noviorbis77 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I am not a Labour supporter, but since nothing was on TV last night I was trawling the channels when I stumbled across Tom Watson (Labour deputy) making a long speech that very strongly - and very convincingly - put the case of the EU being a very good thing indeed and that British values and standard of living are what they are because Britons are Europeans and EU citizens. He listed many reasons why this was so (it wasn't just an opinion or soundbite).

Very refreshing to finally hear someone here say it straight out. And I couldn't disagree with any of it.

I was hoping it might translate to some interesting news this morning, but the media have mostly ignored it. Looks like there's a movement within Labour to shift to pro-second-referendum & pro-remain, though...

The media haven’t mentioned it as it is not news and just nonsense.

Life would be far better in the UK had we not joined up all those years back. No bloody uncontrolled EU migration, billions of pounds wasted. Life would be better.

Don't get your hopes up too high!

The UK's economy is notorious for its low productivity because of very low government investment in public infrastructure, education and apprenticeship, which is why there's such a huge number of low wage workers active in it . Right now, many of those low wage jobs are filled by EU citizens from Eastern Europe, but in future, you can bet your life British industry will beg the government for schemes to attact immigrants from elsewhere to fill in the jobs...

The skin colour and the accent of the people doing the jobs might chance, but their wages won't go up, nor will their numbers reduce, not unless you are prepared to ruin the sectors they are employed in (and take out the better paid british jobs too), that is.

Or do you genuinely believe a Tory government will suddenly start to massively invest more in infrastructure or spend more on schools and education in the area's outside of London? ROTFL.

Ironically, the EU was the only layer of government in the UK spending considerable sums of money on public infrastructure in these regions! "Taking back control of our own money" will just allow the Tories to put even more in their own pockets through taks cuts for the rich or spend it on their own pet projects and those are not to be found where they are most needed, let that be clear!

Grizzly410 wrote:

What's your definition of vassal state please ? Isn't it more or less to be a rule taker ?

If Parliament ratified the WA we cede our basic sovereignty to the EU as once the backstop kicks in we no longer have control of when we can leave the EU without consent, both parties have to agree when the UK leaves the backstop.

Whilst the backstop is in operation we have to abide by all the rules and regulations of the EU and any new taxes regulations which come into force post backstop, the UK will not participate in the governance of the EU and nor be able to object and or veto any amendments for which will not be in the UK’s interest, all the while not being able to proceed with an independent trade and judicial policy and make domestic laws without influence from the EU.

There is a vast difference from meeting the regulatory trade conditions of importing to the EU and not haveing any outside influences on one’s domestic regulatory/laws controls and supreme judiciary courts. One will be imposed on us by being in the EU the other is by choice if we agree to the conditions of importing, don’t forget onece we leave the EU will also have to abide by whatever regulatory conditions we impose from third nations when importing into the UK

noviorbis77 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

The media haven’t mentioned it as it is not news and just nonsense.

Life would be far better in the UK had we not joined up all those years back. No bloody uncontrolled EU migration, billions of pounds wasted. Life would be better.

True, EU would be far better without the UK. So why are you still part of it?

Only a few months to go.

No, a few months too late!

Olddog wrote:

Fun poll today:



I guess scotland will be a bit surprised (not)

So basically no love for the country, they don't care what happens, but they absolutely hate Jeremy Corbyn to become PM. That is astonishing, whom could ever vote for a party whom doesn't truly work in the best interest of the country. The majority of the conservative party has radicalized. Astonishing,

5 left. Next round tomorrow 3PM.

Klaus wrote:

Only inasmuch as Article 50 implies it as consequence of a total failure to come to a deal. And the hard right in the UK has been pushing for that total failure since forever.
.

No they have not been pushing a failure of a negotiated withdrawal, they have been pushing for a deal that does not leave us tied to the EU such as the WAa does

Klaus wrote:

But it is in no way "part of Article 50". This nonsense is only in line with the lying propaganda leading up to the referendum in 2016
.

How is it a lie?, no-deal exit is the default setting it’s in black and white.

“If no agreement is concluded within two years, that state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period.”

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Not according to Article 50.2.

Can you share you interpretation

Dutchy I take it that you are not going to share your interpretation?

Would be interesting to see your point of view.

Depressing reading a few days ago. I can't believe people seriously want Number Ten to be turned into a total clown show...

Dutchy wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I watched some of Rory Stewart's campaign launch speech yesterday. He is far more intelligent, lucid and sensible than almost all the other candidates. But he doesn't want no deal, so add that all together and there is no way he will win.

That's too bad, and I think you are right. He would be the perfect candidate to unite the country again

Would he? He might well be more grounded in reality policy-wise than his rivals, but he has to sell that to the Conservative Party base ahe has all the charasma of a dead possum, unfortunately.

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So the Lords say..........

We'll see, if you want any kind of trade deal with the EU, you pay your obligations agreed upon by the two executives.

Nonsense.

The French, Germans and Italians for one, will see a lot of job losses if we do not have a trade deal. A lot of car sales will go otherwise.

There will be a trade deal.

Regardless whether we chose to pay or not.

I know you want to try, but the underlining premise: "they need us more then we need them" is only believed by the most extreme Brexiteers.

And even most of them have stopped believing it.

Klaus wrote:

Olddog wrote:

What is funny is that some seems to fail to understand that theses roughly 39 billions over 7 years is peanuts when you have in mind that the EU GDP is close to 15 trillions a year. A 0,2 % impact is just a rounding error. But it tells a lot about how to deal with perfidious albion .....

Indeed; Boris and others have completely unrealistic ideas about the leverage the UK might have with that. In real life we've got much, much bigger fish to fry and this won't be worth any fundamental concessions (such as throwing Ireland under the bus, which just won't happen).

And this is why I hope he becomes leader. I'll enjoy watching the fallout as his bull$#&t catches up with him.

zkojq wrote:

Indeed; Boris and others have completely unrealistic ideas about the leverage the UK might have with that. In real life we've got much, much bigger fish to fry and this won't be worth any fundamental concessions (such as throwing Ireland under the bus, which just won't happen).

And this is why I hope he becomes leader. I'll enjoy watching the fallout as his bull$#&t catches up with him. [/quote]

I can see where you are coming from, but we need to remember that we are talking about real people with real lives whom get squeezed with this.

aviationaware wrote:

Maybe we'll get Boris Island after all.

But maybe the most entertaining episode is all the outrage over some candidate having snorted cocaine in their past as journalist, i.e. all of those being outraged about them now in the press probably did it themselves.

So because one journalist did cocaine, all journalists must do cocaine?

sabenapilot wrote:

In fact, it seems to be a recurrent issue: each time the calendar shows a Brexit date sufficiently far out not to sense the urgent need to act sensible and get real, British politicians launch some sort of an election campaign, be it a GE or an internal leadership contest while making the bravest of unicorn promisses on a 'have our cake and eat it' type of Brexit, and each time the date nears again, the winner suddenly becomes far more concerned about the effects of Brexit to the point they extend it again... only to have a new round of politicians to shout slogans about betrayal and have their go with another round of impossible election promisses.

Agreed. The extensions given were too long. They should have been granted by the EU on a week-by-week basis in order to keep the pressure up and focus minds.

Dutchy wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Indeed; Boris and others have completely unrealistic ideas about the leverage the UK might have with that. In real life we've got much, much bigger fish to fry and this won't be worth any fundamental concessions (such as throwing Ireland under the bus, which just won't happen).

zkojq wrote:

And this is why I hope he becomes leader. I'll enjoy watching the fallout as his bull$#&t catches up with him.

I can see where you are coming from, but we need to remember that we are talking about real people with real lives whom get squeezed with this.

True, but I put this in the "not my problem" basket. The Tories don't care about them, so it's not really up to the EU to throw them a bone (whatever exactly that means). If anything, one could argue that it is in the interest of those who will feel Brexit the hardest for the EU to be facilitating the hardest possible Brexit, if it means the end of the Tory party.

Anyway, the brexiteers keep saying that they'll get through this like they got through the war, so I'm sure that they'll be happy to open their homes to the homeless and their kitchens to the hungry and that all of Brexit's economic victims will be well looked after. Tootle pip!

sabenapilot wrote:

Indeed, A101 is still living off the illusion that once out, all problems with Europe will be over.

Im under no illusion about problems within the UK.

sabenapilot wrote:

Reality is they will only start then: the UK will still want a FTA with the EU

The reality is that is in all EU members interests to have a FTA with the UK

sabenapilot wrote:

The UK really needs to accept it will have to somehow pay the price for being a country with holds controversial sovereignty over a part of its territory (NI),simple as that really, so either it can pretend its sovereignty is full throughout its territory but agree not test how far it can drift away from the EU (the vassal state solution), or it will have to accept some form of shared sovereignty over (part of) its territory.

No we don’t have to accept that at all and will not accept that, but if the Northern Irelanders feel that they want to continue with being in the EU then they have a mechanism to achieve that outcome.

The only time something like that has to happen is when we have been conquered by a foreign army, is that what you are planning to do?

sabenapilot wrote:

What it can't do is have full sovereignty over its full territory and expect the EU to just accept that: I know it's what British politicians would want as an outcome and it comes as a great shock to many of them to see the EU isn't just going along with what the 'superpower aka the UK' offers the EU, and that's because the EU knows the UK isn't a superpower at all, in fact they are the superpower at the table and so far have been very kind on the wannabe in the room still.

And you wonder why I want out of the EU with bullshit talk like that. And that talk was around in 39 and look what happened

Airbus will be interested in getting wings for its buses. Beyond that most of the UK can be written off. UK's influence in the EU was of real value to the US. Japan and the US found the UK a really great springboard to the EU. Third rate economies have to be beggars, and it is astounding that they discard their advantages. That said I know a first rate country that is working all angles to become second rate.

This is interesting


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... 8?mode=amp

A101 wrote:

This is interesting


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... 8?mode=amp

Interesting? Tory members would give up everything including the union of Great Britain except have a labor PM to have a Brexit. It is extremism and you do not recognize it.

A101 wrote:

Reality is they will only start then: the UK will still want a FTA with the EU

The "they need us more then we need them" crap was falsified many moons ago. So please stop making a fool of yourself.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

This is interesting


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... 8?mode=amp

Interesting? Tory members would give up everything including the union of Great Britain except have a labor PM to have a Brexit. It is extremism and you do not recognize it.

If the situation was reversed labour would do the same thing, political parties are all the same when it comes to forming government

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Reality is they will only start then: the UK will still want a FTA with the EU

The "they need us more then we need them" crap was falsified many moons ago. So please stop making a fool of yourself.

Go talk to your other 27 members and see if they want to give up trade with the UK

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Reality is they will only start then: the UK will still want a FTA with the EU

The "they need us more then we need them" crap was falsified many moons ago. So please stop making a fool of yourself.

Go talk to your other 27 members and see if they want to give up trade with the UK

Apart from the fact that trade will exist between the EU and the UK, I doubt that your assumption is correct.The Dutch PM says regularly that the Dutch must prepare for a setback, but that it's worth it. That's from a PM which head a country which will be hit second hardest in case of a no-deal Brexit. Moreover, the EU seems to be prepared for a hard Brexit is one believes the latest updates. The majority of bottle necks (for example pharmaceuticals) seems to have been solved or are expected to be solved by October.

A101 wrote:

This is interesting


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... 8?mode=amp

Tory party interests trump country interests. It's appaling, but not suprising.

zkojq wrote:

Would he? He might well be more grounded in reality policy-wise than his rivals, but he has to sell that to the Conservative Party base ahe has all the charasma of a dead possum, unfortunately.

I actually like the way he talks. There is no bravado. He answers questions with answers, instead of trying to turn it round or avoid it. I don't want a PM or leader of any party to have charisma over intelligence or ability to goven. We need to get past this stupid thing where UK voters vote on personality. Too much reality TV or something. Boris is an idiot, but he's a fun guy you want to go on a pub crawl with. Farage smokes, drinks and shouts - the guy your builder wants to spend time with down the pub. Neither should be anywhere near politics, they are fakes, only existing because of personality. As soon as you examine their belief's, their life's work and actions, who they co-ordinate with, look at what they have achieved when they are in positions to put into action what they promise they completely fall apart.

I of course wouldn't vote for a Conservative party under Rory Stewart because he still wants to go ahead with Brexit, but he's much more palatable and on the ball that any of the others. The other candidates have all come up with lists of things they say they would change. But they were all in positions to have changed those things already, or at least influenced them. And they failed miserably.

I thought last nights BBC debate was awful by the way. The format was useless, the host had no control. Boris just talked over people and didn't answer anything. Seriously, 15mins devoted to demanding to know if they would leave the EU on the 31st October whatever. Jeeezus.

I really think there should be a written UK constitution. When a PM leaves there is a general election. I know you vote for a party, not a leader, but when the very essense / direction of a party can completely change to what you originally voted for them for, then that's not democratic. And that's not just because of Brexit.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

This is interesting


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... 8?mode=amp

Interesting? Tory members would give up everything including the union of Great Britain except have a labor PM to have a Brexit. It is extremism and you do not recognize it.

If the situation was reversed labour would do the same thing, political parties are all the same when it comes to forming government

Fine, then my reaction would be the same. It is an extreme view. And you still don't recognize it.

LJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The "they need us more then we need them" crap was falsified many moons ago. So please stop making a fool of yourself.

Go talk to your other 27 members and see if they want to give up trade with the UK

Apart from the fact that trade will exist between the EU and the UK, I doubt that your assumption is correct.The Dutch PM says regularly that the Dutch must prepare for a setback, but that it's worth it. That's from a PM which head a country which will be hit second hardest in case of a no-deal Brexit. Moreover, the EU seems to be prepared for a hard Brexit is one believes the latest updates. The majority of bottle necks (for example pharmaceuticals) seems to have been solved or are expected to be solved by October.

Exactly, if the Dutch have to choose between trade with the UK or the integrity of the EU, it is truly a no brainer. But I guess that our A101 still wants to believe in fairytales.

LJ wrote:

Apart from the fact that trade will exist between the EU and the UK, I doubt that your assumption is correct.

Well you just confirmed what I’m saying, members of the EU will continue to trade with the UK irrespective if we are part of the EU or not as it is in their interest to do so, if it wasn’t then the trade between member countries and the UK would cease full stop.

LJ wrote:

The Dutch PM says regularly that the Dutch must prepare for a setback, but that it's worth it. That's from a PM which head a country which will be hit second hardest in case of a no-deal Brexit. Moreover, the EU seems to be prepared for a hard Brexit is one believes the latest updates. The majority of bottle necks (for example pharmaceuticals) seems to have been solved or are expected to be solved by October.

I’ll take you word for it that’s what the PM said as I have not read or heard, but it appears to me from the account you describe is that he acknowledges that their will be setbacks to trade on how it is currently conducted, but as a member of the EU will march to the same drum beat as Brussels as that’s what is expected of them, not that they do not wish to continue trade with the UK but are bound by the regulatory regime.


There is a difference to what is happening then what Dutchy continues to allude to what he think we are saying to what is being said.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting? Tory members would give up everything including the union of Great Britain except have a labor PM to have a Brexit. It is extremism and you do not recognize it.

If the situation was reversed labour would do the same thing, political parties are all the same when it comes to forming government

Fine, then my reaction would be the same. It is an extreme view. And you still don't recognize it.

Well since you have failed to give your point of view in regards to A50 Sect 2, I’m sure you will be able to tell me what I don’t recognise then, it’s easy to throw mud, but harder to justify what you have said.


Come on Dutchy please present you point of view.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

What's your definition of vassal state please ? Isn't it more or less to be a rule taker ?

If Parliament ratified the WA we cede our basic sovereignty to the EU as once the backstop kicks in we no longer have control of when we can leave the EU without consent, both parties have to agree when the UK leaves the backstop.

Whilst the backstop is in operation we have to abide by all the rules and regulations of the EU and any new taxes regulations which come into force post backstop, the UK will not participate in the governance of the EU and nor be able to object and or veto any amendments for which will not be in the UK’s interest, all the while not being able to proceed with an independent trade and judicial policy and make domestic laws without influence from the EU.

Oh, the trap fantasy! Again.
That’s the only way your gov and EU negotiators found to address the Irish Border issue, yet that doesn’t stop Brexiters claiming there is another solution. They are debunked every time, just like on nearly all others Brexit topic, but still find some support in the public and with people like you. How can you ignore all the lies they said during the last years ?

Genuine question : Where UK would be in the famous staircase graphic if Backstop had to be activated ? I’d say Turkey step but no sure at all.
http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rn ... brexit.jpg
A101, would you define Turkey like an EU vassal state ?

A101 wrote:

There is a vast difference from meeting the regulatory trade conditions of importing to the EU and not haveing any outside influences on one’s domestic regulatory/laws controls and supreme judiciary courts. One will be imposed on us by being in the EU the other is by choice if we agree to the conditions of importing, don’t forget onece we leave the EU will also have to abide by whatever regulatory conditions we impose from third nations when importing into the UK

For sure, feel free to impose whatever stricter rule than EUs, I’m sure the whole world will happily adapt to anycondition on top of the one from the biggest single market in the world. [/sarcasm]

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The "they need us more then we need them" crap was falsified many moons ago. So please stop making a fool of yourself.

Go talk to your other 27 members and see if they want to give up trade with the UK

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

Apart from the fact that trade will exist between the EU and the UK, I doubt that your assumption is correct.

Well you just confirmed what I’m saying, members of the EU will continue to trade with the UK irrespective if we are part of the EU or not as it is in their interest to do so, if it wasn’t then the trade between member countries and the UK would cease full stop.

Of course EU members interests is to have some kind of deal with the UK, that’s why EU offered a wide variety of future relationship.
I must have missed the part when anyone said trade would STOP, all I can see is your “if they want to give up”... What more or less everyone is saying is just that putting barrier will make trade more difficult thus more expensive, and it’s obvious.
These additional barriers will not hurt EU as much as UK. Proof : EU is not the one having to stockpile stuff, plan to use an highway as a giant parking, contract company without boat to provide additional boat to cross the channel or see its industry reduce productivity like investment (or relocate abroad, in EU).
The "they need us more then we need them" is actually true, except “us” is the EU, not UK.

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

Apart from the fact that trade will exist between the EU and the UK, I doubt that your assumption is correct.

Well you just confirmed what I’m saying, members of the EU will continue to trade with the UK irrespective if we are part of the EU or not as it is in their interest to do so, if it wasn’t then the trade between member countries and the UK would cease full stop.

Yet is will decrease (how much depends on the business you're in as it has to do with being able to pass the extra costs unto the final consumer). Many of the companies currently heavily depending on trade with the UK have started looking for new markets (EU governments give as advice). Others are raising prices to incorporate the extra costs associated with doing trade with the UK. Seeing this as a positive thing for the UK is something I can't understand (it's actually a good thing as those companies should never depend heavily on just one market.

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

The Dutch PM says regularly that the Dutch must prepare for a setback, but that it's worth it. That's from a PM which head a country which will be hit second hardest in case of a no-deal Brexit. Moreover, the EU seems to be prepared for a hard Brexit is one believes the latest updates. The majority of bottle necks (for example pharmaceuticals) seems to have been solved or are expected to be solved by October.

I’ll take you word for it that’s what the PM said as I have not read or heard, but it appears to me from the account you describe is that he acknowledges that their will be setbacks to trade on how it is currently conducted, but as a member of the EU will march to the same drum beat as Brussels as that’s what is expected of them, not that they do not wish to continue trade with the UK but are bound by the regulatory regime.

It's a setback, but a calculated and already accepted setback (and to be honest, it's politically even a plus as they can blame the UK for their own bad performance and/or increase in spending). Hence why I cannot see trade as something which will reopen the negotiations between the UK and EU.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

If the situation was reversed labour would do the same thing, political parties are all the same when it comes to forming government

Fine, then my reaction would be the same. It is an extreme view. And you still don't recognize it.

Well since you have failed to give your point of view in regards to A50 Sect 2, I’m sure you will be able to tell me what I don’t recognise then, it’s easy to throw mud, but harder to justify what you have said.


Come on Dutchy please present you point of view.

It isn't mud-throwing, it is complete and utter amazement that to what length the Brexitremist will go to go out of the EU.

BTW you haven't answered many of my questions, so why would you demand that every one of yours will be answered? Read what I have wrote in many post in this and the other 5 threads about Brexit, it isn't hard to understand.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Oh, the trap fantasy! Again.

Once the backstop is in force can the UK leave without consent from the EU?

Grizzly410 wrote:

That’s the only way your gov and EU negotiators found to address the Irish Border issue, yet that doesn’t stop Brexiters claiming there is another solution. They are debunked every time, just like on nearly all others Brexit topic, but still find some support in the public and with people like you. How can you ignore all the lies they said during the last years ?

The only real issue with the border is regulatory or customs checks for whichbthe UKG has agreed to continue to be seamlessly, their is nothing stopping putting custom checks in at the border if the government so desired

Grizzly410 wrote:

Genuine question : Where UK would be in the famous staircase graphic if Backstop had to be activated ? I’d say Turkey step but no sure at all.
http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rn ... brexit.jpg
A101, would you define Turkey like an EU vassal state ?

I haven’t really looked into the Turkish agreement to be honest so I don’t know what it comprises of and what the procedure is to leave the agreement. but in saying that if they have to use A50 to leave then no perhaps not as there most likely would not be a backstop in operation which keeps turkey fully aligned with the EU and can only fully leave with the EU consent

Grizzly410 wrote:

For sure, feel free to impose whatever stricter rule than EUs, I’m sure the whole world will happily adapt to anycondition on top of the one from the biggest single market in the world. [/sarcasm]

That must have struck a nerve if that is the reply

Grizzly410 wrote:

Of course EU members interests is to have some kind of deal with the UK, that’s why EU offered a wide variety of future relationship.
I must have missed the part when anyone said trade would STOP, all I can see is your “if they want to give up”... What more or less everyone is saying is just that putting barrier will make trade more difficult thus more expensive, and it’s obvious.
These additional barriers will not hurt EU as much as UK. Proof : EU is not the one having to stockpile stuff, plan to use an highway as a giant parking, contract company without boat to provide additional boat to cross the channel or see its industry reduce productivity like investment (or relocate abroad, in EU).
The "they need us more then we need them" is actually true, except “us” is the EU, not UK.

Well I don’t understand your reluctance to trading on WTO rules with the UK if they are no barriers as we need you more than we need them as remainers like to continuously point out, if it’s no big deal cease all trade with us, show us who’s boss!

Dutchy wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Fun poll today:



I guess scotland will be a bit surprised (not)

So basically no love for the country, they don't care what happens, but they absolutely hate Jeremy Corbyn to become PM. That is astonishing, whom could ever vote for a party whom doesn't truly work in the best interest of the country. The majority of the conservative party has radicalized. Astonishing,

And from the debate on BBC last night, it is literally - literally - about "Brexit must happen" at all costs... but not a single reason *why* Brexit is a good thing. It has truly become a religion.

Reinhardt wrote:

I of course wouldn't vote for a Conservative party under Rory Stewart because he still wants to go ahead with Brexit, but he's much more palatable and on the ball that any of the others.

The thing about Stewart is that he's the only person in the room who seems vaguely normal and moral. I liked that he was confronted by an interviewer saying it hadn't gone well for him and he came straight back with something like "no, not really - I don't think I was comfortable with the format". My goodness! An honest answer! So refreshing...

As an illustration of just how desilusioned the UK's idea is that the EU will somehow give in at the very last minute to preserve the economic status quo as much as possible, have a look at the situation Switzerland is currently facing: there the EU has put an ultimatum to Bern to make progress on the new EU-Swiss treaty replacing the 120 or so bilaterals currently in place, or see the Swiss stock exchange be cut off from the European market!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ion-widget

in short: sign up to the deal or face the full weight of the economic consequences.

And it's explictly done with an eye to London too, so you have a clear demonstration of the resolve and the economic power of the EU when dealing with recalcitrant satellite states like Switzerland or soon to be the UK...

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I of course wouldn't vote for a Conservative party under Rory Stewart because he still wants to go ahead with Brexit, but he's much more palatable and on the ball that any of the others.

The thing about Stewart is that he's the only person in the room who seems vaguely normal and moral. I liked that he was confronted by an interviewer saying it hadn't gone well for him and he came straight back with something like "no, not really - I don't think I was comfortable with the format". My goodness! An honest answer! So refreshing...

And like that, he’s gone.

A101 wrote:

Once the backstop is in force can the UK leave without consent from the EU?

Sure, if you're ready to face the consquences of violating the agreed terms of an internationally ratified peace treaty.

The issue is not so much the EU's consent than rather consistency with the Good Friday Agreement.

The whole problem for the entire time has been that the radicals in Westminster are hell-bent on trampling all over the GFA in their quest for the most-brutal-possible Brexit and Ireland, the EU and at least parts of the US government are just not having it.

It is a grotesque distortion to mispresent the resitance against this attempt to violate the GFA as some evil foreign plan to curtail the UK's sovereignty – it is remarkably close in spirit to the absurd pretenses misused by the bygone British Empire for raping, pillaging and occupying foreign countries without any consideration of the damage done to their citizens.

The only real issue with the border is regulatory or customs checks for whichbthe UKG has agreed to continue to be seamlessly, their is nothing stopping putting custom checks in at the border if the government so desired

No, that is only the tip of the iceberg, and even just that is already completely unsolved, apart from everything else. The Brexit fanatics keep completely misrepresenting this issue.

Well I don’t understand your reluctance to trading on WTO rules with the UK if they are no barriers as we need you more than we need them as remainers like to continuously point out, if it’s no big deal cease all trade with us, show us who’s boss!

The fallout wil indeed be much harsher on the UK side, but the EU has always tried to avoid damaging other countries if at all possible, very much contrary to the Tories in the UK who clearly have no inhibitions to massively damage even their own country, much less others such as Ireland.

noviorbis77 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I of course wouldn't vote for a Conservative party under Rory Stewart because he still wants to go ahead with Brexit, but he's much more palatable and on the ball that any of the others.

The thing about Stewart is that he's the only person in the room who seems vaguely normal and moral. I liked that he was confronted by an interviewer saying it hadn't gone well for him and he came straight back with something like "no, not really - I don't think I was comfortable with the format". My goodness! An honest answer! So refreshing...

And like that, he’s gone.

Thank Goodness. The favourite of the #FBPE crowd and darling of the media.

noviorbis77 wrote:

And like that, he’s gone.

So now it's insanity and delusional lies all the way in the Tory party.

That at least simplifies things a bit.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

And like that, he’s gone.

So now it's insanity and delusional lies all the way in the Tory party.

That at least simplifies things a bit.

Indeed, the last voice of reason is gone.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

And like that, he’s gone.

So now it's insanity and delusional lies all the way in the Tory party.

That at least simplifies things a bit.

You need to stop reading subjective tabloids.

Yep, looking like Boris "The Buffoon" Johnson will be the last ever Tory PM.

scbriml wrote:

Yep, looking like Boris "The Buffoon" Johnson will be the last ever Tory PM.

If he fails to deliver Brexit, absolutely. The party will never be forgiven - make way for Nigel, as it were!

However, as things stand, it's worth noting that the opposition is utterly useless and that the Tories managed to come back from their enormous defeat in 1997. I wouldn't be so quick to write them off.

Klaus wrote:

Sure, if you're ready to face the consquences of violating the agreed terms of an internationally ratified peace treaty.

No we are not violating the treaty between ROIUK, can you actually show me where in the treaty you think we are in violation

We have made a continuation of the free movement of Irish citizens across the border that has been avalible since 1922 when they became an independent nation

Klaus wrote:

The issue is not so much the EU's consent than rather consistency with the Good Friday Agreement.

The issue with the WA is all about consent, if it was not why not have an time limit on the backstop we would not be going thru all this hooha

Klaus wrote:

The whole problem for the entire time has been that the radicals in Westminster are hell-bent on trampling all over the GFA in their quest for the most-brutal-possible Brexit and Ireland, the EU and at least parts of the US government are just not having it.

Who are the radical’s and how are the attempting to trample the GFA, the government is going above and beyond the legal requirements within the GFA to reduce any tensions

Klaus wrote:

It is a grotesque distortion to mispresent the resitance against this attempt to violate the GFA as some evil foreign plan to curtail the UK's sovereignty – it is remarkably close in spirit to the absurd pretenses misused by the bygone British Empire for raping, pillaging and occupying foreign countries without any consideration of the damage done to their citizens.

The only distortion is the EU placing conditions on the UK that are outside the treaty obligations within the GFA and Lisbon Treaty on the UK to keep us under customs union of the EU, which by that fact requires the UK to continue to make payments of membership fees whilst we are tied to a union the majority voted to leave.

Klaus wrote:

No, that is only the tip of the iceberg, and even just that is already completely unsolved, apart from everything else. The Brexit fanatics keep completely misrepresenting this issue.

No I’m dealing in facts, remainer continue to stick the fingers in their ears when presented with facts

Klaus wrote:

The fallout wil indeed be much harsher on the UK side, but the EU has always tried to avoid damaging other countries if at all possible, very much contrary to the Tories in the UK who clearly have no inhibitions to massively damage even their own country, much less others such as Ireland.

I’m under no Illusions to what the effects will be on the UK leaving without a deal, but I also believe it is a price we have to pay to extract ourselves from a union which is not what was presented to the electorate from the beginning, if it was just a trading block union I have no qualms with it but to go further into a deeper political union is not what the majority want.

sabenapilot wrote:

As an illustration of just how desilusioned the UK's idea is that the EU will somehow give in at the very last minute to preserve the economic status quo as much as possible, have a look at the situation Switzerland is currently facing: there the EU has put an ultimatum to Bern to make progress on the new EU-Swiss treaty replacing the 120 or so bilaterals currently in place, or see the Swiss stock exchange be cut off from the European market!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ion-widget

in short: sign up to the deal or face the full weight of the economic consequences.

And it's explictly done with an eye to London too, so you have a clear demonstration of the resolve and the economic power of the EU when dealing with recalcitrant satellite states like Switzerland or soon to be the UK...

I wouldn't boast about bullying Switzerland in an attempt to force concessions from the UK. We don't tend to take kindly to that kind of egotistical nonsense. The EU is behaving like an abusive spouse. To heck with it.

Ireland budget plan assumes UK will leave EU without deal

Ireland is preparing a frugal no-deal Brexit budget for 2020 in the clearest sign yet that Dublin is bracing for the UK to crash out of the EU without an exit agreement.

The spending plans also suggest that Leo Varadkar’s government is prepared to resist any British pressure to make concessions on the “backstop” deal struck for the Irish border. UK MPs’ concern over the backstop led to Theresa May, the British prime minister, failing to win approval for her EU withdrawal agreement with Brussels.

But Mr Varadkar’s willingness to push ahead with a budget that anticipates Britain leaving the EU without a deal indicates he would sooner tackle a disorderly Brexit than offer a last-minute compromise on the border.

Dublin’s decision to proceed with a no-deal fiscal plan is also significant because it all but eliminates scope for Mr Varadkar to woo voters with budgetary largesse next year. His minority government faces the prospect of a general election whenever Brexit is settled.

Dublin will set out two preliminary budget forecasts in a report next week: one on an adverse no-deal scenario for the Irish economy; and the other on a basis that assumes no Brexit shock after the October 31 deadline for the UK to leave the EU. 

Previous government reports have said the Irish economy would continue growing even in a hard Brexit. But two Irish government figures said the latest assessment from the finance ministry warns that unemployment would rise sharply in a no-deal scenario. 

https://www.ft.com/content/77de1cba-92aa-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271

The odds of "no deal" seem to be increasing evermore.

scbriml wrote:

Yep, looking like Boris "The Buffoon" Johnson will be the last ever Tory PM.

It seems fitting really.

KLDC10 wrote:

I wouldn't boast about bullying Switzerland in an attempt to force concessions from the UK. We don't tend to take kindly to that kind of egotistical nonsense. The EU is behaving like an abusive spouse. To heck with it.

The UK has progressively turned into a venom-spitting tentacle monster attacking absolutely everything the EU stands for with vile and vicious lies and now you come whining that we dare to object to getting treated like crap by the UK and we are beginning to set some boundaries?

You guys are really some piece of work.

Klaus wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

I wouldn't boast about bullying Switzerland in an attempt to force concessions from the UK. We don't tend to take kindly to that kind of egotistical nonsense. The EU is behaving like an abusive spouse. To heck with it.

The UK has progressively turned into a venom-spitting tentacle monster attacking absolutely everything the EU stands for with vile and vicious lies and now you come whining that we dare to object to getting treated like crap by the UK and we are beginning to set some boundaries?

You guys are really some piece of work.

You're the ones trying to make an example of Switzerland in an attempt to intimidate us into ratifying that godawful Withdrawal Treaty - bullying the little guy because he won't play ball and hoping to net a bigger fish in the process. The UK has not treated the EU like crap. All we have ever done is subsidise your stupid continental vanity project to the tune of billions of pounds. We object to having our money wasted and the EU tries to punish us when we exercise our democratic right to get out of the great bureaucratic mess in Brussels.

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

As an illustration of just how desilusioned the UK's idea is that the EU will somehow give in at the very last minute to preserve the economic status quo as much as possible, have a look at the situation Switzerland is currently facing: there the EU has put an ultimatum to Bern to make progress on the new EU-Swiss treaty replacing the 120 or so bilaterals currently in place, or see the Swiss stock exchange be cut off from the European market!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ion-widget

in short: sign up to the deal or face the full weight of the economic consequences.

And it's explictly done with an eye to London too, so you have a clear demonstration of the resolve and the economic power of the EU when dealing with recalcitrant satellite states like Switzerland or soon to be the UK...

I wouldn't boast about bullying Switzerland in an attempt to force concessions from the UK. We don't tend to take kindly to that kind of egotistical nonsense. The EU is behaving like an abusive spouse. To heck with it.

Yep if it was a marriage, the legal eagles would be calling it Battered woman syndrome

A101 wrote:

Yep if it was a marriage, the legal eagles would be calling it Battered woman syndrome

Switzerland has been actively pushing for this relationship but is trying to have it both ways: Enjoying all the benefits but not really committing to the corresponding obligations.

Not an entirely unfamiliar approach, but at some point the other partner may lose patience with that kind of charade.

KLDC10 wrote:

You're the ones trying to make an example of Switzerland in an attempt to intimidate us into ratifying that godawful Withdrawal Treaty - bullying the little guy because he won't play ball and hoping to net a bigger fish in the process. The UK has not treated the EU like crap. All we have ever done is subsidise your stupid continental vanity project to the tune of billions of pounds. We object to having our money wasted and the EU tries to punish us when we exercise our democratic right to get out of the great bureaucratic mess in Brussels.

Lol. Aside from Cabinet ministers comparing the EU to Nazi Germany and the USSR, you mean?

That aside, the real world isn't a nice place. "Bullying", as you call it, is the norm, not the exception. Look at how Trump renegotiated trade Canada, a country with far deeper ties, far more friends in the US, and a relationship so deep and cross-cutting, that nobody bothers with inanities like "special relationship". The new USMCA deal is not as good as NAFTA - there's a clause that allows the US to terminate it if Mexico or Canada reach liberal trade agreements with certain third countries.

Pray tell, what do you think the US, India and China - or indeed any of the major economies - are going to do when you show up and ask for a deal? Play nice? Hate to break it to you, but all of them are going to go full bully mode. Some more politely than others.

Don't forget, for those outside the UK and EU, Brexit is an economic spoiler that will have some kind of negative impact on the global economy. None of them want that. And as far as everyone is concerned, the UK and EU negotiated and agreed a deal. If this falls through, the world will see it as the UK walking away from a deal it made. No more. And no less. That's what those foreign bureaucrats sitting across your negotiators will be thinking on 1 November. They're not going to play nice. They will prey on your weaknesses, which in a no deal scenario, might be a lot more acute than anyone dare admit.

Good luck.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yep if it was a marriage, the legal eagles would be calling it Battered woman syndrome

Switzerland has been actively pushing for this relationship but is trying to have it both ways: Enjoying all the benefits but not really committing to the corresponding obligations.

Not an entirely unfamiliar approach, but at some point the other partner may lose patience with that kind of charade.

It would be interesting to see all the details but is off topic for this thread

Feel free to open another thread outlining the position of both parties, would make for interesting reading maybe the debate would continue

A101 wrote:

It would be interesting to see all the details but is off topic for this thread

It's actually quite relevant to the UK once it has ratified the WA and thus may actually be able to negotiate for a future relationship (regardless whether now or after a damaging detour through no deal first: any future negotiation only goes through the WA).

Switzerland is hesitant to enter a more streamlined relationship with the EU in place of the tedious mass of separate bilaterals which the EU hates with a passion and wants gone for good.

And strict adherence to central EU financial market regulations is one element that's coming down the pipe and if Switzerland refuses to cooperate and tries to continue its regulation-dumping approach instead, that could trigger the Guillotine Clause chaining all the bilaterals together, destroying Switzerland's entire EU relationship in one fell swoop.

In other words: The UK can just forget about trying for that same approach and still wanting to have any future relationship with the EU.

Of course in the entire Brexit debacle UK politicians have chosen to almost completely ignore the fact that the UK is primarily dependent on its services sector, notably its financial services sector, but the Switzerland negotiations should concentrate some minds in Westminster, too – at least those who actually care a whit about the UK's economic future, if there are any left.