Brexit discussion thread II

ArthurDayne

Enzokk wrote: »

His ability to cause chaos is impressive. He is breaking all the rules he can to get fired now, but Theresa May wouldn't want him to miss the Brexit party. So either she breaks the rules and ignore his indiscretions and allow him to share the Brexit outcome, or she gives him what he wants. It is now a car crash inside a car crash.

His indiscretions are part of a recurring Tory habit in recent years toward which the British people have shown remarkable patience; party in-fighting being allowed to materially dictate the course of the nation's future. The Brexit referendum was ill-thought and poorly planned, which was precisely because it was only ever meant to be a device to placate / silence the Eurosceptics and settle the Tory identity crisis for another generation. Once it backfired, the in-fighting began again with Cameron huffing off in resignation, the backstabbing of Boris by Gove, who was then himself stabbed in the front by the Tory cabinet before eventually reconciling.

Even now with Brexit, the product of their in-fighting, they face internal discord over what Brexit actually means. Their latest internal conflicts have rendered the whole issue even more confusing than it was before the referendum (ah yes, those heady days of 'activating Article 50 the next day' and 'nothing could be easier') and now one man's Brexit is another man's betrayal.

The question is, how long will it take the British electorate to wake up to the reality that their interests, livelihoods and the very future of the nation itself are constantly being tossed around and clawed at by a pack of bickering Oxbridge graduates? I seem to recall a time when voting Leave was claimed to be vote against the establishment -- rather than a free pass for the elite to treat the UK as some sort of private commodity of their own, to be shaped to their own nostalgic liking.

Indeed, all governments have in-fighting which affects their integrity and efficacy. But the Tories have willfully allowed their conflict to spill over across the nation, affect its constitutional status, toss its economy to the wind with no plan and above all treat the British people as complete and utter fools.

One wonders if a different Labour leader would have been more vocal in wiping the floor with the Tories for all of the above . . .

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't agree that the peace process is predicated on the EU. I think this is manipulative.

Of course I love the UK to bits. Many of the people I care about the most live here. I don't have massive national sentiment to anything. I think it's a great country to live in and it's a place with great opportunity. Despite the tosh from Jim2007 implying that it is heaving with racists I've seen very little evidence of this in practice.

The UK has made a decision in respect to leaving a bloc that wasn't working for it. There's no reason for animosity. People just need to grow up and accept the self-determination of others. That's what this is essentially about. Regaining control at a national level.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't believe you that you don't have a British nationalist streak running through you. You are vehemently opposed to the Irish customs border being pushed back to the Irish sea, even if it might work as a practical solution. Why are you opposed to this "imaginative" solution other than on a point of principle?

You expect the EU to respect the UK's red lines but say the EU is stubborn and inflexible when it does the same. You can't have it both ways.

The UK is completely free to just walk away from the EU tomorrow. It's not the EU that is requesting the UK's presence at the negotiations! A50 has a hard deadline which mostly affects the UK.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

I don't believe you that you don't have a British nationalist streak running through you. You are vehemently opposed to the Irish customs border being pushed back to the Irish sea, even if it might work as a practical solution. Why are you opposed to this "imaginative" solution other than on a point of principle?

You expect the EU to respect the UK's red lines but say the EU is stubborn and inflexible when it does the same. You can't have it both ways.

The UK is completely free to just walk away from the EU tomorrow. It's not the EU that is requesting the UK's presence at the negotiations! A50 has a hard deadline which mostly affects the UK.

Good evening!

I'm afraid if you're looking for a British nationalist streak, it'd be hard to find. I've only got Irish citizenship :pac:

But look, if you want to call me a West Brit for the intent of this discussion by all means, I couldn't care less.

A border between one part of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and the rest of the United Kingdom isn't workable. Particularly given that the majority of Northern Ireland's trade is with the rest of the UK.

This is why we need to see compromise from both parties to resolve it. I suspect we'll end up with a Norway - Sweden customs model with a designated number of crossing points for lorries post-transition.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

Back to what we had for a long time, a porous border, in reality. Lot of lads back in business.

The Rape of Lucretia

Water John wrote: »

Back to what we had for a long time, a porous border, in reality. Lot of lads back in business.

