Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
What's panned out exactly as expected? Nothing's happened so far.

And no, it's not sticking your head in the sand. You're making one sided assumptions about things that might happen and expecting it happen as fact. Do you really think a EU-UK trade deal is so one sided that it's not in the EU's interest too? May indicated today they'd be happy to pay their contributions to the EU budget till 2020, which is what the EU demanded, do you really think the UK will offer that if the EU turns around and says access to the single market isn't possible? You think everything the UK will agree too (i.e. EU citizen rights) in the first stage of negotiations will still hold if some form of access to the single market doesn't get given? The EU's our biggest trade partner, yes, but we're NET importers of about £80 billion - so who loses out more? You think all the german car makers and all the other exporters to us will be happy? May's speech today was specifically highlighting the need to offer concessions to reach that deal. They know it's a priority.

That's what I talk about doom-mongering, all this talk about xyz that's going to wrong when nothing's happened and a deal being reached is more likely that not. You go on about all these things going wrong when none of that is a foregone conclusion.

And you completely ignored my second paragraph about the structural weakness of the EU, who's sticking their head in the sand?

If you'd bothered to read previously, all these points have been covered numerous times, pointless saying it yet again and again and again - yes the EU need the Uk more than the other way round if that makes you feel happy.
Glad the pound hasn't tanked, glad inflation is not increasing, glad you're even further away from leaving than you were 15 months ago. Even your hard-line Brexiteers have realised it's all a sham.
 
@marktan Maybe I missed something but the problem with Hungary is that they automatically put migrants in jail, even the ones who follow the rules and officially seek asylum and that problem is with the ECHR which isn't the EU but the Council of Europe. The ECJ who is part of the EU already said that countries were free to grant asylum as they want but bear in mind that they still have to respect Human rights.
 
@marktan Maybe I missed something but the problem with Hungary is that they automatically put migrants in jail, even the ones who follow the rules and officially seek asylum and that problem is with the ECHR which isn't the EU but the Council of Europe. The ECJ who is part of the EU already said that countries were free to grant asylum as they want but bear in mind that they still have to respect Human rights.

The issue's with the compulsory relocation scheme - Hungary and a couple of other states voted against it and refused to take any of the migrants. There's more overview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638
 
If you'd bothered to read previously, all these points have been covered numerous times, pointless saying it yet again and again and again - yes the EU need the Uk more than the other way round if that makes you feel happy.
Glad the pound hasn't tanked, glad inflation is not increasing, glad you're even further away from leaving than you were 15 months ago. Even your hard-line Brexiteers have realised it's all a sham.

Classy response, when you can't be bothered to actually reply to my points then simply say 'it's all been said before' and patronisingly list some random points. I'd reply to them, but you're not replying to my previous post, so what's the point?

And fyi, I'm not a brexiter. I was for remaining with reforms (which weren't offered), so I abstained. It annoys me that so many fail to see the very valid reasons people had for wanting to leave and instead get fixiated on this 'little englander' stereotype mentality. I've thrice now pointed out some of the issues the political structure of the EU creates, and you've ignored it again. I'm still pro-reconciliation and close ties with the EU and I don't think Brexit is a sham. If anything it's a chance to create a better relationship that retains the good things of the EU (trading, the joint bodies on things like research) and do away with the bad (most of the political bodies).
 
The issue's with the compulsory relocation scheme - Hungary and a couple of other states voted against it and refused to take any of the migrants. There's more overview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638

I totally forgot about that one, they partially let people enter Europe(as Greece do) and then complain when they are asked to share the load

Also due to the ECHR all European countries(not just EU members) have to receive asylum seekers and treat their demands, in theory they only have the right to seek it in the first European country they meet, now guess which countries we are talking about and who that schemes benefits to. It's not Germany or France because we could dump all the migrants in Hungary, Greece, Malta or wherever they entered first.
 
I totally forgot about that one, they partially let people enter Europe(as Greece do) and then complain when they are asked to share the load

Also due to the ECHR all European countries(not just EU members) have to receive asylum seekers and treat their demands, in theory they only have the right to seek it in the first European country they meet, now guess which countries we are talking about and who that schemes benefits to. It's not Germany or France because we could dump all the migrants in Hungary, Greece, Malta or wherever they entered first.
Thats the spirit. I think all migrants should be sent back to their entry point, what could possibly go wrong?
 
