Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
An extension to the transitional period would be to 2027, the end of the next EU budget period after the current one which ends in December 2020 which is when the EU want the UK out by. Eleven and a half years after the referendum.

Problem is the UK government thinks the initial transitional period to end 2020 is a done deal, it isn't.

The van driver above is a small example of what will happen. But it doesn't just apply to car parts, everything imported from the EU and exported to the EU will suffer. Forget the astronomical cost of this, the delays and disruption will be unmanageable.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
An extension to the transitional period would be to 2027, the end of the next EU budget period after the current one which ends in December 2020 which is when the EU want the UK out by. Eleven and a half years after the referendum.

Problem is the UK government thinks the initial transitional period to end 2020 is a done deal, it isn't.

The van driver above is a small example of what will happen. But it doesn't just apply to car parts, everything imported from the EU and exported to the EU will suffer. Forget the astronomical cost of this, the delays and disruption will be unmanageable.
Click to expand...

Not if they hire a lot of Polish, among others, in the custom administration.
 
Fantastic speech by Sir Ivan Rogers.
Read it if you have time. I'm less busy at work and I'm halfway through.
https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/blog-sir-ivan-rogers-speech-text-in-full/
This part just reminded me that we have not heard "no deal is better than a bad deal" bullshit that May keeps spouting in a while.
As a negotiator, I am actually a great believer that the threat of leaving the negotiating table and going another route has to be there, whenever you can credibly deploy it. But the key word there is “credibly”.

There was, for the EU side of the table, no credibility at all to the idea that the UK could better secure its fundamental interests on the financial markets issues in the time zone by leaving the EU, thus guaranteeing it would have no vote in the Council or Parliament on the future regulatory regime changes.

For one simple reason. It is not true. As we are in the process of finding out.

Just as, in the Article 50 negotiation since the referendum, there has been no credibility in the threat to walk out to “no deal”, as it has been self-evident to the other side of the table from 2016 that a “no deal” outcome post exit, without any sort of preferential access deal for British goods and services in key sectors, is vastly worse for the UK than even a bog standard Canada Dry style FTA of the sort with which we are confronted post a transition standstill, should UK red lines not evolve.

It is not just the British side of the table which has done its homework on the implications, sector by sector, of all post exit scenarios. Both sides know the legal position in the event of a “no deal” and they also know the contingency plans of major tracts of industries located in the UK if it happened. It sometimes feels as though it is only large chunks of the Westminster village who are blissfully unaware, or wish to write it all off as fear-mongering from those notorious anti-capitalists who run large businesses.

Which is why the threats to walk out have stopped and the repetitions of “no deal is better than a bad deal” have ceased. (There are of course people who want to crash out without a deal. They just do not include the PM or a good 90% of the Commons.)
 
Last edited:
Adisa said:
Looks like trouble in Brexitland.
Cabinet apparently discussing asking EU for another transition period. Our European brothers must be laughing at our stupidity.
Ivan Rogers was forced out for saying Brexit would take ten years. 2023 would be seven years from the vote.
Click to expand...

Cummings is the fecking architect of the whole thing, so his credibility is kinda sullied here.
 
Adisa said:
Fantastic speech by Sir Ivan Rogers.
Read it if you have time. I'm less busy at work and I'm halfway through.
https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/blog-sir-ivan-rogers-speech-text-in-full/
This part just reminded me that we have not heard "no deal is better than a bad deal" bullshit that May keeps spouting in a while.
As a negotiator, I am actually a great believer that the threat of leaving the negotiating table and going another route has to be there, whenever you can credibly deploy it. But the key word there is “credibly”.

There was, for the EU side of the table, no credibility at all to the idea that the UK could better secure its fundamental interests on the financial markets issues in the time zone by leaving the EU, thus guaranteeing it would have no vote in the Council or Parliament on the future regulatory regime changes.

For one simple reason. It is not true. As we are in the process of finding out.

Just as, in the Article 50 negotiation since the referendum, there has been no credibility in the threat to walk out to “no deal”, as it has been self-evident to the other side of the table from 2016 that a “no deal” outcome post exit, without any sort of preferential access deal for British goods and services in key sectors, is vastly worse for the UK than even a bog standard Canada Dry style FTA of the sort with which we are confronted post a transition standstill, should UK red lines not evolve.

It is not just the British side of the table which has done its homework on the implications, sector by sector, of all post exit scenarios. Both sides know the legal position in the event of a “no deal” and they also know the contingency plans of major tracts of industries located in the UK if it happened. It sometimes feels as though it is only large chunks of the Westminster village who are blissfully unaware, or wish to write it all off as fear-mongering from those notorious anti-capitalists who run large businesses.

Which is why the threats to walk out have stopped and the repetitions of “no deal is better than a bad deal” have ceased. (There are of course people who want to crash out without a deal. They just do not include the PM or a good 90% of the Commons.)
Click to expand...
For those who can't be bothered, took me close to an hour. This is a summary.
 
Last edited:
Adisa said:
Fantastic speech by Sir Ivan Rogers.
Read it if you have time. I'm less busy at work and I'm halfway through.
https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/blog-sir-ivan-rogers-speech-text-in-full/
This part just reminded me that we have not heard "no deal is better than a bad deal" bullshit that May keeps spouting in a while.
As a negotiator, I am actually a great believer that the threat of leaving the negotiating table and going another route has to be there, whenever you can credibly deploy it. But the key word there is “credibly”.

There was, for the EU side of the table, no credibility at all to the idea that the UK could better secure its fundamental interests on the financial markets issues in the time zone by leaving the EU, thus guaranteeing it would have no vote in the Council or Parliament on the future regulatory regime changes.

For one simple reason. It is not true. As we are in the process of finding out.

Just as, in the Article 50 negotiation since the referendum, there has been no credibility in the threat to walk out to “no deal”, as it has been self-evident to the other side of the table from 2016 that a “no deal” outcome post exit, without any sort of preferential access deal for British goods and services in key sectors, is vastly worse for the UK than even a bog standard Canada Dry style FTA of the sort with which we are confronted post a transition standstill, should UK red lines not evolve.

It is not just the British side of the table which has done its homework on the implications, sector by sector, of all post exit scenarios. Both sides know the legal position in the event of a “no deal” and they also know the contingency plans of major tracts of industries located in the UK if it happened. It sometimes feels as though it is only large chunks of the Westminster village who are blissfully unaware, or wish to write it all off as fear-mongering from those notorious anti-capitalists who run large businesses.

Which is why the threats to walk out have stopped and the repetitions of “no deal is better than a bad deal” have ceased. (There are of course people who want to crash out without a deal. They just do not include the PM or a good 90% of the Commons.)
Click to expand...

What did you thought about it, it sounds a lot like what the caf remoaners said doesn't it?
 
JPRouve said:
What did you thought about it, it sounds a lot like what the caf remoaners said doesn't it?
Click to expand...
It's exactly what people have being saying. We've spent two years arguing about scenarios that cannot exist.
Everyone is now on a hump about this Customs Union nonsense. It doesn't even solve the NI issue. Not only that, it's not clear if a customs Union in the current format is possible if we wanted one.
On the threat of walking out. It's not even a bluff. A bluff or a threat must be credible. Every man and his dog know we simply can't walk away.
The long story short is, there's not version of Brexit, where we aren't fecked.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
I'd even go firther to say, there's no version of Brexit that even seems possible at this point. We could potentially be on this Brexit issue for the next half century.
 
JPRouve said:
What did you thought about it, it sounds a lot like what the caf remoaners said doesn't it?
Click to expand...

The part about how we're effectively losing sovereignty in that we'll be adopting EU rules/laws in many cases over which we will have no say is fairly pertinent, and a good way of expressing how daft this all is.

Also think it points to how politicians have acted over the years. Eurosceptic and anti-immigration press figures have always portrayed the EU in a negative context, and as a result even our most ardently pro-European politicians have often tried to look strong in gaining concessions from the EU as opposed to advocating further integration. As a result it's become ingrained that any move towards being closer with the EU is almost universally a bad thing, whereas moving further away from them helps represent our own strength and independence. Obviously this has largely been established as bollocks now, but generations of politicians, Labour and Tory, have largely fed this.
 
Cheesy said:
The part about how we're effectively losing sovereignty in that we'll be adopting EU rules/laws in many cases over which we will have no say is fairly pertinent, and a good way of expressing how daft this all is.

Also think it points to how politicians have acted over the years. Eurosceptic and anti-immigration press figures have always portrayed the EU in a negative context, and as a result even our most ardently pro-European politicians have often tried to look strong in gaining concessions from the EU as opposed to advocating further integration. As a result it's become ingrained that any move towards being closer with the EU is almost universally a bad thing, whereas moving further away from them helps represent our own strength and independence. Obviously this has largely been established as bollocks now, but generations of politicians, Labour and Tory, have largely fed this.
Click to expand...
I said this before the referendum. The Cameron government or any Tory government were the last people who should have led a campaign against leaving.
You cannot for 30 years say the EU is bad, then now say we should stay. We tried to erode 30 years of indoctrination in one referendum campaign...pure fantasy.
The only way I think this country can vote to be with the EU is after we've already left and the public have seen the other side with their eyes.
 
JPRouve said:
Is it me or the last two points are ludicrous when you consider them together? You talk about a more trusted position but also suggest that you will try to alter the rules before leaving in order to gain access from the outside.
Click to expand...

Yes they are ludicrous, it's what he said earlier in the article: “To paraphrase The Leopard by Tommaso di Lampedusa, I have the impression that the UK thinks everything has to change on the EU’s side so that everything can stay the same for the UK.”

I get the impression that the EU are so tired of the nonsensical positioning of the UK government that the day the UK leaves can't come soon enough.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
When the UK cabinet decide what they want it may make discussions easier. The UK are leaving the EU but still believe they should share the benefits of being in the EU. Of course it will be preferential that the UK remain involved but it's the UK that wanted out, why don't they realise this.
Click to expand...
Just saying the eu are not in agreement when its something they may benefit from, who'd have thunk?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But the outcome has not been decided yet.
The UK benefit enormously from being in the EU but 21 people from the same party and the same country can't agree.
Click to expand...
Just saying paul, there is disagreement when its something they care about. I also liked the post about the person that will be thrown out of uk after 40 years, like it never happened in NL. Except it has.
 
Stanley Road said:
Just saying paul, there is disagreement when its something they care about. I also liked the post about the person that will be thrown out of uk after 40 years, like it never happened in NL. Except it has.
Click to expand...

It is been 2 years since the referendum and lots had been discussed. I have you as the epitetome of the caf brexiteer as you never left the thread, but your posting had been less and less in quantity and passion (maybe for other reasons).

Do you still think that the way things are going, Brexit will be positive for UK? I will give you a way out. In short? medium? long term?

Do you think it will be worse than you thought? (even if positive)
 
Stanley Road said:
Just saying paul, there is disagreement when its something they care about. I also liked the post about the person that will be thrown out of uk after 40 years, like it never happened in NL. Except it has.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that every organisation worldwide will never be 100% totally in agreement about everything. It has to be resolved sensibly and properly.
There will be many other points that some of the EU27 will be more favoured by than others.

Certain countries would prefer that the Uk would be treated more leniently regarding trade because it suits them - this is the UK tactic of divide and conquer. The EU will stick together because overall together they are much stronger than the UK.

I am sure there are mistakes in every country with people being removed by mistake. The point is that there is an impression that there is an intention to make foreigners unwelcome in the UK.
My wife is French who never took UK citizenship, if we'd still been living there would she feel welcome? You said you may plan one day to return to the UK with your missus, would she be welcome?

I have never for one second felt unwelcome in France and wonder if you have ever felt unwelcome in Holland?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I would imagine that every organisation worldwide will never be 100% totally in agreement about everything. It has to be resolved sensibly and properly.
There will be many other points that some of the EU27 will be more favoured by than others.

Certain countries would prefer that the Uk would be treated more leniently regarding trade because it suits them - this is the UK tactic of divide and conquer. The EU will stick together because overall together they are much stronger than the UK.

I am sure there are mistakes in every country with people being removed by mistake. The point is that there is an impression that there is an intention to make foreigners unwelcome in the UK.
My wife is French who never took UK citizenship, if we'd still been living there would she feel welcome? You said you may plan one day to return to the UK with your missus, would she be welcome?

I have never for one second felt unwelcome in France and wonder if you have ever felt unwelcome in Holland?
Click to expand...
A few of my foreign colleagues feel unwelcome in nl yes. I was asked just a week ago if dutch people were racist. And yes, yes they are all be it in a casual manner but moreso than i have ever seen in the uk.
 
Stanley Road said:
A few of my foreign colleagues feel unwelcome in nl yes. I was asked just a week ago if dutch people were racist. And yes, yes they are all be it in a casual manner but moreso than i have ever seen in the uk.
Click to expand...

For sure there are some people who are racists or xenophobes to varying degrees in all countries. Obviously there are certain politicians who are.
But was more thinking of the government itself.
 
Stanley Road said:
Over that particular project, if uk leave then surely they should no longer be involved. What is it the eu want from the uk?
Click to expand...

I agree the UK should no longer be involved, the same as all the other EU projects they still want to be involved in. It's why the UK leaving the EU makes no sense. The EU didn't want the UK to leave, it would be better for all concerned that they didn't leave. Some countries still harbouring the hope the UK may change their mind?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
For sure there are some people who are racists or xenophobes to varying degrees in all countries. Obviously there are certain politicians who are.
But was more thinking of the government itself.
Click to expand...
Well Mark Rutte PM said on t.v. 'feck off yourself' in reply to a foreigner that said 'feck Netherlands ' on camera. No uk pm would say that.
 
This is lining up to be the worst decision in Europe since the French said "Fortify the Ardennes Forrest? Nah, it is far to rugged terrain for the Germans to invade through".
 
Last edited:
When it all goes wrong it'll be the fault of people who predicted it'd go wrong. It definitely won't be the fault of people who ignored all the 'experts' telling them that it would go wrong.

It'll be the case we could have avoided economic catastrophe if only we transmitted positive thoughts, as that's definitely how these things work.
 
Oscie said:
When it all goes wrong it'll be the fault of people who predicted it'd go wrong. It definitely won't be the fault of people who ignored all the 'experts' telling them that it would go wrong.

It'll be the case we could have avoided economic catastrophe if only we transmitted positive thoughts, as that's definitely how these things work.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're right they'll try that line. I don't think people will buy it. I think far more will blame politicians for the fact we didn't brexit hard enough.
 
Steven Seagull said:
I would blame the politicians for 30 years of sleepwalking deeper into a political union they know nothing about
Click to expand...
Maybe during that 30 years they should have played their active part within that union and guided it to better suit our needs rather than posing obstructions without sound reason or simply sitting it out and allowing media blowhards like Johnson to blatantly lie about the EU to stoke fear and resentment among working class Brits who have never understood the benefits EU membership bring them or quite how deeply entwined our business and industry is with Europe and why we should be rooting for it to succeed.
 
Wibble said:
This is lining up to be the worst decision in Europe since the French said "Fortify the Ardennes Forrest? Nah, it is far to rugged terrain for the Germans to invade through".
Click to expand...

They went through Holland and Belgium and didn't even need the Ardennes.
The worst decision was for the British and French to pander to a nationalistic dictator who blamed everything on foreigners and allowed him to build an army while brainwashing the country's population.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
They went through Holland and Belgium and didn't even need the Ardennes.
The worst decision was for the British and French to pander to a nationalistic dictator who blamed everything on foreigners and allowed him to build an army while brainwashing the country's population.
Click to expand...

To be pedantic, they did go through the Ardennes but the region goes across France, Luxembourg, Germany and Belgium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.