Jump to content
*JKB Christmas Cracker 2018 is underway!* 12 days of prizes. Don't forget to renew your subs if you want to take part... PM admin if you need help. Read more... ×
jumpship

Brexit Negotiations

Recommended Posts

Jambo-Jimbo

My parents and many others of their generation we were lied to when they voted to join in the 70s, which is why so many voted to leave.  Your argument makes no sense - don't bother taking action because its too much hassle.

 

The people voted and I agree with Jambo-Jimbo that lies were on both sides.  Now it is time to move on and begin this process, when the EU decide to actually start negotiating rather than telling the UK they can't get anything.

 

If we head for WTO trade rules, then a lot of countries that have high exports to the UK won't be too chuffed.

 

That was a point which didn't seem to get much of an airing after the vote, people especially the young couldn't understand and wondered why so many older people voted to leave, one of the reasons was, I believe, that many of this older generation whom, it must be pointed out, were the young at the time of the UK joining what was then the EEC, had watched with dismay what the EEC had morphed into what it has become today.

 

The common market was an excellent idea and if it had only been left that way then we wouldn't be in this position now.

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh

We would try. The problems with that approach are the importance of the EU to our economy, and the fact that there are few easily negotiated deals out there. The EU already has deals in place with most countries where that's politically practical on both sides. For example, if we want a deal with India, then we would likely have to agree to a more liberal immigration policy to get that done. Hence, the EU has no free trade deal with India. We saw the problems of negotiating a deal with the US with all the chlorinated chicken flap earlier this year

 

The EU does not have full trade deals with that many countries. Preferred supplier deals and the likes but the recent deal struck with Canada illustrates the problem when you are negotiating on behalf of 27 countries. It took around a decade and nearly collapsed because a region of Belgium to umbrage at something or other.  They still have no full deal with the US, China, Argentina and as you mentioned India. We as a sovereign nation can agree deals far more efficiently and quickly on our own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

I think it's two of the great things about this country - the police are still, largely, unarmed and we don't have ID cards.

 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

The difficulties in leaving the EU are exactly why we should be leaving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Boy Named Crow

The government produced and sent out a booklet to every household explaining what everything meant. go look up the word democracy.

Ok, but while I do that, maybe you should look up the sovereignty of parliament. It's a key part of the (unwritten) constitution, and the reason why Brexit could be stopped by a simple vote in parliament, without undermining the fundamentals of democracy. It's not hard, and it is required!

Edited by A Boy Named Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

The EU does not have full trade deals with that many countries. Preferred supplier deals and the likes but the recent deal struck with Canada illustrates the problem when you are negotiating on behalf of 27 countries. It took around a decade and nearly collapsed because a region of Belgium to umbrage at something or other.  They still have no full deal with the US, China, Argentina and as you mentioned India. We as a sovereign nation can agree deals far more efficiently and quickly on our own.

 

 

Article 50 is clear; there is now absolutely no barrier to leaving.  So why won't your government just do that instead of asking for special terms to do so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

It's become pretty apparent that the countries that export significantly to Britain have decided that they're comfortable with the EU approach to negotiations. I'm curious where

this belief that the EU is suddenly about to shift its position comes from.

 

 

The expression you're looking for is "fog in Channel, Continent cut off".  See IPK's post above.

Edited by Ulysses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

Article 50 is clear; there is now absolutely no barrier to leaving.  So why won't your government just do that instead of asking for special terms to do so? 

 

Er, if that was the case, why doesn't the EU refuse to negotiate either?

 

And the simple reason as to why they are negotiating is, of course, money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

Er, if that was the case, why doesn't the EU refuse to negotiate either?

 

And the simple reason as to why they are negotiating is, of course, money.

 

 

Why would any sane organisation refuse to negotiate?  The EU are negotiating; the fog in channel crew are blabbing.  Why?  Because all the best British trade negotiation experts in the business work for the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

Why would any sane organisation refuse to negotiate?  The EU are negotiating; the fog in channel crew are blabbing.  Why?  Because all the best British trade negotiation experts in the business work for the EU.

 

 

P.S. @geoff

 

Have you read this?

 

51MIX48k7IL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

 

If you haven't, give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

Why would any sane organisation refuse to negotiate?  The EU are negotiating; the fog in channel crew are blabbing.  Why?  Because all the best British trade negotiation experts in the business work for the EU.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Davis, Fox and co aren't flapping. The point, however, is that the EU negotiations will be as standard, with nothing happening until pressure and panic occur.

 

I actually think the key problem is freedom of movement given that May seems stuck on that. Once she is persuaded in some way by a fudge over that, everything will fall into place.

 

PS Haven't heard of that book. May buy it when I'm over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO

The EU does not have full trade deals with that many countries. Preferred supplier deals and the likes but the recent deal struck with Canada illustrates the problem when you are negotiating on behalf of 27 countries. It took around a decade and nearly collapsed because a region of Belgium to umbrage at something or other.  They still have no full deal with the US, China, Argentina and as you mentioned India. We as a sovereign nation can agree deals far more efficiently and quickly on our own.

The UK has had over a year since the referendum - and where are we ? Nowhere. In 12 months we've got ready to talk to Nigeria ? Where else ?  Leaving the EU  has become  a lesson in lunacy. The UK will quit on its own terms, it will dictate the agenda, speed and priority of negotiations and will argue over the "divorce bill" - not that the UK has ever actually told its citizens what it thinks the divorce bill should be. 

 

What trade deals is the UK going to sign and on the basis of what ?  Take out the city of London &  financial services - what is the UK going to sell ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Davis, Fox and co aren't flapping. The point, however, is that the EU negotiations will be as standard, with nothing happening until pressure and panic occur.

 

I actually think the key problem is freedom of movement given that May seems stuck on that. Once she is persuaded in some way by a fudge over that, everything will fall into place.

 

PS Haven't heard of that book. May buy it when I'm over.

 

 

I think your analysis is spot on.  My question was to some extent rhetorical, and your reply to me picked that up.  If it was really in the UK's best interests not to bother with the EU, they would just ride off into the Article 50 sunset.  If it was really in the EU's best interests not to bother with the UK, they'd let the UK ride off into the sunset.  But it would be better for both sides to work this out.  It's not essential, and both the EU and the UK would muddle through one way or the other, but they'd both be a fair bit better off with a post-Brexit deal.

 

So it's far more likely than not that there will be a post-Brexit deal, and I suspect that if a couple of us posting on this thread got together over a couple of pints we could probably draft 95% of the text in an evening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo

Er, if that was the case, why doesn't the EU refuse to negotiate either?

 

And the simple reason as to why they are negotiating is, of course, money.

 

Sky News reported that the EU produced a 4 page document during this past week, in which it listed all the things the EU thinks the UK should pay for in the 'Divorce Settlement', only problem was there were no figures listed anywhere in the document, the UK has by all accounts repeatedly asked for a figure, months later the EU has still to produce a figure, it has of course been widely speculated in the media that the amount ranges from anything from ?36bn to ?100bn but nobody really knows for sure.

 

Well it's simple, put a figure to what you want, but the EU seem to not want to do that, the EU want the UK to agree to pay a 'divorce bill' without the UK knowing the amount to pay, in other words agree to a blank cheque.

 

Of course it's all about money, just look at what the EU set out as it's priorities before any trade talks or future relationship could begin.

1. The Rights of EU & UK citizens etc.

2. The Irish Border.

3. Divorce Bill Settlement, i.e.; Money

 

So there is it, money is amongst the top 3 priorities for the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh

Article 50 is clear; there is now absolutely no barrier to leaving.  So why won't your government just do that instead of asking for special terms to do so? 

 

I don't think we are asking for "special terms" per se but trying to leave in as friendly a way as possible (one that Barnier and his cohorts appear to be trying to avoid doing). Personally I wish they would just say ta ta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

I don't think we are asking for "special terms" per se but trying to leave in as friendly a way as possible (one that Barnier and his cohorts appear to be trying to avoid doing). Personally I wish they would just say ta ta.

 

But they are asking for special terms.  That's a fact.  The UK does not want to have the same relationship with the EU that Russia has, or India has, or Japan has, or South Africa has.  It wants a closer relationship.

 

And the EU is willing to discuss those special terms.  It also doesn't want the UK to have the relationship of a third country (as we say in our jargon).  It wants a closer relationship.

 

Why is that?  Bear in mind that these people didn't get their jobs by being stupid.  They know that the British and EU economies will be worse off without a deal involving special terms, and would be better off if a deal with special terms can be agreed.  That's why both sides are involved in those discussions.  The problem is that both sides have issues that simply have to be addressed, and red lines that they cannot cross.  Why?  Because there's no point in getting a bit of an economic and social benefit now if the price is that you lose something much bigger later.  That doesn't just apply to the UK or to the EU - it is equally relevant to both.

 

You may not like what you see from the EU negotiating team.  I do.  They are doing just fine representing our interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

Of course it's all about money, just look at what the EU set out as it's priorities before any trade talks or future relationship could begin.

1. The Rights of EU & UK citizens etc.

2. The Irish Border.

3. Divorce Bill Settlement, i.e.; Money

 

 

 

 

Er, if two of the three priorities you have listed aren't about money, then why do you say "it's all about money"?

 

Surely you should say "it's somewhat about money"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo

Er, if two of the three priorities you have listed aren't about money, then why do you say "it's all about money"?

 

Surely you should say "it's somewhat about money"?

 

Ok, is this better?

 

Out of the 3 priorities set by the EU, the EU obviously sees the UK's payment of money as much of a priority as that of peoples rights and the future Irish border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

But didnt the uk offer to protect the rights of eu citizens here.

And do we really believe the eu is concerned about the irish border.

Its not even about money.

 

Its about stalling brexit in the hope of a different mandate from uk voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

Ok, is this better?

 

Out of the 3 priorities set by the EU, the EU obviously sees the UK's payment of money as much of a priority as that of peoples rights and the future Irish border.

 

It's a bit more accurate than saying "it's all about money".

 

I'm not sure that it means that the UK's bills are of the same importance as the rights of citizens, or that the rights of citizens are of the same importance as the border, or that the border is as important as the UK's bills.  Why?  Because when you have priorities you have to list them, and when you list them you have to start talking or start writing sequentially.  I can't say what weighting each of those issues has.  I would guess with a high degree of confidence that the issue of citizens' rights is probably ahead of the other two by quite a bit because it has been listed as such by Governments right across the EU, whereas the UK's bill is only directly relevant to a smaller number of countries and the border is directly relevant to an even smaller number.  But I'd still be guessing.  Equally, because the original EU text listing priority issues (April 29th) lists them in a sequence, we'd be forgiven for thinking that item 1 is more important than item 2 and so on, which would mean the priority would be in order of:

 

1. Citizens' rights

2. UK financial settlement

3. Land border

 

However, we'd still be guessing.

 

In any case, when someone makes the argument that "it's all about money" they aren't engaging in a technical analysis of the priorities; they're suggesting that the EU negotiators have base motivations, whereas the British negotiators are somehow more noble.  But that's not the case at all.   Each side is as moral, as noble, as tactical and as cynical as the other, and you have to work on the assumption that they are representing their respective interests as best they can. 

 

It's up to people who have the UK interests at heart to judge the performance of their negotiators.  Having a go at the negotiators for the EU side might help British people feel more patriotic and more convinced of the right of your own side, but the truth is that the negotiators on the EU side aren't there to represent you - they're there to represent us.  My interests aren't UK interests; they're EU interests.  And as far as I'm concerned our negotiating team is doing the best it can for us, and so far I'm happy with that.  Does that mean I want to cast the UK negotiators as the bad guys?  Nope.  I hope the two sides can settle this, and to be honest I'm pretty convinced that they will.  But if a deal that protects the fundamental principles of the EU can't be done, and the EU has to walk away from it, then c'est la vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo

It's a bit more accurate than saying "it's all about money".

 

I'm not sure that it means that the UK's bills are of the same importance as the rights of citizens, or that the rights of citizens are of the same importance as the border, or that the border is as important as the UK's bills.  Why?  Because when you have priorities you have to list them, and when you list them you have to start talking or start writing sequentially.  I can't say what weighting each of those issues has.  I would guess with a high degree of confidence that the issue of citizens' rights is probably ahead of the other two by quite a bit because it has been listed as such by Governments right across the EU, whereas the UK's bill is only directly relevant to a smaller number of countries and the border is directly relevant to an even smaller number.  But I'd still be guessing.  Equally, because the original EU text listing priority issues (April 29th) lists them in a sequence, we'd be forgiven for thinking that item 1 is more important than item 2 and so on, which would mean the priority would be in order of:

 

1. Citizens' rights

2. UK financial settlement

3. Land border

 

However, we'd still be guessing.

 

In any case, when someone makes the argument that "it's all about money" they aren't engaging in a technical analysis of the priorities; they're suggesting that the EU negotiators have base motivations, whereas the British negotiators are somehow more noble.  But that's not the case at all.   Each side is as moral, as noble, as tactical and as cynical as the other, and you have to work on the assumption that they are representing their respective interests as best they can. 

 

It's up to people who have the UK interests at heart to judge the performance of their negotiators.  Having a go at the negotiators for the EU side might help British people feel more patriotic and more convinced of the right of your own side, but the truth is that the negotiators on the EU side aren't there to represent you - they're there to represent us.  My interests aren't UK interests; they're EU interests.  And as far as I'm concerned our negotiating team is doing the best it can for us, and so far I'm happy with that.  Does that mean I want to cast the UK negotiators as the bad guys?  Nope.  I hope the two sides can settle this, and to be honest I'm pretty convinced that they will.  But if a deal that protects the fundamental principles of the EU can't be done, and the EU has to walk away from it, then c'est la vie.

 

Can't disagree with pretty much any of your post.

 

You and myself both know that what Davis & Barnier say in front of the camera isn't necessary what is being discussed behind closed doors, we also know that a lot of what is said in public is for their respective domestic audiences, notwithstanding there is a German General Election later this month and Merkel may think that being seen as being hard on the British may help her domestically.

 

I would not be shocked nor surprised that much more progress is made and a softening of stances from both sides once the German Elections are done and dusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

Can't disagree with pretty much any of your post.

 

You and myself both know that what Davis & Barnier say in front of the camera isn't necessary what is being discussed behind closed doors, we also know that a lot of what is said in public is for their respective domestic audiences, notwithstanding there is a German General Election later this month and Merkel may think that being seen as being hard on the British may help her domestically.

 

I would not be shocked nor surprised that much more progress is made and a softening of stances from both sides once the German Elections are done and dusted.

 

 

Yep, that's about the size of it. 

 

It doesn't mean that it's a certainty they'll do a deal, but I think both sides know what's possible and what's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses

:laugh:

 

 

DItusKpXgAAgqp8.jpg

 

 

Courtesy of this week's Private Eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWJ

Oh dear.

 

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1396968-uk-must-be-educated-on-price-of-brexit-says-barnier/

 

Speaking in Italy, Mr Barnier said he sees the process as an opportunity to "teach the British people and others what leaving the EU means".

How wicked of those Johhnie-foreigners to do this. After they held a gun to our heads and forced us to vote "leave".

 

We were never, ever told that this would all end in an utter omnishambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert

How wicked of those Johhnie-foreigners to do this. After they held a gun to our heads and forced us to vote "leave".

 

We were never, ever told that this would all end in an utter omnishambles.

Sorry did I miss the news that negotiations have been concluded or abandoned?

 

We were in fact told repeatedly by most politicians and much of the media that a Leave vote would be a disaster.

 

We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWJ

My second sentence was a gauche attempt at irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Sorry did I miss the news that negotiations have been concluded or abandoned?

 

We were in fact told repeatedly by most politicians and much of the media that a Leave vote would be a disaster.

 

We'll see.

We are seeing right now.

 

Anyway, why doesn't Davis say ram it to the EU? He was full, along with others, of that rhetoric pre referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert

We are seeing right now.

 

Anyway, why doesn't Davis say ram it to the EU? He was full, along with others, of that rhetoric pre referendum.

What are we seeing? A lot of posturing for public consumption that is a feature of any negotiation involving politicians.

 

And some sectors of the media with daily scare stories about food shortages and having no flights to Europe.

 

And on the other side (IMO more legitimate) fears that we will end up with what is in effect Remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

Leaked home office document detailing plans to close the borders.

 

No single market then. WTO rules ahead.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/the-draft-home-office-post-brexit-immigration-policy-document-in-full

 

Seems fair and sensible.

And once again guarenteed rights for EU citizens already here.

Unplanned migration is surely not good for any community.

As for attracting the right people Australia does not have any problem.

The measures imo are sensible and allow for planning of infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Seems fair and sensible.

And once again guarenteed rights for EU citizens already here.

Unplanned migration is surely not good for any community.

As for attracting the right people Australia does not have any problem.

The measures imo are sensible and allow for planning of infrastructure.

And here we go again, all the UKs problems are down to this supposed mass migration (who are proven net tax contributors) and nothing to do with the greedy self serving bankers who nearly brought the capitalist system to its knees in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

And here we go again, all the UKs problems are down to this supposed mass migration (who are proven net tax contributors) and nothing to do with the greedy self serving bankers who nearly brought the capitalist system to its knees in 2008.

 

Yes here we go again.

Cannot talk about migration without it being led down the implied racist card.

 

Immigration to Europe is now a humanitarian problem that exists because of inequity.

It cannot be simply solved by allowing it to continue.

Housing

Education

Healthcare.

These three things have to be planned for.

 

Its not blaming immigrant space its blaming uncontrolled immigration policy.

 

Its not racist .

Its sensible .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Yes here we go again.

Cannot talk about migration without it being led down the implied racist card.

 

Immigration to Europe is now a humanitarian problem that exists because of inequity.

It cannot be simply solved by allowing it to continue.

Housing

Education

Healthcare.

These three things have to be planned for.

 

Its not blaming immigrant space its blaming uncontrolled immigration policy.

 

Its not racist .

Its sensible .

So nothing to do with the so called Arab Spring and the chaos created in the Middle East by the West?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

Yes here we go again.

Cannot talk about migration without it being led down the implied racist card.

 

Immigration to Europe is now a humanitarian problem that exists because of inequity.

It cannot be simply solved by allowing it to continue.

Housing

Education

Healthcare.

These three things have to be planned for.

 

Its not blaming immigrant space its blaming uncontrolled immigration policy.

 

Its not racist .

Its sensible .

 

The other side of the coin is the reduction in overseas aid.

 

Perhaps if we helped these countries develop their economies in such a way that benefited them, rather than tie them to us in a cycle of debt, they may not want to move?

 

It really is a conundrum, because to do so would require some degree of control, which in turn could be equated to neo-imperialism.

 

I agree that a mature conversation regarding immigration is needed, and part of that is looking at the requirements we need regards workforce etc.

 

While not pointing the finger at you, however I suspect that there must have been some degree of  "bloody immigrants" when people voted to leave the EU, at best xenophobia, at worst simple racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

The other side of the coin is the reduction in overseas aid.

 

Perhaps if we helped these countries develop their economies in such a way that benefited them, rather than tie them to us in a cycle of debt, they may not want to move?

 

It really is a conundrum, because to do so would require some degree of control, which in turn could be equated to neo-imperialism.

 

I agree that a mature conversation regarding immigration is needed, and part of that is looking at the requirements we need regards workforce etc.

 

While not pointing the finger at you, however I suspect that there must have been some degree of  "bloody immigrants" when people voted to leave the EU, at best xenophobia, at worst simple racism.

 

Helping some countries might help but others like Eritrea, Afghanistan and Syria would need regime change, and that is a can of worms the UK isn't keen on after Iraq and Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cade

I hope all the old duffers that voted Leave and want to slam the borders shut understand that without an influx of new workers entering the UK and paying taxes, their pensions are being put at risk.

 

The ageing population means that we need more and more people entering the UK economy in order to maintain the current pension provisions paid for from general taxation.

 

We either cut state pensions (aye right), accept lots of new workers or bump taxes right up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

Helping some countries might help but others like Eritrea, Afghanistan and Syria would need regime change, and that is a can of worms the UK isn't keen on after Iraq and Libya.

 

I don't disagree, but if a region is stabalised economically, perhaps there would be some sort of ripple effect?

 

But the interesting thing from your post is that given our involvement in the areas you mention, we tore in with no heed for the future.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

So nothing to do with the so called Arab Spring and the chaos created in the Middle East by the West?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Lots to do with it.

Lots to do with inequality in global finance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

I don't disagree, but if a region is stabalised economically, perhaps there would be some sort of ripple effect?

 

But the interesting thing from your post is that given our involvement in the areas you mention, we tore in with no heed for the future.  

 

I think Tony Blair has a lot to answer for with the war in Iraq.  It was George W's revenge attempt on Saddam after the previous war there cost his daddy a second term as president.  No forward thinking on what happened afterwards.

 

Libya too is a disgrace as a failed state.

Edited by frankblack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

The other side of the coin is the reduction in overseas aid.

 

Perhaps if we helped these countries develop their economies in such a way that benefited them, rather than tie them to us in a cycle of debt, they may not want to move?

 

It really is a conundrum, because to do so would require some degree of control, which in turn could be equated to neo-imperialism.

 

I agree that a mature conversation regarding immigration is needed, and part of that is looking at the requirements we need regards workforce etc.

 

While not pointing the finger at you, however I suspect that there must have been some degree of "bloody immigrants" when people voted to leave the EU, at best xenophobia, at worst simple racism.

 

Fair trade deals and debt reduction.

Its unlikely though.

Im not disagreeing boris.

But to carry on just uncotrolled immigration isnt working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

I hope all the old duffers that voted Leave and want to slam the borders shut understand that without an influx of new workers entering the UK and paying taxes, their pensions are being put at risk.

 

The ageing population means that we need more and more people entering the UK economy in order to maintain the current pension provisions paid for from general taxation.

 

We either cut state pensions (aye right), accept lots of new workers or bump taxes right up.

 

Its no good blaming old people.

There is good reason to have planned immigration.

Most importantly its because the services that are most squeezed as i previously mentioned usually affect working class more.

And that includes migrants already settled here.

Also this unchallenged migration that you seem so keen on.

Where does this leave the economies they leave behind.

Surely the case is to create wealth instead of concentrate it in the already rich nations.

 

Addressing this is pointless while you dismiss people as either old or racist.

 

Older people have views as important as you or immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

But didnt the uk offer to protect the rights of eu citizens here.

And do we really believe the eu is concerned about the irish border.

Its not even about money.

 

Its about stalling brexit in the hope of a different mandate from uk voters.

 

100% agree with this. That's what the EU is trying to do - frustrate the process to the point where the UK is forced into a humiliating climbdown. That way, no-one will ever look to leave the EU again. If the UK can't manage it then virtually no-one can.

 

As a remainer, I'll be quite happy if that happens because I can only see negative consequences of leaving but at the same time, none of this is reflecting particularly well on the EU either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay

Like all things there will be a deal in the end after lots of horse trading. Both sides will claim victory when in fact it is a dull 0-0 draw. The opposition parties in the UK will claim it is a terrible deal and they would have done a lot better when the truth is they really wouldn't have.

End of the day the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west. Life will go on as it always has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sraman

Services aren't being squeezed by immigrants, they are being deliberately squeezed by this Tory Government so that they are able to tell us that these services are failing in public control and must be sold off to their mates in the private sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO

100% agree with this. That's what the EU is trying to do - frustrate the process to the point where the UK is forced into a humiliating climbdown. That way, no-one will ever look to leave the EU again. If the UK can't manage it then virtually no-one can.

 

As a remainer, I'll be quite happy if that happens because I can only see negative consequences of leaving but at the same time, none of this is reflecting particularly well on the EU either. 

No, it isn't. The UK negotiators want to set the pace, direction and priority of the negotiations but have been told repeatedly to forget it. The only thing the Tories care about is access to the free market , they don't care about EU citizens (or that much about British "ex pats") and Barnier et al know this. They don't trust the Tories to deliver anything once market access is agreed & assured and that is why progress will not be made until EU citizen rights/primacy of EU court on this/"divorce bill" is settled, amongst others. Naturally Tories mates in the media are spinning this as EU inflexibility (ie they won't do what we want them to !). The Tories will never back down, they're the flag waving party, they're the party who banged on about immigration "quotas" to the point a lot of the population could think of nothing else every time the Tories failed (predictably) to find a way to stem the flow of EU immigration. Brexit will go ahead and it's lovely to those weasels Liam Fox & BJ at the forefront of sorting out the shit storm they helped create. 

 

And while the Tories wring their hands about May being PM post Brexit, I'd like to think they'll get rid of her soon and install one of the above two as PM. Now that would be poetic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

Services aren't being squeezed by immigrants, they are being deliberately squeezed by this Tory Government so that they are able to tell us that these services are failing in public control and must be sold off to their mates in the private sector.

 

Boom!

 

:spoton:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee

Services aren't being squeezed by immigrants, they are being deliberately squeezed by this Tory Government so that they are able to tell us that these services are failing in public control and must be sold off to their mates in the private sector.

The blame falls on the weakest instead of the strongest, those who can actually affect things. Same as it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

Im not excusing torie cuts or bankers greed.

And im not blaming the weakest.

Its the weakest who generally suffer though.

Face up to it .

Economic migrants are generally coming from poor economies.

No ones blaming them .

Is everyone seriously suggest no limits.

Or are we only allowing europeans in.

 

The facts are that there is a serious problem from conflicts caused by the west of course.

But to simply say that we allow unchecked immigration is not how we shoild deal with it.

Its self evident that tensions are already there.

And no amount of political correctness will solve it.

 

And lets remind ourselves we are responsible due to foreign policy in Syria and Lybia for example.

 

And unchecked immigration from Europe doesnt leave much scope for refugees escaping real horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee

The uk doesn't actually have unchecked immigration though, most countries' nationals need visas to emigrate to the uk. The camps in calais would seem to confirm that it really isn't the free for all the media would have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×