[Politics] Brexit

[Blue Valkyrie]

i've skimmed over it too, its a rehash of last 2 years, not sure if condensing to tweets helps or hinders the debate (trivialises imo). not going to argue any of it, bar one: a decision to invoke article 50 had to be taken as the EU refused any negotiations until it was. often overlooked.

Very true.

The big error was not waiting to get a united position on what the UK wanted before triggering article 50.

Trying to run the Tory party arguments about the target outcome, alongside the actual negotiations to achieve that shifting outcome, has lead us to where we are today.

 

[pastafarian]

Not one single person who is advocating 'No deal', least of all the rabid brexiters on this thread, will read any of that. They have no wish to be educated. Why would they? For them ego and ideology is way more important than fact.

Sorry to burst your oh so boring and predicable pre-defined bubble but on reading it,(ive already been labelled a rabid brexiteer) It’s just a stupid piece from a moaner wanting to remain, he doesn’t like a no deal scenario….i get that, but his alternative is “we stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union.” But then recognises if we do that “we might as well just remain in the EU”. Yep, that’s what remainers have been pushing for but at least he is honest that staying in the single market AND the customs union is staying in anyway.

But what about the alternative of a deal? Why is the language now no deal or remain?
Who decided those were the last two options left?
His answer to that is “Of course, if Brexit goes ahead, each of the treaties we’re going to lose could be replaced with a new, bespoke agreement. But they will need to be negotiated one-by-one, with the EU and individual countries outside the EU. In aggregate, we’re talking about a staggering amount of work.”
Oh I see, we could get a deal but its hard work if there is a deal and an implementation period………..jesus wept, what sort of cop out excuse is that.

But my favourite moan, and astonishingly still continues today from extremely stupid moaners is “The prudent course would have been to decide on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50”. This is still facepalm stupid, just how do you negotiate leaving and the shape of Brexit before triggering article 50 when guidelines for negotiating leaving and the shape of Brexit can only be formed and presented by the EU Council after triggering article 50 and the EU confirmed many times they would stick to this legal process and there would be NO negotiations before Article 50 was triggered. Please someone explain that.

As I said stupid, and just more of the same rubbish that only ever concludes stop brexit and remain. repeated day after day after day in some circles......usually twitter

 

[pastafarian]

Probably best to stop mentioning me in posts then, it comes across as rather bitchy.

Bugger me, you do that about me constantly.........what does that make you................oh yes, a hypocrite.

 

[CHAPPERS]

But my favourite moan, and astonishingly still continues today from extremely stupid moaners is “The prudent course would have been to decide on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50”. This is still facepalm stupid, just how do you negotiate leaving and the shape of Brexit before triggering article 50 when guidelines for negotiating leaving and the shape of Brexit can only be formed and presented by the EU Council after triggering article 50 and the EU confirmed many times they would stick to this legal process and there would be NO negotiations before Article 50 was triggered. Please someone explain that.

r

When did the EU change it's position? The Four Freedoms existed way before Brexit, they won't budge which is what's annoying wankers like BoJo who keep incorrectly stating that they are bullying us by sticking to their pre existing position.

 

[Two Professors]

Ooh, get you! Look, all I'm after (and have been pretty consistent on this) is for the likes of you and Mr Pasta to give some positives of a (OK) speculative but realistic sort. Not the usual draped-in-the-union-flag Boris approach of groundless optimism but some sort of counter-balance to the relentless stream of grim and in many cases well reasoned and evidence based projections that have been flowing with an even greater regularity the nearer we get and the reality is beginning to slap us in the face. And the old project fear trope is getting very stale, I'm afraid. Just tells us a few things that are going to be better rather than worse.

Might be a bit quieter in Worthing if all the air traffic is grounded.Perhaps Gatwick might not need to use their emergency runway as their 'Second Runway' with so many less planes flying!Love the way remoaners are calling me a selfish pensioner when they are trying to foist their minority views on the rest of the population.Now that is Selfish with a capital S.

 

[CHAPPERS]

[tweet]1051777040129712129[/tweet]

 

[beorhthelm]

[tweet]1051777040129712129[/tweet]

this seems a gross distortion of the situation. they are not trying to settle the Irish border issue, the current obstacle is that EU insists there is a binding backstop in case the negotiations fail. effectively asking the UK to guarantee if everything else goes pear-shaped, the NI/IRE wouldn't have a hard border in any circumstances. does that seem a reasonable position for UK, regardless of the DUP power balance? its ridiculous issue to dig in on, as the ultimate consequence of a failure to reach agreement would be a no deal, leading to... a hard border. EU have to knock it into the long grass to allow everything to move forward.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Need to remove the DUP from the equation IMHO. They're a Tory government majority convenience and should be firmly told to **** right off. There's a far bigger picture. And any hard border would be there for a far different reason than previously. Bring on a purely economic hard border that lets people move freely and stops free movement of goods.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

But my favourite moan, and astonishingly still continues today from extremely stupid moaners is “The prudent course would have been to decide on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50”. This is still facepalm stupid, just how do you negotiate leaving and the shape of Brexit before triggering article 50 when guidelines for negotiating leaving and the shape of Brexit can only be formed and presented by the EU Council after triggering article 50 and the EU confirmed many times they would stick to this legal process and there would be NO negotiations before Article 50 was triggered. Please someone explain that.

