



Lets not get off track here. We're talking about how brexit will affect our relationship with the EU.
Click to expand...

Both Obama and Trump reached the same conclusion. The UK was useful as a bridge between Europe and the US. Once out of the EU you lost your influence in Europe and became, well, not as important anymore
 
Rams said:
If the transactions are done in Euro's then the European commission is going to force the clearing houses to do so from a EU member state or country on the continent. This is not an opinion or wishful thinking, this really is going to happen and the London stock exchange know fully well it's going to happen.
Click to expand...
And if in the near future the Euro crashes........?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Right, so we should expect terrible service sector figures then.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39802976


Wait a minute that can't be right a man from the internet who reckons he knows everything told me different.
Click to expand...

Wooooaah a gigantic 0,6%. Not that's in any better in the rest of Europe mind. But it's far too early to be able to judge the effect of Brexit. That will become apparent in years from now.
 
Rams said:
Or if Europe is hit by a massive asteroid?
Click to expand...

Listening to these Brexiteer EU experts you'd think the EU's been collapsing since it was created. Bunch of deluded nonsense.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I am starting to think that no deal is a real possibility now. The tactics employed by the EU so far is making it politically possible in the UK too which is worrying. The Tories might be able to survive a hard Brexit.
Click to expand...

It's a real possibility that there is no deal, it's going to be attritional for years.
 
Yeah, whoever heard of people paying the obligations they've commited to legally. Such a new concept to Brexiteers.
 
There any chance we could just do a complete U-turn and forget this nonesense. This shit even in the best of circumstances leaves us significantly weaker
 
Liver_bird said:
There any chance we could just do a complete U-turn and forget this nonesense. This shit even in the best of circumstances leaves us significantly weaker
Click to expand...

Been asking myself the same question for years about another country. The answer is no, and it'll continue to get worse as you continue to get more desperate.
 
Liver_bird said:
There any chance we could just do a complete U-turn and forget this nonesense. This shit even in the best of circumstances leaves us significantly weaker
Click to expand...

It would require a huge shift in public opinion and the anti-EU propaganda machine is working overtime at the moment. A financial settlement for outstanding liabilities becomes the EU trying to extort or punish us. The EU pointing out that Britain cannot have its cake and eat it becomes the EU trying to punish us.

In theory, when Brexit goes tits up the public opinion should shift. But the narrative is being set now so that instead of blaming themselves for making a stupid decision the public are going to blame the EU, the foreign enemy, for not allowing Brexit to be a success. I'm not optimistic.
 
Rightnr said:
Yeah, whoever heard of people paying the obligations they've commited to legally. Such a new concept to Brexiteers.
Click to expand...

Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.

And I'm a remainer btw.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.

And I'm a remainer btw.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the UK will take the line of 'yes we will pay our international obligations but we disagree with the figure the EU have quoted so it will have to go through the international courts with no payment until a verdict has been reached'.

If so, how long would that take? A complex legal case with traditional stalling tactics etc, 10 years perhaps? The EU would have to make up the shortfall in between. It could give the UK a little grace on what would have been EU outgoings in the event of a hard Brexit too.

At least Tusk is calling for calm. Although him asking May for respect was laughable, respect is a two way street. Although perhaps it was tacitly aimed at some of his more petty colleagues in Brussels too.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.

And I'm a remainer btw.
Click to expand...

That's not going to happen unless you also concede on free movement and ECJ

At which point you haven't really left
 
Untied said:
That's not going to happen unless you also concede on free movement and ECJ

At which point you haven't really left
Click to expand...

The EU proposed an Ukraine style associate membership agreement, which, for a fee, (about half of what we pay currently) which would give us a high level of single market access but exemption from FoM and other key issues.

That seems the ideal scenario for us, all things considered.
 
Untied said:
That's not going to happen unless you also concede on free movement and ECJ

At which point you haven't really left
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with either and invoking a hard brexit was irresponsible because free trade for me is the most important thing for Britain. But I also don't see why a deal couldn't be done for financial reimbursment.