I’ve only read the last few pages but I’m convinced, judging by I Believe’s posts, that the majority of Brexiteers live in a world of their own. It reads almost like a “delusions of grandeur” complex.
 
Just on a practical matter, with regards to exit payment, have the EU said yet how much they think it should be, with appropriate justification?

I can't seem to find it anywhere, but I don't see how any negotiation can proceed until they do, especially as they keep saying there won't be any negotiation until the fee is sorted.

I'm not making a pro or anti EU comment, just trying to figure out what's going on.
 
Thats the spirit. I think all migrants should be sent back to their entry point, what could possibly go wrong?

If I'm not mistaken the migrant routs to Germany is from Poland, Republic Czech, Hungary and all, so we can all imagine what would happen if Germany decided to follow the logic of these countries. Germans would have a good laugh though.
 
Just on a practical matter, with regards to exit payment, have the EU said yet how much they think it should be, with appropriate justification?

I can't seem to find it anywhere, but I don't see how any negotiation can proceed until they do, especially as they keep saying there won't be any negotiation until the fee is sorted.

I'm not making a pro or anti EU comment, just trying to figure out what's going on.
No one needs to 'think of a number', if you have made a commitment to pay then the eu know exactly how much that figure is, unless of course they are incompetent twats.
 
And fyi, I'm not a brexiter. I was for remaining with reforms (which weren't offered), so I abstained. It annoys me that so many fail to see the very valid reasons people had for wanting to leave and instead get fixiated on this 'little englander' stereotype mentality. I've thrice now pointed out some of the issues the political structure of the EU creates, and you've ignored it again. I'm still pro-reconciliation and close ties with the EU and I don't think Brexit is a sham. If anything it's a chance to create a better relationship that retains the good things of the EU (trading, the joint bodies on things like research) and do away with the bad (most of the political bodies).

Ah the 'have your cake and eat it' approach, that the EU have told you repeatedly isn't an option, but apparently it is because of German car makers or something. Despite those same German car makers already publicly backing the EU approach.
 
No one needs to 'think of a number', if you have made a commitment to pay then the eu know exactly how much that figure is, unless of course they are incompetent twats.

You are right about the number being roughly known, the problem is that some expenses goes beyond the official day of brexit, like the pensions and some assets aren't liquid which means that the EU and the UK will have to make a common valuation of them.
 
You are right about the number being roughly known, the problem is that some expenses goes beyond the official day of brexit, like the pensions and some assets aren't liquid which means that the EU and the UK will have to make a common valuation of them.
No, the eu need to tell us the cost and justify it but like everything they do, they aren't competent enuff.
 
No, the eu need to tell us the cost and justify it but like everything they do, they aren't competent enuff.

It's already done, like that conversation. The first thing the EU did was to tell the UK what they were still supposed to pay and in theory that wasn't even necessary since the UK know exactly what they are supposed to pay since it's supposed to be budgeted until 2020. Now like I said in the previous post the problem comes with the non liquid assets, those can't be unilaterally evaluated by the EU, we will have to find a common ground or the UK could still own them while not in the EU, If I'm not mistaken.
 
It's already done, like that conversation. The first thing the EU did was to tell the UK what they were still supposed to pay and in theory that wasn't even necessary since the UK know exactly what they are supposed to pay since it's supposed to be budgeted until 2020. Now like I said in the previous post the problem comes with the non liquid assets, those can't be unilaterally evaluated by the EU, we will have to find a common ground or the UK could still own them while not in the EU, If I'm not mistaken.

This is the information I'm asking for. Do you have a source or a link? The media is throwing wildly different figures about which is obviously unhelpful to everyone, surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are. 'wasn't even necessary' isn't an answer really.

For the record I think the UK should pay for it's obligations in full, I just want to know what they are.
 
