Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
JPRouve said:
But that's also a misconception, if you bear in mind that the UK create between 2000 and 3000 new laws each year and that the EU creates generally between 250 and 450 new legal acts(Laws, directive, regulations and decisions). This line of thought isn't based on reality, particularly when you consider that I only mention new laws for the UK, I'm too lazy to compile it them but you can have an idea here.
Click to expand...

This means almost nothing to me other than to describe exactly how little people are interested in the details.

All I asked was for people to stop saying Norway take most of the EU laws. Which you agreed with in your own facts and figures was an untruth.

Anyway

We have to wait for Paul to come on here when the storms are over and call everyone an idiotic blue passport racist. Well Paul voted Tory for as long as I’ve been alive so he can feck right off. He is lucky people like me didn’t vote leave or it would’ve been 25million.
 
What had happened to the they need us more then we need them and there will be No free trade on goods without a free trade deal on services? The government is so desperate for any deal really that they will accept FOM as part of a free trade deal that concerns only goods.

I know its naughty but I am curious to know the extent the British government are ready to backtrack to get a deal. Maybe we can ask them to make Macron king of England? Or that everyone in Westminster should start wearing blue with stars on them? I don't know. I feel bad for the British people but not the crook brexiteers in Westminster.
 
devilish said:
What had happened to the they need us more then we need them and there will be No free trade on goods without a free trade deal on services? The government is so desperate for any deal really that they will accept FOM as part of a free trade deal that concerns only goods.

I know its naughty but I am curious to know the extent the British government are ready to backtrack to get a deal. Maybe we can ask them to make Macron king of England? Or that everyone in Westminster should start wearing blue with stars on them? I don't know. I feel bad for the British people but not the crook brexiteers in Westminster.
Click to expand...

The main problem is the biggest idiots on both sides get the most airtime in newspapers and national television. It’s become painfully apparent that both media and government is filled with complete idiots who are unable to grasp the issue. So they keep rolling out Mogg and his ilk even if they’re a small percentage of what normal people think
 
Steven Seagull said:
The main problem is the biggest idiots on both sides get the most airtime in newspapers and national television. It’s become painfully apparent that both media and government is filled with complete idiots who are unable to grasp the issue. So they keep rolling out Mogg and his ilk even if they’re a small percentage of what normal people think
Click to expand...

Just for my own reading, who are the idiots on the other side of this? Obviously we have Gove, Mogg and Johnson etc on one side of it, but who are the idiots unable to grasp the issue who oppose them?
 
Steven Seagull said:
This means almost nothing to me other than to describe exactly how little people are interested in the details.

All I asked was for people to stop saying Norway take most of the EU laws. Which you agreed with in your own facts and figures was an untruth.

Anyway

We have to wait for Paul to come on here when the storms are over and call everyone an idiotic blue passport racist. Well Paul voted Tory for as long as I’ve been alive so he can feck right off. He is lucky people like me didn’t vote leave or it would’ve been 25million.
Click to expand...

In isolation I agree with your point, even though I think that you are adding to the silliness of the Brexit debate. I said it multiple time but today the EU is mainly a foreign policy subject which logically means that no one in the EU is actually a rule taker and no population is at the mercy of the meany in Brussels. That's a point that should have been hammered by every party opposing the anti-EU sentiments but instead of that everyone get salty or dragged into irrelevant debates like the ECJ or the ECHR.
 
Steven Seagull said:
This means almost nothing to me other than to describe exactly how little people are interested in the details.

All I asked was for people to stop saying Norway take most of the EU laws. Which you agreed with in your own facts and figures was an untruth.

Anyway

We have to wait for Paul to come on here when the storms are over and call everyone an idiotic blue passport racist. Well Paul voted Tory for as long as I’ve been alive so he can feck right off. He is lucky people like me didn’t vote leave or it would’ve been 25million.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm back.
I think you must be confusing me with somebody else .Where have I even mentioned blue passports or called everyone a racist.
I voted Tory between 79 and 2005 - from 97 the alternative was Blair who seems to be even more of an enemy. Ridiculous statement.
That person voted Tory therefore I will destroy the economy of the country, sounds like a spoilt child.

Still waiting for your answer about the 5 benefits of having a Norway style deal.
Norway is not in the CU and the UK have to be in the CU
Norway is in the SM so FoM is unavoidable and so is the ECJ.

What are these laws that you're objecting to, or is that the same question that is asked to Brexiters to which none of them can answer.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Don't worry, I'm back.
I think you must be confusing me with somebody else .Where have I even mentioned blue passports or called everyone a racist.
I voted Tory between 79 and 2005 - from 97 the alternative was Blair who seems to be even more of an enemy. Ridiculous statement.
That person voted Tory therefore I will destroy the economy of the country, sounds like a spoilt child.

Still waiting for your answer about the 5 benefits of having a Norway style deal.
Norway is not in the CU and the UK have to be in the CU
Norway is in the SM so FoM is unavoidable and so is the ECJ.

What are these laws that you're objecting to, or is that the same question that is asked to Brexiters to which none of them can answer.
Click to expand...

To make it clear, EFTA has its own court but the thing about ECJ is that their decisions are also consultative for the EU which means that even if you are totally out of the EU, you will still be subjected to the ECJ since it influences the EU's legal philosophy.
 
JPRouve said:
To make it clear, EFTA has its own court but the thing about ECJ is that their decisions are also consultative for the EU which means that even if you are totally out of the EU, you will still be subjected to the ECJ since it influences the EU's legal philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yes , well described.

Nobody has yet answered me why the latest UK government position is considered to amount to "uk cabinet agrees to negotiate a soft brexit" - I don't understand why - do you?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Yes , well described.

Nobody has yet answered me why the latest UK government position is considered to amount to "uk cabinet agrees to negotiate a soft brexit" - I don't understand why - do you?
Click to expand...

I understand why, it's going to a be bit cnutish but basically ignorance is king here.
For example the term freedom of movement includes goods, labour, capital and services, so if (2) is genuine then you have to wonder what is the point of the FTA because free trade is about the lack of tariffs not the right to cross borders which leads us to the no border point, if you stop freedom movement then you don't allow goods, labour, capital and services to cross your borders indiscriminately, so you essentially have a controlled border. You also don't need a new custom model in that scenario.
If you share a common area, you need a common jurisdiction, whether it's named ECJ or something else, your national court will not be above a common court because no country is going to let a foreign national court impose its view.
The parliamentary lock on all legal acts isn't workable at 28, you can have vetoes on certain subjects but most routine acts have to be taken at a simple or qualified majority, if it's not just done by the common administration.

For me it's incoherent, they are still trying to have nothing and everything at the same time.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
I understand why, it's going to a be bit cnutish but basically ignorance is king here.
For example the term freedom of movement includes goods, labour, capital and services, so if (2) is genuine then you have to wonder what is the point of the FTA because free trade is about the lack of tariffs not the right to cross borders which leads us to the no border point, if you stop freedom movement then you don't allow goods, labour, capital and services to cross your borders indiscriminately, so you essentially have a controlled border. You also don't need a new custom mode in that scenario.
If you share a common area, you need a common jurisdiction, whether it's named ECJ or something else, your national court will not be above a common court because no country is going to let a foreign national court impose its view.
The parliamentary lock on all legal acts isn't workable at 28, you can have vetoes on certain subjects but most routine acts have to be taken at a simple or qualified majority, if it's not just done by the common administration.

For me it's incoherent, they are still trying to have nothing and everything at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's totally incoherent, that's why I wondered where someone got the idea that they were going to negotiate a soft Brexit. It's still the cherry picking but even more confused, if that's possible.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Yes, it's totally incoherent, that's why I wondered where someone got the idea that they were going to negotiate a soft Brexit. It's still the cherry picking but even more confused, if that's possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah and before someone talk about my mention of borders, we need to remember that borders are physical and/or administrative, administrative borders are the biggest problem here and that's what freedom of movement is about, it gives the right to cross administrative borders, the best example is at airports, when someone travels within the EU they will cross administrative borders from international soil to national soil, if you are a EU citizen you will be checked but you have the administrative right to cross the border, same thing with goods, capitals and services. When you say that you are stopping freedom of movement, it means that you do not grant the automatic right to cross your borders, so you are controlling every crossing and giving individual rights instead of "class" rights.
 
Ramshock said:
:lol: the EU has played a blinder.
Click to expand...

They waited to see if the if the Brexiteers could satisfy the lies told to racists to make them vote for Brexit, they couldn't. Now, ironically, the UK is going to resemble the powerless rules taker the Brexiteers lied about during the referendum
 
“Our message now is to the other side, to Europe, that it’s time to get serious and sit down and talk about it,” Theresa May said on Sunday. “It’s now for Europe to be prepared to sit down and move the pace of negotiations on and talk about it seriously and address what we’ve put forward.”

So for the past two years the UK haven't been serious but think they are now?
You know it's going to be rejected, stop wasting everyone's time and either stay in or go away.
 
horsechoker said:
More likely to resign at this point, I can only see someone who will be willing to tow the May line being appointed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no way she'd appoint someone who is just as opposed to any kind of compromise as Davis was. Do wonder if she'll also go for a Major style "put up or shut up" contest just to feck over the rebels and end the speculation.
 
Gonna be a fun week for May with Trump visiting too. I'll be surprised if she's still there by the end of September. Rees-Mogg v Boris Johnson leadership challenge with Rees-Mogg as the next PM is how I see things going.
 
So May urged the EU to enter serious discussions (about a proposal that to me looks like it will be dismissed within seconds) hours before their British counterpart resigned. Am I understanding this correctly?
 
Another one gone from the Department of exiting the EU in Steve Baker.

I guess it's an interesting start to the week.

do.ob said:
So May urged the EU to enter serious discussions (about a proposal that to me looks like it will be dismissed within seconds) hours before their British counterpart resigned. Am I understanding this correctly?
Click to expand...

The proposal is only a start to the discussions, May has conferred with the civil service that further more concessions will have to be made. That likely concessions is probably what is prompting the start of the Brexiteers resigning.
 
So Davis spent two years pissing around doing feck all but complaining and lying, now finally chucked it.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if Davis was simply looking for a veil under which to escape the useless job he is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.