Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 13:00:07 GMT
Yep. May had no intention of really leaving the EU. The Withdrawal Treaty (and see how Agreement became a Treaty without anyone really noticing) was designed to be Brexit In Name Only, a technical Brexit if you like, with the intention that the UK would rejoin the EU in a few years time. She really expected the Remain MP's to vote for it, but she (and the EU) miscalculated, and to be fair I don't think anyone expected Labour to act the way they have either! It wasn't just May though was it? All the Brexit politicians lied. No. The Brexit politicians like Johnson, Davis, Pritel etc etc all resigned from the government when they saw what was happening. Remember Chequers, where May introduced the WA and the Cabinet knew nothing about it !
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 28, 2019 13:07:58 GMT
Yep. May had no intention of really leaving the EU. The Withdrawal Treaty (and see how Agreement became a Treaty without anyone really noticing) was designed to be Brexit In Name Only, a technical Brexit if you like, with the intention that the UK would rejoin the EU in a few years time. She really expected the Remain MP's to vote for it, but she (and the EU) miscalculated, and to be fair I don't think anyone expected Labour to act the way they have either! It wasn't just May though was it? All the Brexit politicians lied. They all lied, just Vote Leave had bigger and better liars and still do.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jun 28, 2019 13:09:17 GMT
It wasn't just May though was it? All the Brexit politicians lied. No. The Brexit politicians like Johnson, Davis, Pritel etc etc all resigned from the government when they saw what was happening. Remember Chequers, where May introduced the WA and the Cabinet knew nothing about it ! Where's Cameron?
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 28, 2019 13:12:34 GMT
Why EU is unfazed by no-deal Brexit threats Katya Adler Europe editor Yet the EU seems unfazed. Why, when we know EU leaders want to avoid a no-deal Brexit? Part of the reason, at least, is time. It's summer. European capitals are sweltering under a heatwave with government ministers counting the days until they hit the beach or find some cool mountain air. The day the Brexit extension runs out - 31 October - seems an eternity away in political terms. Also, just as Messrs Johnson and Hunt do not accept the EU's word when it says the Withdrawal Agreement cannot and will not be re-negotiated, EU leaders do not take them at their word when they threaten no deal by the end of October. There are two main EU theories I'm hearing: 1. Ambition: EU diplomats look at Boris Johnson in particular and believe they see a man who has wanted to become prime minister for a very long time. They don't believe he - or Mr Hunt for that matter - would risk their premiership after just a couple of months in office, to push through a no-deal Brexit that the majority in parliament, including a number of MPs in their own party, may well oppose. 2. Practicalities: If the EU were to engage in new Brexit talks this autumn, there is no-one I've met in Brussels who thinks negotiations could be started and completed in time for 31 October - even if Brussels were to play ball with every request the new UK prime minister made (cue: a barely muffled snort from whichever EU diplomat I put this hypothesis to). Jeremy Hunt has already indicated he might delay Brexit if talks were getting somewhere. Would Boris Johnson throw away the chance of successful new negotiations just to push through an October no deal? Unlikely, thinks the EU. Which is why many European politicians believe - whatever Mr Johnson and Mr Hunt say now - that the new UK prime minister is most likely to end up requesting a second Brexit extension come the autumn, thereby pushing a no-deal Brexit threat that much further down the road. As for the other Brexit claims Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are making, EU leaders view Mr Johnson as the "have your cake and eat it" candidate. And they don't approve of his pitch. Ahead of the EU referendum, Boris Johnson became infamous in Brussels for claiming that the UK could keep the benefits of EU membership even after leaving the single market. Now he's turning his cake knife to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement - proposing that some aspects, such as citizens' rights, are respected while others, like the Irish border backstop, are thrown out.
"Impossible. It's a package deal," exasperated diplomats tell me in Brussels, as they hastily resurrect the original EU negotiations mantra that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
Meaning: "We'll allow no cherry picking, Mr Johnson."The European Commission also insists that, contrary to Boris Johnson's claims, there will be no transition or implementation period - no zero tariffs bilateral trade between the EU and UK - in the case of a no-deal Brexit. The EU has "zero incentive" to agree to such an arrangement, say Eurocrats. And in case you thought they were joking, the EU trade commissioner's blanket rejection of Mr Johnson's assertion was re-tweeted by the EU's chief and deputy-chief Brexit negotiators: But leading EU politicians admit (mostly behind the scenes) that, while they publicly maintain the Withdrawal Agreement is closed, they would listen if the UK's new prime minister had fresh, credible proposals for the Irish border conundrum. "Credible" being the key word here. Germany's ambassador to the UK, Peter Wittig, said on Tuesday that Berlin would welcome ideas on how to solve "that famous backstop issue". It is hardly a secret that EU leaders would far prefer an orderly over a disorderly Brexit. Though they repeat at any and every opportunity that they are prepared for no deal. Ambassador Wittig was speaking at a car manufacturers' summit and Germany's motor industry would, of course, take a big hit in the case of a no-deal Brexit. EU insiders predict a stress-filled, "hot" autumn after what they hope will be a long and lazy summer. Europe's eyes will then fix on the UK's new prime minister. But also on Dublin. The other 26 EU countries are watching for any sign of wiggle-room on the backstop - if Ireland moves, the rest of the EU is likely to follow. And, if it does come to a no-deal, the EU wants guarantees and details from Ireland on how it intends to protect the single market from post-Brexit UK. "Now he's turning his cake knife to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement - proposing that some aspects, such as citizens' rights, are respected while others, like the Irish border backstop, are thrown out. "Impossible. It's a package deal," exasperated diplomats tell me in Brussels, as they hastily resurrect the original EU negotiations mantra that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". Meaning: "We'll allow no cherry picking, Mr Johnson." - So that means no 39 billion with a No Deal, after all, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"! That is a big economic gain for the UK. So on 1 November we move to WTO, what then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 13:24:40 GMT
Ok Oldie, here is a quick lesson on how, and why, Social Media can be used to influence people. The spelling mistakes are deliberate. They produce a howl from the Democratic voters about how dumb the POTUS is. The tweet is re-tweeted thousands upon thousands of times, so it actually reaches a far wider audience. There is every chance that that 'message' reaches those voters that 'sit in the middle'. Republicans will vote for a Republican and a Democrat will vote for a Democrat, but in every election (even in the UK) it's those voters who 'sit in the middle' who determine who will win the election. Now, 99.99% of every person in the world who use Social Media make spelling mistakes. We all do it. It's normal. Even the most intellectually gifted people make them. The Democrats howl that the POTUS is 'dumb' for making a spelling mistake. A lot of voters who 'sit in the middle' look at the outrage, and think to themselves, "I also make spelling mistakes. Do these people think that I am dumb as well?". The effect is to turn people away from the Democrats, because looking at Social Media the Democrats think that people who make spelling mistakes are dumb, they're stupid. So, by introducing a small spelling mistake now and again, the message gets a far wider audience, and the response actually moves people towards your side. By highlighting Trump's spelling mistakes the Democrats are actually normalizing him, because spelling mistakes are something we all make! It's normal ! Just your theory mate, which is frankly ridiculous. There is no doubt that social media has been / is being manipulated. But to suggest that supporters of one party or person are deliberately making their preferred choice look like jack asses to promote attention is, well... If you really believe that, what can I say. You see, they dont need to, Farage, Trump and other useful fools of the neo con nationalist right do it without trying. Latest Fool, Johnson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 13:27:38 GMT
"Now he's turning his cake knife to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement - proposing that some aspects, such as citizens' rights, are respected while others, like the Irish border backstop, are thrown out. "Impossible. It's a package deal," exasperated diplomats tell me in Brussels, as they hastily resurrect the original EU negotiations mantra that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". Meaning: "We'll allow no cherry picking, Mr Johnson." - So that means no 39 billion with a No Deal, after all, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"! That is a big economic gain for the UK. So on 1 November we move to WTO, what then? Dont ask Johnson. He is waiting to be told. Current odds, 1,000,000 to 1 he says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 13:32:39 GMT
Ok Oldie, here is a quick lesson on how, and why, Social Media can be used to influence people. The spelling mistakes are deliberate. They produce a howl from the Democratic voters about how dumb the POTUS is. The tweet is re-tweeted thousands upon thousands of times, so it actually reaches a far wider audience. There is every chance that that 'message' reaches those voters that 'sit in the middle'. Republicans will vote for a Republican and a Democrat will vote for a Democrat, but in every election (even in the UK) it's those voters who 'sit in the middle' who determine who will win the election. Now, 99.99% of every person in the world who use Social Media make spelling mistakes. We all do it. It's normal. Even the most intellectually gifted people make them. The Democrats howl that the POTUS is 'dumb' for making a spelling mistake. A lot of voters who 'sit in the middle' look at the outrage, and think to themselves, "I also make spelling mistakes. Do these people think that I am dumb as well?". The effect is to turn people away from the Democrats, because looking at Social Media the Democrats think that people who make spelling mistakes are dumb, they're stupid. So, by introducing a small spelling mistake now and again, the message gets a far wider audience, and the response actually moves people towards your side. By highlighting Trump's spelling mistakes the Democrats are actually normalizing him, because spelling mistakes are something we all make! It's normal ! Just your theory mate, which is frankly ridiculous. There is no doubt that social media has been / is being manipulated. But to suggest that supporters of one party or person are deliberately making their preferred choice look like jack asses to promote attention is, well... If you really believe that, what can I say. You see, they dont need to, Farage, Trump and other useful fools of the neo con nationalist right do it without trying. Latest Fool, Johnson. Maybe you're just too old to understand how Social Media works? You see, look at your words. You have proven my point. Somebody is a 'jack ass' for making a spelling mistake eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 13:38:40 GMT
"Now he's turning his cake knife to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement - proposing that some aspects, such as citizens' rights, are respected while others, like the Irish border backstop, are thrown out. "Impossible. It's a package deal," exasperated diplomats tell me in Brussels, as they hastily resurrect the original EU negotiations mantra that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". Meaning: "We'll allow no cherry picking, Mr Johnson." - So that means no 39 billion with a No Deal, after all, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"! That is a big economic gain for the UK. So on 1 November we move to WTO, what then? I have no idea as to what happens on day one. What I do know is that when problems appear with trade, then people will find solutions. It's what we do. Businesses will find solutions to protect their profits. With three years to prepare I'd imagine that most businesses should be prepared. Will we move to WTO? Nobody knows yet.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 28, 2019 13:45:53 GMT
So on 1 November we move to WTO, what then? I have no idea as to what happens on day one. What I do know is that when problems appear with trade, then people will find solutions. It's what we do. Businesses will find solutions to protect their profits. With three years to prepare I'd imagine that most businesses should be prepared. Will we move to WTO? Nobody knows yet. You don't know, really?😀 You mentioned not giving the £39bn and reinvesting it in the UK and still want a free trade deal. One or the other I'd say. Current plans are to remove tarrifs on all but a few things. What benefit will that bring in terms of expediting an FTA?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 13:55:32 GMT
I have no idea as to what happens on day one. What I do know is that when problems appear with trade, then people will find solutions. It's what we do. Businesses will find solutions to protect their profits. With three years to prepare I'd imagine that most businesses should be prepared. Will we move to WTO? Nobody knows yet. You don't know, really?😀 You mentioned not giving the £39bn and reinvesting it in the UK and still want a free trade deal. One or the other I'd say. Current plans are to remove tarrifs on all but a few things. What benefit will that bring in terms of expediting an FTA? The 39 billion was part of the WA. That was never ratified. The post earlier today had the EU making the statement that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and the UK cannot cherry pick from the WA. That applies both ways then. How much did Japan, South Korea, or any other country pay for an FTA with the EU? I don't know to be honest, but I bet it was the sum total of Zero ! Why should the UK pay for an FTA with the EU?
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 28, 2019 14:12:45 GMT
You don't know, really?😀 You mentioned not giving the £39bn and reinvesting it in the UK and still want a free trade deal. One or the other I'd say. Current plans are to remove tarrifs on all but a few things. What benefit will that bring in terms of expediting an FTA? The 39 billion was part of the WA. That was never ratified. The post earlier today had the EU making the statement that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and the UK cannot cherry pick from the WA. That applies both ways then. How much did Japan, South Korea, or any other country pay for an FTA with the EU? I don't know to be honest, but I bet it was the sum total of Zero ! Why should the UK pay for an FTA with the EU? As you pointed out, the £39bn is for leaving, it won't be to pay for an FTA. It is aimed at covering our previous commitments during this budget cycle and some longer term ones. If we are seen to be reneging on a pre WA agreement then it won't go down well with other countries. However, it will still be item 1 on the agenda. Or the other option if we reduce tarrifs as currently envisaged, they won't pay tarrifs on their exports to us and therefore reduces any incentive to get an FTA in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 16:50:30 GMT
Just your theory mate, which is frankly ridiculous. There is no doubt that social media has been / is being manipulated. But to suggest that supporters of one party or person are deliberately making their preferred choice look like jack asses to promote attention is, well... If you really believe that, what can I say. You see, they dont need to, Farage, Trump and other useful fools of the neo con nationalist right do it without trying. Latest Fool, Johnson. Maybe you're just too old to understand how Social Media works? You see, look at your words. You have proven my point. Somebody is a 'jack ass' for making a spelling mistake eh? You can attempt to ridicule me as much as you like, but the fact remains you are making this up in a ridiculous attempt to deflect from the rank stupidity of Trump, Farage Johnson et al. People you appear to support. Moving on
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 16:55:08 GMT
Maybe you're just too old to understand how Social Media works? You see, look at your words. You have proven my point. Somebody is a 'jack ass' for making a spelling mistake eh? You can attempt to ridicule me as much as you like, but the fact remains you are making this up in a ridiculous attempt to deflect from the rank stupidity of Trump, Farage Johnson et al. People you appear to support. Moving on Ha, ha, I am not making it up 😀None so blind as those that cannot see 😀 If you don't understand it then I agree, let's move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 16:55:08 GMT
The 39 billion was part of the WA. That was never ratified. The post earlier today had the EU making the statement that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and the UK cannot cherry pick from the WA. That applies both ways then. How much did Japan, South Korea, or any other country pay for an FTA with the EU? I don't know to be honest, but I bet it was the sum total of Zero ! Why should the UK pay for an FTA with the EU? As you pointed out, the £39bn is for leaving, it won't be to pay for an FTA. It is aimed at covering our previous commitments during this budget cycle and some longer term ones. If we are seen to be reneging on a pre WA agreement then it won't go down well with other countries. However, it will still be item 1 on the agenda. Or the other option if we reduce tarrifs as currently envisaged, they won't pay tarrifs on their exports to us and therefore reduces any incentive to get an FTA in the first place. Dont you get the feeling Stuart, as much as you, others (we) apply logical responses or ask logical questions, Leavers just ignore the facts on the ground and around it goes. Probably best to ignore now, and hope we are actually wrong and the UK will have a Utopian future as a result of leaving Of course if we are right, we should call them out. Till then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 16:58:48 GMT
You can attempt to ridicule me as much as you like, but the fact remains you are making this up in a ridiculous attempt to deflect from the rank stupidity of Trump, Farage Johnson et al. People you appear to support. Moving on Ha, ha, I am not making it up 😀None so blind as those that cannot see 😀 If you don't understand it then I agree, let's move on. Then prove it. If you cannot, then as usual it's just you making it up (adopting a hypothetical theory) to suit your viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 28, 2019 17:25:18 GMT
As you pointed out, the £39bn is for leaving, it won't be to pay for an FTA. It is aimed at covering our previous commitments during this budget cycle and some longer term ones. If we are seen to be reneging on a pre WA agreement then it won't go down well with other countries. However, it will still be item 1 on the agenda. Or the other option if we reduce tarrifs as currently envisaged, they won't pay tarrifs on their exports to us and therefore reduces any incentive to get an FTA in the first place. Dont you get the feeling Stuart, as much as you, others (we) apply logical responses or ask logical questions, Leavers just ignore the facts on the ground and around it goes. Probably best to ignore now, and hope we are actually wrong and the UK will have a Utopian future as a result of leaving Of course if we are right, we should call them out. Till then. It really isn't difficult to wargame different scenarios and their probable implications. Every action (eg withholding the £39bn) will have an affect on relations. By ignoring them or just saying nobody know misses the point.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 28, 2019 17:31:17 GMT
Ha, ha, I am not making it up 😀None so blind as those that cannot see 😀 If you don't understand it then I agree, let's move on. Then prove it. If you cannot, then as usual it's just you making it up (adopting a hypothetical theory) to suit your viewpoint. As a deflection technique (see Boris' private life stopping scrutiny of his policies) I would agree and also the sympathy vote amongst the existing voter base, but not amongst the middle ground floating voter. It would be the wrong narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 18:29:07 GMT
Then prove it. If you cannot, then as usual it's just you making it up (adopting a hypothetical theory) to suit your viewpoint. As a deflection technique (see Boris' private life stopping scrutiny of his policies) I would agree and also the sympathy vote amongst the existing voter base, but not amongst the middle ground floating voter. It would be the wrong narrative. I get that. I just struggle to believe that making your candidate look like an idiot to deflect from a political act or narrative is actually conceived to be the right way forward. Deflect on to others, (Trump to Clinton for eg) I get. But typing Whales instead of Wales to promote oneself or deflect, just beggars belief. And written by a secret cabal is the stuff of a Robert Harris novel. Truly desperate stuff from the loony right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 18:30:58 GMT
Dont you get the feeling Stuart, as much as you, others (we) apply logical responses or ask logical questions, Leavers just ignore the facts on the ground and around it goes. Probably best to ignore now, and hope we are actually wrong and the UK will have a Utopian future as a result of leaving Of course if we are right, we should call them out. Till then. It really isn't difficult to wargame different scenarios and their probable implications. Every action (eg withholding the £39bn) will have an affect on relations. By ignoring them or just saying nobody know misses the point. I dont think it's a deliberate act of missing the point. Its, I would suggest, profound ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 29, 2019 9:45:58 GMT
|
|