It's already done, like that conversation. The first thing the EU did was to tell the UK what they were still supposed to pay and in theory that wasn't even necessary since the UK know exactly what they are supposed to pay since it's supposed to be budgeted until 2020. Now like I said in the previous post the problem comes with the non liquid assets, those can't be unilaterally evaluated by the EU, we will have to find a common ground or the UK could still own them while not in the EU, If I'm not mistaken.
They need to come up with a guess and justify that guess, not find common ground. That will be found when bill is presented by proxy.
 
The whole thing seems like waiting for your younger sibling to naturally discover that Santa Clause or WWE wrestling isn't real. We're desperate to burst their bubble but we're told we have to not be mean and wait for them to find out for themselves.

So we're in a situation where unless we pretend that it's possible that we will get all the benefits of memberships without the conditions and that all the major trading nations of the world will want to rapidly conclude trade deals that are as or more favourable to us than current arrangements through the EU - we're being mean. Invisible mother chastising us for wanting to spoil the myth the Brexit kids believe in.

You see glimpses of it through quite senior public figures with the suggestion that Brexit would be going swimmingly only if the press refused to acknowledge that it isn't going swimmingly.

"Mum!!! He said Santa isn't real and if he keeps saying that Santa won't bring me any presents because he only delivers to houses where everyone believes, I read it in a story book!!"

We're in a position where closing our eyes and clicking our ruby slippers and repeating "There's no place like an extensive free trade agreement" is seen by many of the Brexiters as a sensible plan, which'd work if it wasn't for those pesky 'Remoaners'
 
This is the information I'm asking for. Do you have a source or a link? The media is throwing wildly different figures about which is obviously unhelpful to everyone, surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are. 'wasn't even necessary' isn't an answer really.

For the record I think the UK should pay for it's obligations in full, I just want to know what they are.

I posted the link in the thread, there are no amounts the EU simply listed all the legal acts that the UK signed that are linked with a payment, you just have to add them up.

Here you have everything about the EU positions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub..._core_flex_publication_date[value][year]=2017
 
This is the information I'm asking for. Do you have a source or a link? The media is throwing wildly different figures about which is obviously unhelpful to everyone, surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are. 'wasn't even necessary' isn't an answer really.

For the record I think the UK should pay for it's obligations in full, I just want to know what they are.

Yeah, a figure would be nice. I don't mind us paying the agreed budget in full but I don't understand why the EU can't put a figure on any sundry items they think the UK also owes. I'm hoping it isn't because there is some extraordinary figure three to five times the annual contribution of its second largest contributor that has been hidden, misappropriated or surreptitiously spent and the UK voting leave has brought it into focus. That wouldn't look good on the EU at all.

This you know the figure but we won't tell you nonsense isn't cutting it anymore and the final settlement will have to exclude any bodies we continue to remain members of and pay our share off so that will depend on the agreement reached which we can't get to until we sort the money out.
 
Yeah, a figure would be nice. I don't mind us paying the agreed budget in full but I don't understand why the EU can't put a figure on any sundry items they think the UK also owes. I'm hoping it isn't because there is some extraordinary figure three to five times the annual contribution of its second largest contributor that has been hidden, misappropriated or surreptitiously spent and the UK voting leave has brought it into focus. That wouldn't look good on the EU at all.

This you know the figure but we won't tell you nonsense isn't cutting it anymore and the final settlement will have to exclude any bodies we continue to remain members of and pay our share off so that will depend on the agreement reached which we can't get to until we sort the money out.

But we won't have a figure other than the current budget until 2020 plus the pensions. At least not until the UK clearly tell what they want, just an example with ECSEL.JU are the UK in or out? At the moment the only thing the EU can do is point to the current agreements and joint ventures.
 
In what way will the economy be fine. If the UK left now they'd have torn up the agreement for the single market and the customs union. They would no longer be members of the WTO so every single agreement they have at this moment will be null and void and they have to start from the beginning with every single country out there. That means after years of trying to obtain WTO membership they might be able to start concluding some deals.

Paul, as EU members we have an umbrella membership for the WTO.
My understanding is we currently trade with China under WTO rules.
As far as I am aware you can still trade with countries even if you are not a WTO member you just don't get the WTO protection. This suggests you should be careful when picking your trading partners yet would not stop us making bilateral trade deals.
 