I suppose the point being made is that it would have been sensible for the government to agree among itself where in the Brexit spectrum - Canada-plus to Chequers-minus - it would like to aim for before setting its negotiating team off to work by triggering article 50. There would have been nothing to have stopped them doing that as a key part of its preparations. As it is, the period allowed for reaching the withdrawal agreement is almost over and the cabinet still hasn't established a firmly-held common position.

 

[pb21]

But my favourite moan, and astonishingly still continues today from extremely stupid moaners is “The prudent course would have been to decide on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50”. This is still facepalm stupid, just how do you negotiate leaving and the shape of Brexit before triggering article 50 when guidelines for negotiating leaving and the shape of Brexit can only be formed and presented by the EU Council after triggering article 50 and the EU confirmed many times they would stick to this legal process and there would be NO negotiations before Article 50 was triggered. Please someone explain that.

The prudent course would have been for the government and the governing party/Parliament to decide, and importantly agree, on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50. I have wooden spoons capable of having enough foresight of what the EUs stance would be.

The prudent course was not to trigger article 50, call a general election, lose the GE, form a government propped up by the DUP, get one half of your government to come up with one idea and one half another, then try and negotiate with the EU, your numerous swivel eyed loony colleagues and the generally sane and reasonable DUP, all whilst the clock is tick tocking.

I'm very surprised (not really) you cant appreciate this 'moan'!

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Might be a bit quieter in Worthing if all the air traffic is grounded.Perhaps Gatwick might not need to use their emergency runway as their 'Second Runway' with so many less planes flying!Love the way remoaners are calling me a selfish pensioner when they are trying to foist their minority views on the rest of the population.Now that is Selfish with a capital S.

Not quite sure where you are coming from on this one, 2P. Are you offering this as an upside of Brexit? Selfishly speaking (as a near pensioner myself), I would think that less air traffic would be rather good in terms of global warming impacts, so I think you might have (perhaps inadvertently) given me what I've been asking for. To be honest and extending this a bit, I'm not sure that less international trade and even a lower growth rate would be a total tragedy if this means that the planet might last future generations a few more decades (so I'm not totally selfish). But I've yet to hear an official Brexiteer politician make this point: 'vote Brexit and make us poorer but might just save the planet' would be an interesting strap line...…………….

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

The prudent course would have been for the government and the governing party/Parliament to decide, and importantly agree, on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50. I have wooden spoons capable of having enough foresight of what the EUs stance would be.

The prudent course was not to trigger article 50, call a general election, lose the GE, form a government propped up by the DUP, get one half of your government to come up with one idea and one half another, then try and negotiate with the EU, your numerous swivel eyed loony colleagues and the generally sane and reasonable DUP, all whilst the clock is tick tocking.

I'm very surprised (not really) you cant appreciate this 'moan'!

Totally agree with much of this. There's a bit of 'poor PM' feeling going around but let's not forget she called the election on the assumption she'd win a clear majority with a strong personal mandate. I remember being in Scunthorpe on the day of the election and being greeted with a huge poster of the Tory candidate with the legend 'Standing with Theresa May' on it. No policies, just that - as if that alone was sufficient to secure the votes of the good people of Scunny (it didn't). She is the architect of her own misfortunes to a very large extent.

 

[JCL666]

But my favourite moan, and astonishingly still continues today from extremely stupid moaners is “The prudent course would have been to decide on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50”. This is still facepalm stupid, just how do you negotiate leaving and the shape of Brexit before triggering article 50 when guidelines for negotiating leaving and the shape of Brexit can only be formed and presented by the EU Council after triggering article 50 and the EU confirmed many times they would stick to this legal process and there would be NO negotiations before Article 50 was triggered. Please someone explain that.

As I said stupid, and just more of the same rubbish that only ever concludes stop brexit and remain. repeated day after day after day in some circles......usually twitter

That's not what he's written.

It would obviously have been prudent to have had a strategy and a consensus of what we wanted prior to triggering Article 50. That's not stupid, it's pragmatic.