If there is no trade agreement and they legally don't have to, why strategically would the UK pay anything to something it doesn't benefit from whatsoever?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I wonder if the UK will take the line of 'yes we will pay our international obligations but we disagree with the figure the EU have quoted so it will have to go through the international courts with no payment until a verdict has been reached'.

If so, how long would that take? A complex legal case with traditional stalling tactics etc, 10 years perhaps? The EU would have to make up the shortfall in between. It could give the UK a little grace on what would have been EU outgoings in the event of a hard Brexit too.

At least Tusk is calling for calm. Although him asking May for respect was laughable, respect is a two way street. Although perhaps it was tacitly aimed at some of his more petty colleagues in Brussels too.
Click to expand...
Tusk is the only decent person in the eu imo. I belive his comment was aimed at Junk who is the worst piece of festering shit in this whole affair.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I wonder if the UK will take the line of 'yes we will pay our international obligations but we disagree with the figure the EU have quoted so it will have to go through the international courts with no payment until a verdict has been reached'.

If so, how long would that take? A complex legal case with traditional stalling tactics etc, 10 years perhaps? The EU would have to make up the shortfall in between. It could give the UK a little grace on what would have been EU outgoings in the event of a hard Brexit too.

At least Tusk is calling for calm. Although him asking May for respect was laughable, respect is a two way street. Although perhaps it was tacitly aimed at some of his more petty colleagues in Brussels too.
Click to expand...

In that case then it would end up in court and the UK will probably end up without a trade deal
 
Untied said:
It would require a huge shift in public opinion and the anti-EU propaganda machine is working overtime at the moment.
Click to expand...

Why would it need a huge shift? The vote was by 2%, and numerous polls since have showed a revote would give Remain victory. Despite all the bollocks May and the Tories talk about the country coming together behind Brexit, I think Remain would certainly win in a new vote with the situation now clearer, and I'm pretty sure May knows that too which is why its not allowed.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.

And I'm a remainer btw.
Click to expand...

But nobody yet knows what the amount will be or the details of the amount, so to say the Uk are not paying anything makes no sense until this is known.

Within the figure is probably the next two years fees, the UK were behind with their payments, don't know if they caught up but there could be more there. There are projects the Uk have agreed to participate in, there are pensions etc to be paid and probably numerous other expenses.

These figures are being used by the government to maintain their popularity in the face of "the evil EU"

Should all the UKIP MEP's end up with no pension I would gladly forego any payment from the UK, that'll teach Farage and his cronies to steal a living from the EU
 
Kentonio said:
Why would it need a huge shift? The vote was by 2%, and numerous polls since have showed a revote would give Remain victory. Despite all the bollocks May and the Tories talk about the country coming together behind Brexit, I think Remain would certainly win in a new vote with the situation now clearer, and I'm pretty sure May knows that too which is why its not allowed.
Click to expand...

You kind of answer your own question there. A second referendum will only be on the card if there is a clear turn of public opinion against Brexit. At the moment it's still pretty level and yes, Remain might win, but the polling suggests people are still pretty satisfied with their vote.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The EU proposed an Ukraine style associate membership agreement, which, for a fee, (about half of what we pay currently) which would give us a high level of single market access but exemption from FoM and other key issues.

That seems the ideal scenario for us, all things considered.
Click to expand...

In that case, it won't include financial services.
This will be the hardest thing for May anyway, as large parts of the EU would be very happy to kill the moneyjugglers in the city.

And when Ukraine doesn't suffice, I'm rather sure GB will end up like Norway. Which would be a joke, as that is essentially being part of the EU while not having a vote.
 
Kentonio said:
Why would it need a huge shift? The vote was by 2%, and numerous polls since have showed a revote would give Remain victory. Despite all the bollocks May and the Tories talk about the country coming together behind Brexit, I think Remain would certainly win in a new vote with the situation now clearer, and I'm pretty sure May knows that too which is why its not allowed.
Click to expand...
Well, 4%
 
I'd still say it's very hard to argue for overturning the vote. Making such a huge decision based on such fine and fickle margins seems indeed reckless, but that's an argument that should've been raised long before the vote. Changing the rules because you don't like the outcome of the vote could very likely have dramatic consequences for the political system and it's credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.