'Lads' will be an insignificant drop in the ocean in that scenario. An acceptable price to pay possibly. If its only Eire-NI traffic nobody will really care. If it a gateway to the UK in volumes that affects economics, then it wont happen.
There just isnt a neat solution to this one. All options are variations of far-from-perfect.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

A border between one part of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and the rest of the United Kingdom isn't workable. Particularly given that the majority of Northern Ireland's trade is with the rest of the UK.

Lots of things can be claimed to be unworkable. But there are degrees. Many would argue that an EU-UK border on the NI border is even more unworkable.

Bottom line - something's gotta give. Something pretty big, given the chasms that need to be bridged. The UK can't keep refusing to budge on all their so-called red lines and expect to make any progress with talks with the EU.

mickoneill31

What happens if the NI border question isn't resolved before Brexit and the UK is unable to find a solution. Does it fall back to the EU (i.e. Ireland) to impose control over the border. We won't have much of a choice will we or am I missing something?

I'm under no illusions on who the UK (and some posters in this thread) will claim is to blame but I think that's just going to be par for the course for the next couple of decades. Anything bad that happens to the UK in the future will be the fault of the EU because the EU didn't bend over when the UK asked.

Beechwoodspark

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm afraid if you're looking for a British nationalist streak, it'd be hard to find. I've only got Irish citizenship :pac:

But look, if you want to call me a West Brit for the intent of this discussion by all means, I couldn't care less.

A border between one part of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and the rest of the United Kingdom isn't workable. Particularly given that the majority of Northern Ireland's trade is with the rest of the UK.

This is why we need to see compromise from both parties to resolve it. I suspect we'll end up with a Norway - Sweden customs model with a designated number of crossing points for lorries post-transition.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What rubbish.

A border between the north and the rest of the uk is the most practical solution to this mess caused by Brexit and yes, it would be workable.

There can be no return to a border on the island of Ireland. Simples.

Nate--IRL--

mickoneill31 wrote: »

What happens if the NI border question isn't resolved before Brexit and the UK is unable to find a solution. Does it fall back to the EU (i.e. Ireland) to impose control over the border. We won't have much of a choice will we or am I missing something?

In that case there is no customs compatibility between the 2 entities - therefore a customs border is required.

Nate

Gerry T

mickoneill31 wrote:

What happens if the NI border question isn't resolved before Brexit and the UK is unable to find a solution. Does it fall back to the EU (i.e. Ireland) to impose control over the border. We won't have much of a choice will we or am I missing something?

I think IRL will have to set up border posts to protect EU. The UK will do like wise down the road.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

swampgas wrote: »

Lots of things can be claimed to be unworkable. But there are degrees. Many would argue that an EU-UK border on the NI border is even more unworkable.

Bottom line - something's gotta give. Something pretty big, given the chasms that need to be bridged. The UK can't keep refusing to budge on all their so-called red lines and expect to make any progress with talks with the EU.

Perhaps you're witnessing a different negotiation to the one I'm seeing.

I've seen a lot of reasonable compromises proposed by the British government. I've seen movement on all three issues from Davis. For example continuing contributions for transition, joint arbitration, rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon, customs partnership in the border, free travel for EU citizens into the UK. I could probably even list more.

I've not seen any form of movement from Brussels on anything however. This will need to change if we're to see a good outcome.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

What rubbish.

A border between the north and the rest of the uk is the most practical solution to this mess caused by Brexit and yes, it would be workable.

There can be no return to a border on the island of Ireland. Simples.

It really isn't rubbish to say that a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another wouldn't be acceptable in either Northern Ireland or mainland Britain.

I also agree with you that a hard border isn't something I want. A solution to this is possible but it does require EU buy in. Unfortunately given the uncompromising mood in Brussels the best I can see is a Norway - Sweden model and that's if a deal can be reached at all.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

ArthurDayne wrote: »

His indiscretions are part of a recurring Tory habit in recent years toward which the British people have shown remarkable patience; party in-fighting being allowed to materially dictate the course of the nation's future. The Brexit referendum was ill-thought and poorly planned, which was precisely because it was only ever meant to be a device to placate / silence the Eurosceptics and settle the Tory identity crisis for another generation. Once it backfired, the in-fighting began again with Cameron huffing off in resignation, the backstabbing of Boris by Gove, who was then himself stabbed in the front by the Tory cabinet before eventually reconciling.

Even now with Brexit, the product of their in-fighting, they face internal discord over what Brexit actually means. Their latest internal conflicts have rendered the whole issue even more confusing than it was before the referendum (ah yes, those heady days of 'activating Article 50 the next day' and 'nothing could be easier') and now one man's Brexit is another man's betrayal.

The question is, how long will it take the British electorate to wake up to the reality that their interests, livelihoods and the very future of the nation itself are constantly being tossed around and clawed at by a pack of bickering Oxbridge graduates? I seem to recall a time when voting Leave was claimed to be vote against the establishment -- rather than a free pass for the elite to treat the UK as some sort of private commodity of their own, to be shaped to their own nostalgic liking.

Indeed, all governments have in-fighting which affects their integrity and efficacy. But the Tories have willfully allowed their conflict to spill over across the nation, affect its constitutional status, toss its economy to the wind with no plan and above all treat the British people as complete and utter fools.

One wonders if a different Labour leader would have been more vocal in wiping the floor with the Tories for all of the above . . .

You have to wonder if any other Labour leader would have been able to re-invigorate the base as much as Jeremy Corbyn could have. Would a more centrist candidate have won even 200 seats in the election? I think, and by no means have I been a fervent Corbyn fan even if his policies makes sense to me, that the mainstream media and commentators are underestimating him and the movement he has started in the party.

Yes there are still people that are so against him as a person, but once they look at what they have had for 7 years and the results of the Tories in that time they have to look in more detail at the opposition. Once they do that they actually realise its not so bad and not too far from my thinking. If you ever want to see how the media has influenced people just look at Question Time. The rubbish that the audience believe is straight from the tabloids.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps you're witnessing a different negotiation to the one I'm seeing.

I've seen a lot of reasonable compromises proposed by the British government. I've seen movement on all three issues from Davis. For example continuing contributions for transition, joint arbitration, rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon, customs partnership in the border, free travel for EU citizens into the UK. I could probably even list more.

I've not seen any form of movement from Brussels on anything however. This will need to change if we're to see a good outcome.

It really isn't rubbish to say that a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another wouldn't be acceptable in either Northern Ireland or mainland Britain.

I also agree with you that a hard border isn't something I want. A solution to this is possible but it does require EU buy in. Unfortunately given the uncompromising mood in Brussels the best I can see is a Norway - Sweden model and that's if a deal can be reached at all.

First off there has been no negotiation from the EU because the UK cannot keep to the timetable they agreed on. So I don't know what shifts you are looking for from the EU.

Secondly, you are so very much into the idea that the vote must be honored, but NI voted to stay in the EU. So why is the right of the people of England more important than those in NI, especially when a solution is there to sort of honour their vote? If the border was on the sea it would mean a lot more for peace than anything else proposed so far.

I don't see how you keep to the red lines from the UK and not have a border. You haven't properly explained how the UK is able to take back control of their borders if there is no border between the Ireland and NI. There is no perfect solution, but the one with the least amount of problems attached to it, for mist other than the government of the UK, is to have the border on the sea. Too bad we will not have that because the UK is beholden to the DUP. Another great decision from Theresa May.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

A border between one part of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and the rest of the United Kingdom isn't workable. Particularly given that the majority of Northern Ireland's trade is with the rest of the UK.

Why isn't it workable ?

NI like Scotland already has lots of devolved powers. Separate organisations for policing, different laws. It means that instead of having crossing points every 2Km you now only have to look at ports and airports.

This is why we need to see compromise from both parties to resolve it. I suspect we'll end up with a Norway - Sweden customs model with a designated number of crossing points for lorries post-transition.

How does the EU or RoI benefit from this ??


You'll also have to explain how the Scandinavian model could work , they have delays of 8 minutes in each direction. Today you can cross the border at the speed limit.

And as I've already pointed out that model depends on a joint jurisdiction up to 15Km from the Border. To allow that would be political suicide for any politician involved.

Here's an idea of the scale involved.
http://www.factcheckni.org/facts/do-30000-people-cross-ireland-northern-ireland-border-daily/

People cross the border for many reasons, not just to work. On 8th February 2017, NRA traffic data records 24,317 vehicles crossing the border at Jonesborough [Newry], and a further 7,849 vehicles crossing at Burnfoot [Derry-Londonderry] – and these are just two of the many border crossings. Of course people also use other forms of transport; cross-border train journey AADT averaged 2,300 per day in the year 2013-2014.”

Of course it's now up to you to prove that more people travel by sea and air from NI to the UK , especially now that Ryanair have cancelled flights.

The real border crossings that a Hard Brexit will force aren't cheap, which is why the UK is in denial.
Remember that 24,317 vehicles a day ? The US has just spent $741 million on an upgrade to a crossing with twice that volume.

If the border to the north has problems the EU may impose customs screening on our exports to the EU. For Ireland the logic is very simple, we do more trade with the rest of the EU than with NI so we'd have to lockdown the north.


Yes I can remember the old crossings , no one wants those back, but May & co. are making it happen :mad:

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've seen a lot of reasonable compromises proposed by the British government. I've seen movement on all three issues from Davis.

Surely the above statements undermine anything you have posted in this forum.
I dont think Davis or the Brit Govt, or even hardline pro-Brexiters would claim that compromises have been proposed let alone made (they are trying many tactics, but compromise is not one of them).

Was this a miscue ? Or do you seriously think so? It smacks very strongly of blind pro UK govt flag waving, or more realistically, of obtuse provocation.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

First off there has been no negotiation from the EU because the UK cannot keep to the timetable they agreed on. So I don't know what shifts you are looking for from the EU.

Secondly, you are so very much into the idea that the vote must be honored, but NI voted to stay in the EU. So why is the right of the people of England more important than those in NI, especially when a solution is there to sort of honour their vote? If the border was on the sea it would mean a lot more for peace than anything else proposed so far.

I don't see how you keep to the red lines from the UK and not have a border. You haven't properly explained how the UK is able to take back control of their borders if there is no border between the Ireland and NI. There is no perfect solution, but the one with the least amount of problems attached to it, for mist other than the government of the UK, is to have the border on the sea. Too bad we will not have that because the UK is beholden to the DUP. Another great decision from Theresa May.

Good evening!

Firstly - tripe. The UK has compromised significantly on all three issues. If "sufficient progress" means 100% conformance to the EU's negotiating guidelines then it's a rat and it's unreasonable.

Secondly - unless the constitutional status of Northern Ireland changes all national referenda are voted on as a whole United Kingdom (Wales also voted out). It's time to put aside the whinging and get on with it.

Thirdly - I've explained employment checks for checking work visas to you on many occasions. To claim I haven't is simply lying. You can read the posts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Firstly - tripe. The UK has compromised significantly on all three issues. If "sufficient progress" means 100% conformance to the EU's negotiating guidelines then it's a rat and it's unreasonable.

On all three issues, you see the opening positions as having been.....
And the current compromise positions as .....

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - unless the constitutional status of Northern Ireland changes all national referenda are voted on as a whole United Kingdom (Wales also voted out). It's time to put aside the whinging and get on with it.

Thirdly - I've explained employment checks for checking work visas to you on many occasions. To claim I haven't is simply lying. You can read the posts.

I think the UK and NI has a mechanism that can make this work. Or is gay marriage and abortion legal in NI all of a sudden? So there can be a imaginative and flexible solution? Or does that only count for the EU side, you know where the UK has red lines and the solution from the EU needs to be flexible around these?

You have explained one way that will not sit with the UK population that doesn't want foreigners, that's you, in the country. There has been many examples where people employ illegal workers so the solution to stop people coming into the UK is to stop them at a border. You really don't get this do you?

I hope you can answer the previous post about where you see the initial lines and the compromises that the UK have proposed so far.

flutered

murphaph wrote: »

Johnson is trying to get fired so he can heckle from the backbenches rather than be in the frontline as Brexit implodes. He knows he can't square these circles. He wants somebody else holding the baby when it all goes pear shaped.

he wants to be in the same position as farage, who has said if thing go bad in the uk he will toddle off somewhere else, as he has the funding to do so, bojo in goverment has to stay if things start to stink, out of goverment he can leave

flutered

Water John wrote: »

For all Boris watchers, a docu on Channel 4 tomorrow night.
Boris starts reciting Kypling in a Buddist Temple in Myanmar. Ambassador has to stop the fool.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/boris-johnson-caught-on-camera-reciting-kipling-in-myanmar-temple

This should be priceless. Hopes it sinks him.

a crap never sinks it just floats

Gerry T

Solo ^^^ the UK has made no progress on all items, the North or settlement. They have proposed nothing, nothing that's workable. Saying their leaving and proposing an open border is what a 8yr old would say. Saying their leaving but propose free trade is another 8yr old thinking. When will someone with an inkling of intelligence step up and start negioations

Inquitus

Gerry T wrote: »

Solo ^^^ the UK has made no progress on all items, the North or settlement. They have proposed nothing, nothing that's workable. Saying their leaving and proposing an open border is what a 8yr old would say. Saying their leaving but propose free trade is another 8yr old thinking. When will someone with an inkling of intelligence step up and start negioations

Agreed the UK has done nothing of note, and provided absolutely no commitments on the 3 areas that are remotely close to what is needed or acceptable. Solo just spouts his pro Brexit diatribe repeating himself ad nauseam, much like Boris does, none of it is credible.

Lemming

Still waiting for solo to respond to earlier posters questions regards the Boeing carry-on and precedents that it would appear to set for any future US/UK relationship (or indeed the UK and any large trading nations), and the revelations regarding UK exports once gold being removed from the country by international investors has been taken away from the figures.

Tick tock and all that.

listermint

Gerry T wrote: »

Solo ^^^ the UK has made no progress on all items, the North or settlement. They have proposed nothing, nothing that's workable. Saying their leaving and proposing an open border is what a 8yr old would say. Saying their leaving but propose free trade is another 8yr old thinking. When will someone with an inkling of intelligence step up and start negioations

Sure solo refuses to discuss a huge employer in Northern Ireland who appears to be in the process of being put out of business by an import taxation policy by their brexit buddies America.

This is one of the country's solo was at pains to tell us all that they will increase trade with and can stand shoulder to shoulder.

Except in this new reality Britian is a small child and the US is Shaq. No shoulder to shoulder nothing of the sort.

Im still awaiting solos view on this matter because it's vitally important example of everything that he is indicating will be better post brexit.


Solo.... Over to you

Beechwoodspark

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!



Perhaps you're witnessing a different negotiation to the one I'm seeing.

I've seen a lot of reasonable compromises proposed by the British government. I've seen movement on all three issues from Davis. For example continuing contributions for transition, joint arbitration, rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon, customs partnership in the border, free travel for EU citizens into the UK. I could probably even list more.

I've not seen any form of movement from Brussels on anything however. This will need to change if we're to see a good outcome.



It really isn't rubbish to say that a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another wouldn't be acceptable in either Northern Ireland or mainland Britain.

I also agree with you that a hard border isn't something I want. A solution to this is possible but it does require EU buy in. Unfortunately given the uncompromising mood in Brussels the best I can see is a Norway - Sweden model and that's if a deal can be reached at all.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The roi has set out its position. No border on the island of Ireland.

What the uk does internally is its own business.

"Much thanks" (?!?)

The Rape of Lucretia

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The roi has set out its position. No border on the island of Ireland.

What the uk does internally is its own business.

The UK could put an border on the island of Ireland as its own internal business if it wanted. And there is nothing Eire could do about it.

Inquitus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The UK could put an border on the Ireland of Ireland as its own internal business if it wanted. And there is nothing Eire could do about it.

They can and they'll have to collapse under the weight of the economic disaster a no deal Brexit will be.

Beechwoodspark

Inquitus wrote: »

They can and they'll have to collapse under the weight of the economic disaster a no deal Brexit will be.

If the UK unilaterally went ahead with imposing a border they would have huge, huge problems. For one thing, ROI could veto the Brexit negotiation outcome. UK Would be turfed out of the EU with no deal. Their economy would tank. Their worst nightmare.

Also The troubles would be back with a vengeance in NI in all likelihood.

It won't happen

kingchess

Lemming wrote: »

Still waiting for solo to respond to earlier posters questions regards the Boeing carry-on and precedents that it would appear to set for any future US/UK relationship (or indeed the UK and any large trading nations), and the revelations regarding UK exports once gold being removed from the country by international investors has been taken away from the figures.

Tick tock and all that.

Well, from reading the opinions expressed by those who read the tabloid rags the whole world is ready to sign a trade deal once the UK walks away from the EU,.if some fool told them that the likes of Siam,Mesopotamia,and Ceylon are ready to sign , the tabloid readers would be overjoyed ..:cool:

Junkyard Tom

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Also The troubles would be back with a vengeance in NI in all likelihood.

Republicans should stay well away from any kind of trouble. Unionist politicians and the British are doing an excellent job of making a case for a UI without the need for Republicans/Nationalists to do anything. Someone wrote that [paraphrasing] the final fight for keeping the northeast of Ireland in the UK will be between Irish Unionists and English nationalists, let it be that.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - tripe. The UK has compromised significantly on all three issues.

Normally haggling works with one side making a low offer and the other one a high one with the assumption that both meet in somewhere near the middle.

This presupposes that both sides make somewhat realistic offers.

The EU set the linking of the four freedoms as red lines a very long time ago.

The red lines Boris set are impossible.
Look at what Turkey had to accept to get customs union.

The fact that Boris still has a job means that May doesn't have real power or doesn't want a real deal. Either way the UK's Brexit hand has weakened considerably.

prinzeugen

I think May is playing a clever game.

She is attempting to negotiate, offering to pay part of "the bill" etc.

But the EU? No, No, No.

What I can see happening is the UK will walk without any agreement and it wont be the UK's fault.

It will be the fault of the EU.

When it happens the UK government can turn round and say "we tried but they were not interested".

Enzokk

prinzeugen wrote: »

I think May is playing a clever game.

She is attempting to negotiate, offering to pay part of "the bill" etc.

But the EU? No, No, No.

What I can see happening is the UK will walk without any agreement and it wont be the UK's fault.

It will be the fault of the EU.

When it happens the UK government can turn round and say "we tried but they were not interested".

Well the problem for us is this is not a game. It is not a game when the economy tanks and jobs are lost again. Or when we have to suffer another round of wage cuts. So while she and her fellow parliamentarians play their games to stay in power their voters suffer.

I also think it doesn't matter how it turns out it will be the EU's fault in any case. The only way it would not be the EU's fault is if they give the UK single market access, be part of the customs union and allow them to control immigration and negotiate their own trade deals while enjoying the EU trade deals, while not paying anything to the EU at all and having no ECJ oversight in anything they do with the EU. So either way the EU will be at fault, may as well have something to be blamed for, i.e. look out for the EU and not the UK when it eventually comes to the negotiations.

Roanmore

prinzeugen wrote: »

I think May is playing a clever game.

She is attempting to negotiate, offering to pay part of "the bill" etc.

But the EU? No, No, No.

What I can see happening is the UK will walk without any agreement and it wont be the UK's fault.

It will be the fault of the EU.

When it happens the UK government can turn round and say "we tried but they were not interested".

How is that clever? They get no deal. It doesn't matter if they blame the EU, they'll have no deal. What's clever about that?

flatty

There's nothing clever about any of it. The only calculation for those at the sharp end, is how to grab the reins, and hang onto them.
It's a modern day game of thrones, one where the peasantry matter just as much.

murphaph

Roanmore wrote: »

How is that clever? They get no deal. It doesn't matter if they blame the EU, they'll have no deal. What's clever about that?

Prinz Eugen is obviously another one who thinks a deal is as important to the EU as it is to the UK. You have to realise that it's actually going to take economic Armageddon for these people to realise the truth.

Nody

prinzeugen wrote: »

When it happens the UK government can turn round and say "we tried but they were not interested".

And here is how the businesses will respond.

CEO AztraZeneca wrote:

Moving manufacturing takes several years. The likelihood of us moving in to the EU is high in that case (hard Brexit),

You see the businesses don't give a damn about the game and who wins or losses; they need a deal or they are out of there and the Tories can stand around crying how unfair it is all they want. That is why EU has the upper hand over UK in the negotiations; no deal they get more companies coming over, deal and they get less interruption in existing export. However for UK it's no deal and the businesses leave, deal and only some of the business leaves.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Prinz Eugen is obviously another one who thinks a deal is as important to the EU as it is to the UK. You have to realise that it's actually going to take economic Armageddon for these people to realise the truth.

Sounds like the guy shouting on Question Time on Thursday 'They need us more than we need them'.

Time is almost here when they get to prove that and bring it on at this stage imo.

I think they will, one way or another, do us all a favour.