Clearly he was referring to the lack of cohesion among those who are implementing this (the Tory party), I mean he even wrote "the Tories appear no closer to finding common ground on the brexit they want"

 

[Westdene Seagull]

It certainly does not work like that for entry between the UK and USA. Have you ever seen it? Spoken to people who experience it? By the way I am not talking about holiday "visas", but proper working visas.

Oh FFS - no we're talking about travel visas - you never specified working visas. So to use your argument around 'it was never on the ballot paper' and your complaint about 'moving goal posts' - tough, you never mentioned working visas. Of course working visas are going to be different. That said, my working visa to Australia allowed me to sail through passport checks.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Well here's one Brexiteer who has bothered to read it ( making Hans wrong straight away ). I'm sorry but if that's the best 'informative document' of a no deal then we've all dumbed down so much evolution must be going backwards. Full of utterly ridiculous 'examples' and analogies. And it's anything but balanced. So I'll dismiss it for what it is ..... a post on twatter by a tw@t.

As a matter of interest, I see you've read the article. I get that you aren't keen on his examples or analogies but do you disagree with the broad thrust of his piece, which is everything immediately changes for the worse on 30th March 2019?

He correctly asserts that Article 50 defines a two-year period after which time the treaties automatically lapse, so tell me what happens next.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Yes, obviously when everyone mentions freedom of movement and the right to live and work anywhere in the eu we are all talking about going on holiday, LOL!

The sub-conversation stemmed from someone suggesting there would be delays on Eurostar. But you carry on flailing around like a drowning person trying to link everything to everything. You really are an utter idiot - your stupidity really does backup your claims about the UK education system. ..... LOL ( you can't even work out how to use emojis )

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

muggy Monday from the Grizzlers I see , marvelous scenes
regards
DR

 

[pastafarian]

When did the EU change it's position? The Four Freedoms existed way before Brexit, they won't budge which is what's annoying wankers like BoJo who keep incorrectly stating that they are bullying us by sticking to their pre existing position.

I suppose the point being made is that it would have been sensible for the government to agree among itself where in the Brexit spectrum - Canada-plus to Chequers-minus - it would like to aim for before setting its negotiating team off to work by triggering article 50. There would have been nothing to have stopped them doing that as a key part of its preparations. As it is, the period allowed for reaching the withdrawal agreement is almost over and the cabinet still hasn't established a firmly-held common position.

The prudent course would have been for the government and the governing party/Parliament to decide, and importantly agree, on the shape of Brexit before triggering Article 50. I have wooden spoons capable of having enough foresight of what the EUs stance would be.

The prudent course was not to trigger article 50, call a general election, lose the GE, form a government propped up by the DUP, get one half of your government to come up with one idea and one half another, then try and negotiate with the EU, your numerous swivel eyed loony colleagues and the generally sane and reasonable DUP, all whilst the clock is tick tocking.

I'm very surprised (not really) you cant appreciate this 'moan'!

That's not what he's written.

It would obviously have been prudent to have had a strategy and a consensus of what we wanted prior to triggering Article 50. That's not stupid, it's pragmatic.

Clearly he was referring to the lack of cohesion among those who are implementing this (the Tory party), I mean he even wrote "the Tories appear no closer to finding common ground on the brexit they want"

You wallies, everything is subject to negotiation, do you not recall the EU core stance “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Have you forgotten May was quite clear in the 50 notification that it was recognised the four freedoms of the single market were indivisible,
Have you forgotten the core objectives for negotiations were laid out at Lancaster House and the subsequent white paper before Article 50 was triggered
You can only lay out your core principles and objectives( as May did) when you instigate negotiations such as no longer being a member of the single market, an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice,ending free movement, procuring citizens rights,out of the customs union, a new economic and security partnership, an implementation period to aid business and minimise disruption, no hard border in Ireland, a new free trade agreement
How can it be possible for example to give a defined outcome of our obligations in the divorce settlement when you have to negotiate a mechanism to determine that settlement in the first place, according to determined rights and the law.
Perhaps you can explain how you can define the future partnership in tandem with your withdrawal agreement when so much is linked between the two entities and you have to find where you are in one phase before starting on another phase, have you forgotten talks on the future relationship/ partnership could only begin after sufficient headway had been made on the withdrawal agreement?
A lot of selective memory going on here.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoEz3JKIygA
regards
DR

 

[daveinplzen]

The sub-conversation stemmed from someone suggesting there would be delays on Eurostar. But you carry on flailing around like a drowning person trying to link everything to everything. You really are an utter idiot - your stupidity really does backup your claims about the UK education system. ..... LOL ( you can't even work out how to use emojis )

You think Eurostar only carries tourists and call somebody else an idiot??