I posted the link in the thread, there are no amounts the EU simply listed all the legal I acts that the UK signed that are linked with a payment, you just have to add them up.

Here you have everything about the EU positions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub..._core_flex_publication_date[value][year]=2017

I appreciate you're trying to help, but 'just add them up' is bollocks really. Like everyone in the country is supposed to read all the acts and budgets, noting down the figures, and then adding them up? Well I for one don't have the expertise or the time to do that, and I doubt many of the other 300 million or whatever citizens have either. Is every individual politician of all nations supposed to be 'just adding them up' as well, instead of the bureaucrats that are paid to do that sort of thing? I suppose it might explain a lot if they were.

As for pensions and other costs accrued during the UK's membership, of course the UK should pay those in full, but what are they? Or do we all have to add those up for ourselves as well?
 
I appreciate you're trying to help, but 'just add them up' is bollocks really. Like everyone in the country is supposed to read all the acts and budgets, noting down the figures, and then adding them up? Well I for one don't have the expertise or the time to do that, and I doubt many of the other 300 million or whatever citizens have either. Is every individual politician of all nations supposed to be 'just adding them up' as well, instead of the bureaucrats that are paid to do that sort of thing? I suppose it might explain a lot if they were.

As for pensions and other costs accrued during the UK's membership, of course the UK should pay those in full, but what are they? Or do we all have to add those up for ourselves as well?

Sorry, by "you" I meant the government not you and I. And they(the governments) have the figures, they just decided to not give them.
 
Paul, as EU members we have an umbrella membership for the WTO.
My understanding is we currently trade with China under WTO rules.
As far as I am aware you can still trade with countries even if you are not a WTO member you just don't get the WTO protection. This suggests you should be careful when picking your trading partners yet would not stop us making bilateral trade deals.

Yes the Uk is currently a WTO member because they are part of the EU and will continue to be so until they leave the EU. Problem is that if and when they leave the EU they will no longer be part of the WTO and have to apply to join which on average takes 5 years which is why they need a transitional deal with the EU to pass them over this time.
Assuming they are accepted in the WTO they still have to start negotiating deals with their intended customers and suppliers which takes many years too.
I think four or 5 countries in the whole world are not members of the WTO. To do deals you have to have a set of rules and jurisdiction in case of dispute and so on, you can't just make them up as you go along and why would any country want to do deals in such a fashion.

This is what is so perplexing, when we talk of a cliff edge, why would a country do this to themselves
 
surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are

No they can't, because there is no reliable independent audits to check previous spend and/or due diligence about where the money is actually going, really its only a guesstimate of what is required and what has been spent.

Overall Commission expenditure is outlined in budgets but detailed spending specifically on projects is not until the year a project starts, although monies are assigned sometimes 12 months in advance they are not documented or signed off on, in theory, until all information is received; however from my past experience, this could be on flimsy evidence, hence the openings for corruption were myriad. I do believe some tightening up was achieved in the mid 00's, but if you go back to the original 'British rebate, the reasons for this were that it turns out Britain was paying too much (to be honest how this was worked out exactly was a mystery then and still is) and to be sure the EU 'paid-up' over a period of time, not defined, Mrs Thatcher was given a rebate on Britain's budget payments, that in theory would eventually reduce over time. Of course Tony Blair when he was PM agreed to a reduction in the British rebate, (a rebate on the rebate if you like) precisely what for, nobody even in the EU, knows for sure.

I suspect that neither sides knows exactly what the true debit/credit situation is in regards to Britain's membership, partly because no one expected a Brexit outcome in a million years and so as long as the 'wheels stayed on the waggon' everything was OK, just keep feeding the horses at one end and shovelling the 's**t* at the other and everything will be all right and an apt mantra.

Whilst there is obvious concern about both economies, Britain's withdrawal from the EU will cause massive tremors in the financing of the EU itself and the main problems will be knowing where the 'sink holes' will appear. Mrs May knows or suspects this and hence her offer to anti-up until 2020 is a genuine offer to steady the ship and allow the EU time to get its own house in order, in return she wants the transition period to allow us to negotiate new trade deals. Theresa is risking the wrath of the Brexiteers (the ultras that is) but she is holding out an olive branch, which if Juncker is kept locked up somewhere then EU will accept.
 
Sorry, by "you" I meant the government not you and I. And they(the governments) have the figures, they just decided to not give them.

Right, apologies. Yet when article 50 was signed didn't Barnier or someone make a big point of how negotiations should all be in the open, with no secrecy? It seemed to upset the British at the time, who didn't even want parliament to have a say, just the government. Anyway it's turned out to be nonsense of course, so we just have reams of speculation from all sides using whatever figures they want that suits their argument at the time.

edit: Thanks I Believe, no idea if you're right or wrong but I've not a lot of confidence anyone else has either.
 
Classy response, when you can't be bothered to actually reply to my points then simply say 'it's all been said before' and patronisingly list some random points. I'd reply to them, but you're not replying to my previous post, so what's the point?

And fyi, I'm not a brexiter. I was for remaining with reforms (which weren't offered), so I abstained. It annoys me that so many fail to see the very valid reasons people had for wanting to leave and instead get fixiated on this 'little englander' stereotype mentality. I've thrice now pointed out some of the issues the political structure of the EU creates, and you've ignored it again. I'm still pro-reconciliation and close ties with the EU and I don't think Brexit is a sham. If anything it's a chance to create a better relationship that retains the good things of the EU (trading, the joint bodies on things like research) and do away with the bad (most of the political bodies).

On the face of it that sounds a lot like the UK getting the best of both worlds with little cost for leaving. Which to my simple little mind seems extremely unlikely given that a vote for Brexit was by extension a vote to be treated relatively unfavourably by the EU.
 
Right, apologies. Yet when article 50 was signed didn't Barnier or someone make a big point of how negotiations should all be in the open, with no secrecy? It seemed to upset the British at the time, who didn't even want parliament to have a say, just the government. Anyway it's turned out to be nonsense of course, so we just have reams of speculation from all sides using whatever figures they want that suits their argument at the time.

edit: Thanks I Believe, no idea if you're right or wrong but I've not a lot of confidence anyone else has either.

Well it's not really a secret, it's just that from the EU standpoint it's difficult to give an accurate estimation outside of the current budget, simply because the UK is still unclear about the type of Brexit they want. Where I agree with you though, is that both sides should at the very least give the 2017-2020 budget, plus an estimation of the pensions that would appease a part of the British population even though that figure would be meaningless.
 
Well it's not really a secret, it's just that from the EU standpoint it's difficult to give an accurate estimation outside of the current budget, simply because the UK is still unclear about the type of Brexit they want. Where I agree with you though, is that both sides should at the very least give the 2017-2020 budget, plus an estimation of the pensions that would appease a part of the British population even though that figure would be meaningless.

Yes, I would like those meaningless figures, simple soul that I am.
 
Classy response, when you can't be bothered to actually reply to my points then simply say 'it's all been said before' and patronisingly list some random points. I'd reply to them, but you're not replying to my previous post, so what's the point?

And fyi, I'm not a brexiter. I was for remaining with reforms (which weren't offered), so I abstained. It annoys me that so many fail to see the very valid reasons people had for wanting to leave and instead get fixiated on this 'little englander' stereotype mentality. I've thrice now pointed out some of the issues the political structure of the EU creates, and you've ignored it again. I'm still pro-reconciliation and close ties with the EU and I don't think Brexit is a sham. If anything it's a chance to create a better relationship that retains the good things of the EU (trading, the joint bodies on things like research) and do away with the bad (most of the political bodies).

Apologies for being a bit short but was just going go bed and rushed my response.
However, having explained the who needs who the most scenario at least a dozen times and the last time only a couple of pages back it does get frustrating.

So for the benefit of other people who may still think the same way I will explain it in the simplest possible way and hopefully will not have to repeat it again:
Yes the UK imports more from the EU more than the EU imports from the UK - there is no disagreement here.
Firstly the UK is one country the EU is 27 countries so that statistic is hardly surprising.

To the nitty gritty - the Brexiteers obsession with German car manufacturers.
Approximately 50% of British sales goes to the EU. 1.8% of German sales are cars to the UK. Even if you want to talk about all of German exports to the UK it's 7.6% of their exports. Please also keep in mind that Germany is the biggest supplier of goods to the UK from the EU countries by far so this is the worst scenario for the EU.
Now imagine the scenario where the EU and the UK have this mighty argument and they both say that all trade will stop between them.

Germany says - oh no, we've lost 7.6% of our customers - the UK say, oh no, we've lost 50% of our customers - do I still need to elaborate?

The reforms will happen, but it will take time. Nobody is saying the EU is perfect but to think that life will suddenly become so much better after leaving is fanciful to say the least. The Uk are putting their trust in the goons who have lied to them continuously and still continue to believe them. problem is even if you got rid of them , you'd get Corbyn, his performance before the referendum alone tells one a lot. I do not see where the UK is remotely more democratic than the EU if that's what you're hoping for.

As for the Hungarian issue, I had answered you , the EU court will not impose something illegal on them that they hadn't agreed to, if they did then yes there is a problem.

I can talk to you all day about trade, finance, etc because it's my field, there are people on here who are more knowledgable about immigration etc who have explained.

Brexit is a sham because Leave won but had no idea what to do after they won, if I was a Brexiter I would be thinking, we're not really going to leave are we?
For the first time ever I agreed with something Farage said yesterday," the Uk are leaving the EU but in name only" - this is worse than anything.
The pathetic speech by May yesterday which is basically saying we've still not idea how to proceed but could you give us some more time to delay the cliff edge and think of something but we will pay our dues and we will pay to belong to the single market - what's the betting in a couple of years time they'll be asking for another couple of years.

One issue that does not affect me in the slightest but interests me is the Irish border issue. I have absolutely no idea what the solution is, does anyone and if they don't , didn't someone think about this before the farce began.
 
The German car manufacturers point has always been utter bollocks from Brexiteers.

We're an insignificant market to them, even if it seems like they sell a lot over here (they do, but we have less cars in total so the percentage sold seems higher). They can just sell more in China and India to offset the UK impact and they won't feel a thing.

We haven't got a leg to stand on in negotiations. We're going to get shafted and May will give them all they want then try and claim we got something back because she and the rest of her bunch are wet blankets.
 
do I still need to elaborate

Not really Paul, you've convinced me that you look at things from a disjointed perspective and that only your view of the world is right, but heh that's democracy!

I can talk to you all day about trade, finance, etc. because it's my field

Yes sure Paul, nobody else could possible argue with you could they, all out of step except you, unbelievable ?


Brexit is a sham because Leave won

Paul this is hilarious, I bet Everton said the 4-0 defeat was a sham because we scored 3 goals in the last few minutes :lol: as I said above, all depends on perspective

Have a good day:)
 
Not really Paul, you've convinced me that you look at things from a disjointed perspective and that only your view of the world is right, but heh that's democracy!



Yes sure Paul, nobody else could possible argue with you could they, all out of step except you, unbelievable ?




Paul this is hilarious, I bet Everton said the 4-0 defeat was a sham because we scored 3 goals in the last few minutes :lol: as I said above, all depends on perspective

Have a good day:)

You mean after that very simple clear explanation that so many people other than me have also given in order that anyone with any common sense should understand - it's really not very difficult.
Now is it because Brexieteers are of low intelligence and cannot understand simple facts or is it that they just don't want to listen and refuse to listen to anything that spoils theirvision of utopia.

It's not a question of perspective, it's not a point of view, it's facts which Brexiteers are allergic to, just something called reality but facts don't come into it when one lives in cloud cuckoo land.

Have a good day and keep dreaming. It's half time so I'll go back to watching the match.
ps: well done for editing the quotes and taking everything out of context
 
Last edited:
It seems the US plan a massive import tariff (220% ? ) on Bombardier planes, which are produced in NI. Good job we've got the special relationship.
 
Last edited: