[Politics] Brexit

[dingodan]

It's a shame, because you appear to be a rare breed of Brexiteer that's actually capable of stringing together a coherent sentence, but unfortunately your advocation that trading under WTO rules is a viable option has flagged you as being just another dribbling Brexit loving chimp banging away on his keyboard. I was actually considering some of your points before you dropped that bombshell.

Hey ho.

Oh well, better carry on then lol.

Seriously though, why would that be a problem? It certainly wouldn't be ideal, but it wouldn't be Armageddon either. The problem is that if you view it as absolutely no-go, that means we MUST get a deal, and that means that the EU have us over a barrel, no thanks.

We want a deal for sure, but it simply isn't true that we cannot live without one if the EU want to cut off their nose to spite their face, which they likely won't, but it will take us being willing to hold our nerve and call their bluff to find out. & if you are going to call someones bluff, you have to be prepared for the worst case scenario and be prepared to deal with it. I think we should be, my personal opinion.

 

[dingodan]

No she isn't wavering just trying to deliver what she promised while dealing with duplicitous sh*ts like Hammond and the Home Secretary. As was always the case we have to be prepared to walk away or at the very least convince the other side we could if we are to secure the best possible deal.

We'll see, to be fair she hasn't actually wavered yet. As you say we need to be prepared to walk away, but I'm not getting the impression she is definately prepared to walk away if it becomes necessary. I hope so. I fear for what the media will do if it comes to that, they will play it up massively and scare the crap out of everyone, and most people are already worried more than they need to be I think.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think May is wavering on Brexit, I would just say we're leaving 2 years after the triggering of article 50. If you want a trade deal we will be ready to sit at the table with you, we are eager for a trade deal, it's in both our interests to have one. But we won't be manipulated or blackmailed into making concessions on our independence, if you don't want to do a deal fine, your loss.

That wouldn't mean no trade with Europe, it would just mean WTO rules. I think the reason she doesn't want to do that isn't because it's unworkable, but because it's politically difficult and the media will have a field day making out it is unworkable and scaring everyone, causing her political problems.

It's sad, grow a spine Theresa May.

What are the WTO rules on financial services? Or air transport?


I am wondering why it is that none of the sovereignty nuts is bothered by being subject to WTO regulations.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Oh well, better carry on then lol.

Seriously though, why would that be a problem? It certainly wouldn't be ideal, but it wouldn't be Armageddon either. The problem is that if you view it as absolutely no-go, that means we MUST get a deal, and that means that the EU have us over a barrel, no thanks.

We want a deal for sure, but it simply isn't true that we cannot live without one if the EU want to cut off their nose to spite their face, which they likely won't, but it will take us being willing to hold our nerve and call their bluff to find out. & if you are going to call someones bluff, you have to be prepared for the worst case scenario and be prepared to deal with it. I think we should be, my personal opinion.

The problem would be:

No deal = no transitional deal. It also means:

35 regulatory bodies to set up and replace those EU ones we're leaving in 18 months.
Financial services and passporting rights etc thrown into a legal grey area.
Citizens rights not agreed.
No customs deal, checks at Dover, hold ups, chaos in Northern Ireland etc.
No replacement deal to the open skies agreement in regards to aviation agreements, landing slots air traffic control and all that entails.

To name but a few.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee called no deal 'mutually assured destruction', but perhaps you know something they don't? It's exactly as it would have been with the Greece situation a couple of years back - it was in The EU's and everyone's interest to have a deal then.

Still, tally ho [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] lets hold our nerve, call their bluff and teach Johnny Foreigner a jolly good lesson, what, what.

 

[dingodan]

What are the WTO rules on financial services? Or air transport?


I am wondering why it is that none of the sovereignty nuts is bothered by being subject to WTO regulations.

Thanks for calling me a "nut", why don't you explain why you would be bothered (and I'm not suggesting there is no reason to be, just that whatever the challenges, they are not insurmountable).

WTO rules are related to trade (clue is in the name), and there are good reasons to be confident that under WTO rules (which I still think we should do everything we can to avoid short of making concessions on our independence (a preferential deal would be best for us and the EU)), we would still enjoy a healthy trade relationship with the EU.

 

[The Rivet]

What are the WTO rules on financial services? Or air transport?


I am wondering why it is that none of the sovereignty nuts is bothered by being subject to WTO regulations.

Because we are not supplicant individuals that would accept Law and Rule by any authority outside of the UK.

As for wto rules do your own research. If rules don't exist now discussion and debate will set the rules over financial and transport routes. Please don't use your lack of research as a tool to attack others. Dreadful behaviour...

 

[dingodan]

The problem would be:

No deal = no transitional deal. It also means:

35 regulatory bodies to set up and replace those EU ones we're leaving in 18 months.
Financial services and passporting rights etc thrown into a legal grey area.
Citizens rights not agreed.
No customs deal, checks at Dover, hold ups, chaos in Northern Ireland etc.
No replacement deal to the open skies agreement in regards to aviation agreements, landing slots air traffic control and all that entails.

To name but a few.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee called no deal 'mutually assured destruction', but perhaps you know something they don't? It's exactly as it would have been with the Greece situation a couple of years back - it was in The EU's and everyone's interest to have a deal then.

Still, tally ho [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] lets hold our nerve, call their bluff and teach Johnny Foreigner a jolly good lesson, what, what.

Yes there would be challenges, but like I said, they are not insurmountable. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee said we need to plan for "no-deal", they said it may cause economic harm ("mutually assured damage", not "destruction") to both sides, which it could, but that's good reason to think the EU won't let it come to that, and if it did, in my opinion, we would (if we had to, it's not something I hope for) get through it.

What's all this "Johnny Foreigner" stuff, ffs, please try to stop implying I'm some kind of racist.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Yes there would be challenges, but like I said, they are not insurmountable. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee said we need to plan for "no-deal", they said it may cause economic harm to both sides, which it could, but that's good reason to think the EU won't let it come to that, and if it did, in my opinion, we would (if we had to, it's not something I hope for) get through it.

What's all this "Johnny Foreigner" stuff, ffs, please try to stop implying I'm some kind of racist.

I wasn't implying you were racist. Whatever gave you that idea? You seem rather sensitive to the phrase though, apologies if you're that precious that it upset you.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee used the term 'mutually assured damage'. Great. How in your opinion are these problems not insurmountable then in the 18 months we have left before a no deal scenario? Port of Dover, Northern Ireland, regulatory bodies etc, etc

 

[dingodan]

I wasn't implying you were racist. Whatever gave you that idea? You seem rather sensitive to the phrase though, apologies if you're that precious that it upset you.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee used the term 'mutually assured destruction'. How in your opinion are these problems not insurmountable then in the 18 months we have left before a no deal scenario?

"mutually assured damage" was the term they used, not "destruction". They are not insurmountable, meaning that they can be overcome. It would take work, and the The Foreign Affairs Select Committee were absolutely right, and saying exactly what I am saying, we need to plan for no-deal, incase it comes to that.

& mockingly saying I want to teach "Johnny Foreigner" a lesson sounds like you are implying I don't like foreigners, I don't like that, but I do accept your apology.

 

[ManOfSussex]

"mutually assured damage" was the term they used, not "destruction". They are not insurmountable, meaning that they can be overcome. It would take work, and the The Foreign Affairs Select Committee were absolutely right, and saying exactly what I am saying, we need to plan for no-deal, incase it comes to that.& mockingly saying I want to teach "Johnny Foreigner" a lesson sounds like you are implying I don't like foreigners, I don't like that, but I do accept your apology.

My apology was as sarcastic as my use of the phrase.

Yes, I stated 'damaged' in my last post. Damage/Destruction - they're much the same. How will they be overcome in just 18 months and avoided?

 

[dingodan]

Yes, I stated damaged in my last post. Damage/destruction - they're much the same. How will they be overcome in just 18 months and avoided?

Damage and destruction are not the same thing at all.

They will be overcome with a lot of work on the part of those whose job it is to make sure they are overcome, asking me to solve all those issues is a bit much, and I never suggested that I could, just that I am confident it can be done if it needs to be, and like The Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded, work should start on that now in my opinion.

 

[dingodan]

My apology was as sarcastic as my use of the phrase.

We are just very different kinds of people aren't we.

Thank f*ck.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Damage and destruction are not the same thing at all.

They will be overcome with a lot of work on the part of those whose job it is to make sure they are overcome, asking me to solve all those issues is a bit much, and I never suggested that I could, just that I am confident it can be done if it needs to be, and like The Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded, work should start on that now in my opinion.

You're just being pedantic on your definition of the words - a kick-in is a kick-in.

We should start now? Have it all done, tested and ready in 18 months? You're confident it can? Settled Status will take the best part of 10 years to be up and running to name but one. Do you believe in Father Christmas at all?

 

[ManOfSussex]

We are just very different kinds of people aren't we.

Thank f*ck.

Yes we are - https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...a-Leadsom-for-new-PM&highlight=andrea+leadsom

Andrea Leadsom.

You're quite right though - thank f*ck.

 

[dingodan]

You're just being pedantic on your definition of the words - a kick-in is a kick-in.

We should start now? Have it all done, tested and ready in 18 months? You're confident it can? Settled Status will take the best part of 10 years to be up and running to name but one. Do you believe in Father Christmas at all?

If it can't be done, why is the The Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggesting we start work on it? That was one of your earlier points, that The Foreign Affairs Select Committee have some weight in what their view is.

Damage is partial, destruction is total, it would have been more honest of you to just acknowledge that you got your words wrong, rather than to pretend the two words mean the same thing but whatever.

 

[dingodan]

Yes we are - https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...a-Leadsom-for-new-PM&highlight=andrea+leadsom

Andrea Leadsom.

You're quite right though - thank f*ck.

Waste of time talking to you isn't it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

If it can't be done, why is the The Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggesting we start work on it? That was one of your earlier points, that The Foreign Affairs Select Committee have some weight in what their view is.

Damage is partial, destruction is total, it would have been more honest of you to just acknowledge that you got your words wrong, rather than to pretend the two words mean the same thing but whatever.

A kick-in and a trip to A&E, is a kick-in and trip to A&E - damage - destruction - whatever.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee stated failure to plan for all this was an act of gross negligence. Starting on it now is a little too late I feel, but if you think it can be all done, dusted and ready in time in the event of a no deal in 18 months, then fine. As I said Settled Status will take 10 years for one.

 

[Is it PotG?]

80%

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15573687.Most_Albion_fans_are_Remainers__poll_shows/?ref=mr&lp=18

 

[nicko31]

Can't beat a bit of Tory party unity on conference week, thankfully for Alan, another classic from Boris will keep this out of the press.

Brexit...a working class tantrum

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rum-by-british-working-class-says-alan-duncan

 

[Jim D]

If you read the post again, you'll see that the poster said that living in France won't be as easy for NL's (or anyone's) grandchildren as it has been for us. This is correct. You inflate this into some absurdity about remainers claiming you won't be able to live there at all. It's the old straw man technique. Hogwash indeed.

Ok, so after Brexit I will assume that you won't need a visa (same as pre EU) but you will need money (again, see as pre EU). There was nothing else in the comments about Lawson than 'choosing to live'. It seems to be you that's increasing the scope.