If they fail, and the economy goes to hell in a handcart, we can all redouble our efforts and make the EU work much better or if they do indeed succeed, we can reassess if the EU is worth the compromises and team playing.

First Up

prinzeugen wrote:

When it happens the UK government can turn round and say "we tried but they were not interested".

Hard to fit all that on a gravestone.

Beechwoodspark

May was pretty unconvincing on Andrew Marr just now. Deflection and distraction throughout.

Capt'n Midnight

prinzeugen wrote: »

I think May is playing a clever game..

It's not clever if everyone can see that's what's being done and has been saying so since day one.

Clever would be making it look like you are really trying for a deal and then getting stuck on a single point, somehow related to sovereignty, right at the very end. This has been a car crash, yes the EU would like the UK to pay, but it doesn't depend on those payments. Yes the German car-makers would love to sell cars but UK sales are already down and in the grand scheme of things having the EU break up would be far far worse. Also the loss in profits is dwarfed by emissions scandal costs.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

And here is how the businesses will respond.

You see the businesses don't give a damn about the game and who wins or losses; they need a deal or they are out of there and the Tories can stand around crying how unfair it is all they want. That is why EU has the upper hand over UK in the negotiations; no deal they get more companies coming over, deal and they get less interruption in existing export. However for UK it's no deal and the businesses leave, deal and only some of the business leaves.

Many call centres and web hosting sites already divert operations to offshore hubs when they don't have the capacity in the UK.

Lots of service jobs are in sectors with minimal investment in capital. The buildings are leased. They can walk away next time it's up for renewal.

At the other extreme are the likes of Intel who have massive capital investment but, they have to reinvest hugely every few years as technology moves on. So they don't need to spend much extra to change countries as they will have to build a completely new production line anyway. Yes having a skilled workforce helps , but so does a free flowing supply chain.

It's only the middle that is tied to the UK, older industries where technology doesn't change much. But they are the ones that may be at risk from global competition. Heavy industry.

Samaris

Those heavy industries, would they be the sort that Trump is focussed on having back up and running in the US?

Capt'n Midnight

Samaris wrote: »

Those heavy industries, would they be the sort that Trump is focussed on having back up and running in the US?

Isn't Trump the guy who's happy about slapping a 220% tariff on products from their closest neighbour that they have a free trade deal with ?

Sam Russell

Samaris wrote: »

Those heavy industries, would they be the sort that Trump is focussed on having back up and running in the US?

Are they not the industries closed by Margaret Thatcher - ship building, coal, steel, and car building.

Cars are now assembled by foreign owned companies. Steel is owned by Tata, an Indian owned company. Ship building is only carried out for the British Government for their very expensive aircraft carriers.

So what's left?

Tropheus

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

May was pretty unconvincing on Andrew Marr just now. Deflection and distraction throughout.

Nothing new there.

steddyeddy

May is useless but what's the alternative? Mogg or Johnson? Two men who couldn't be more out of touch with how life works in the real world.

Nody

steddyeddy wrote: »

May is useless but what's the alternative? Mogg or Johnson? Two men who couldn't be more out of touch with how life works in the real world.

I can't recall who said it in regards to the leadership battle but it's not the candidates we know today that will sweep it but one of the 50:1 candidates and I tend to agree. You've exactly pointed out why that has to be the case; none of the current "short list" candidates are up to scrap; they need someone new at the top with a new vision or they will face a harsh response at the next election.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

I can't recall who said it in regards to the leadership battle but it's not the candidates we know today that will sweep it but one of the 50:1 candidates and I tend to agree. You've exactly pointed out why that has to be the case; none of the current "short list" candidates are up to scrap; they need someone new at the top with a new vision or they will face a harsh response at the next election.

You mean like Corbyn? Labour have revitalised behind him.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

May is useless but what's the alternative? Mogg or Johnson? Two men who couldn't be more out of touch with how life works in the real world.

I'd be delighted if either became leader of the Tories.

solodeogloria

prinzeugen wrote: »

I think May is playing a clever game.

She is attempting to negotiate, offering to pay part of "the bill" etc.

But the EU? No, No, No.

What I can see happening is the UK will walk without any agreement and it wont be the UK's fault.

It will be the fault of the EU.

When it happens the UK government can turn round and say "we tried but they were not interested".

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria