Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The question was remain or leave the EU, nothing about a deal.

You're extrapolating. We were told that this would be the easiest deal in history, that Britain holds all the cards and that German car manufacturers would force Brussels to cave.

Do you have evidence that this is "the will of the people"?

breezy1985

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nobody's asking them to criticise the UK. They're supposed to hold the government to account. If they're just going to act as mouthpieces then why am I having to pay a licence fee under thread of imprisonment?

And as for the "will of the people"? You're going to have to back that up if you think that's what Johnson is pushing. He has a mandate to get a deal, not crash out without one. Nobody voted for no deal. Being outside the single market and customs union never meant trading on WTO terms to most people.

Well then "most people" were stupid to believe the obvious crap coming out of the leave campaign. Plenty wanted hard Brexit but I agree no one wanted no deal but lots were deluded into thinking that the UK would match in and tell the EU how it was gonna be and get whatever it wanted.

And paying a TV license is not mandatory

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

The question was remain or leave the EU, nothing about a deal.

This is the real world.

The last 4 years have shown the inadequacy of that question, the rhetoric around it at the time of the referendum and the mistake in triggering Article 50 without knowing what would come next.

Would be like asking someone do they want to leave their job without them being aware that their ability to pay their mortgage and health insurance would be impacted by them doing so.

The UK have shone a light on their ineptitude at every level right from the promise to have such a referendum to Frost and Johnson standing looking completely amateurish beside and Von Der Leyen and Barnier earlier this week.

ancapailldorcha

breezy1985 wrote: »

Well then "most people" were stupid to believe the obvious crap coming out of the leave campaign. Plenty wanted hard Brexit but I agree no one wanted no deal but lots were deluded into thinking that the UK would match in and tell the EU how it was gonna be and get whatever it wanted.

And paying a TV license is not mandatory

He campaigned on the basis of securing a deal so that's what he has a mandate for.

The licence fee thing is off topic so I'm going any further on that.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The question was remain or leave the EU, nothing about a deal.

That's revisionist in the extreme. People voted based on what the side they voted for promised would happen.

The leave campaign promised a deal and a great deal at that!

looksee

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The BBC reckon the position of EU members has hardened (by not facilitating meetings with individual leaders) when in fact it hasn't changed...
Brexit: EU leaders close ranks as no-deal talk mounts

It's terrible how partisan the BBC have become

I have no great enthusiasm for the BBC these days, but I have just read that article and it seems balanced enough and reasonable in its discussion about individual leaders not meeting directly with the UK? What particular or alternative point would anyone have wished them to make? And the EU attitude towards 'sovereignty' is expressed in a pretty straightforward way. The article is not abusing Johnson or the government in any overt manner, but it isn't making excuses either.

Tell me how

SNIP.

In all seriousness, the UK hope to have such a meeting and the outcry that it was turned down shows just how much they dislike the European project. We are very lucky to have had strong leadership in the EU and responsible in the key countries that they have, thus far, rigidly stuck to the message that the EU Commission is negotiating on behalf of all countries.

Even Merkel and Macron entertaining Johnson in a private call would have been played off immediately as a weakness in EU solidarity.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1337485318690394113

Might cause a bit of an international situation with that one. Pity he has his comments turned off for it.

fly_agaric

Saw this also this evening

Four Royal Navy patrol ships will be ready from 1 January to help the UK protect its fishing waters in the event of a no-deal Brexit, in a deployment evoking memories of the “cod wars” in the 1970s.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/11/four-navy-ships-to-help-protect-uk-waters-in-case-of-no-deal-brexit

May be an exaggerated/hyped up story from the Guardian (?) but it is all so predictable + exactly what you'd expect from this UK government. Assuming there'll be nothing in place for 1 Jan and that will be causing problems for UK business & joe public, they'll need some sort of victory to crow about. Turn to the fish again!

CelticRambler

Perhaps they could bring that aircraft carrier back home again - docked in Folkestone, it'd make a very good lorry park, complete with working toilets. :rolleyes:

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

Perhaps they could bring that aircraft carrier back home again - docked in Folkestone, it'd make a very good lorry park, complete with working toilets. :rolleyes:

But it is full of American service men and their aircraft. Would they be left out foreign, or maybe drop them off at Guam on the way home.

Hermy

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1337485318690394113

Might cause a bit of an international situation with that one. Pity he has his comments turned off for it.

In the event of a No Deal Brexit would I be right in saying French trawlers will be the least of their worries.

beerguts

I have a fear that the UK will double down on Ireland again after the transition ends. The current UK government have shown that they have no qualms with false spin, petty threats and intimidation. When they get further into the **** in the new year Gove, Johnson and the rest of the gob****es will be hyping up the flag waving unionists once more into a frenzy pointing the finger at the Republic for all the separation that the sea border creates as some secret republican plot. The Northern unionist is like a battered wife in thinking that the UK has changed and this time they really care for them.
When chimps (UK Gov) get frustrated they tend to fling there **** around for a while and attack who they perceive as weak until they calm down and come to there senses.

Rrrrrr2

Tell me how wrote: »

SNIP.

In all seriousness, the UK hope to have such a meeting and the outcry that it was turned down shows just how much they dislike the European project. We are very lucky to have had strong leadership in the EU and responsible in the key countries that they have, thus far, rigidly stuck to the message that the EU Commission is negotiating on behalf of all countries.

Even Merkel and Macron entertaining Johnson in a private call would have been played off immediately as a weakness in EU solidarity.

Hell will freeze over now before they off message and chat to BoJo separately- there’s literally nothing to be gained from it for the EU side.
Actually quite looking forward to their meddling fade away- ni doubt they’ll be sticking their noses in elsewhere- such as their eagerness to join the Asia Pacific partnership (another little huff move) - I’m sure those countries will be thrilled to have them

ForestFire

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1337485318690394113

Might cause a bit of an international situation with that one. Pity he has his comments turned off for it.

Confused... Why would British navel ships protect Poland's fishing waters from France??....... :-)

P. S. Not really confused... ;-)

Capt'n Midnight

fly_agaric wrote: »

Saw this also this evening

Four Royal Navy patrol ships will be ready from 1 January to help the UK protect its fishing waters in the event of a no-deal Brexit, in a deployment evoking memories of the “cod wars” in the 1970s.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/11/four-navy-ships-to-help-protect-uk-waters-in-case-of-no-deal-brexit

The UK lost three "cod wars" because they thought they held all the cards.

Even though it was the middle of the Cold War and not upsetting Iceland was important.
The "special relationship" card was about as much use back then as it has been in Brexit.

Rrrrrr2

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1337485318690394113

Might cause a bit of an international situation with that one. Pity he has his comments turned off for it.

Pathetic incendiary brexit language- but nothing new, they revel in this stuff. Shrewsbury too, they well known fishing metropolis in the middle of Shropshire near the welsh border

ancapailldorcha

ForestFire wrote: »

Confused... Why would British navel ships protect Poland's fishing waters from France??....... :-)

P. S. Not really confused... ;-)

Nothing to do with Poland. He's a British MP of Polish decent.

It's posturing, plain and simple. I wouldn't have given it a second look. The UK is burning its vast reserves of soft power in exchange for a meagre supply of hard power.

Junkyard Tom

beerguts wrote: »

I have a fear that the UK will double down on Ireland again after the transition ends.

Yeah it's a bit scary alright but I think their hands will be full with Scotland.

beerguts

ForestFire wrote: »

Confused... Why would British navel ships protect Poland's fishing waters from France??....... :-)

P. S. Not really confused... ;-)

More to the point the French Navy is larger than the Royal Navy today. So I doubt even if there was a remote possibility of a confrontation/conflict between them that it would turn out well for John Bull.


OH! What I would give to read the DailyFail Headlines after that potential **** show.


- OUR BRAVE BOYS let down by Red commie SNP supporting Shipyard builders.
- Jocks will pay dearly for letting down Britannia
- Meaghan Markle seen eating croissant. The newest betrayal of the Queen

Capt'n Midnight

ForestFire wrote: »

Confused... Why would British navel ships protect Poland's fishing waters from France??....... :-)

P. S. Not really confused... ;-)

"to prevent illegal French fishing in our waters" what a complete non-statement. Because they should always have been preventing illegal fishing.

The real question is what will be illegal now given that French fishermen have rights that predate the EU and English scallop fishermen are kinda screwed if the French block access to their coastal waters.

And we might know by Sunday night, if the heavens align.

Hurrache

Gintonious wrote: »

Might cause a bit of an international situation with that one. Pity he has his comments turned off for it.

He's being tweeting like this a long time now. He can't handle criticism or corrections of his lies so he sets them as being non replyable.

AutoTuning

The Daily Mail and Express are both leading with threats to send in gunboats.

https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/1337525409852878850

You couldn't make this stuff up. Its like Brass Eye.

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nothing to do with Poland. He's a British MP of Polish decent.

It's posturing, plain and simple. I wouldn't have given it a second look. The UK is burning its vast reserves of soft power in exchange for a meagre supply of hard power.

I wonder wher they think they will sell the fish caught in British waters?

It's unfortunate that the next election is so far off in the UK. The tories could easily dig in after a no-deal and refuse any compromise with the EU for years while the rest of the UK suffers. Them and their backers will be well insulated from the hardship that will be caused.

AutoTuning

beerguts wrote: »

I have a fear that the UK will double down on Ireland again after the transition ends. The current UK government have shown that they have no qualms with false spin, petty threats and intimidation. When they get further into the **** in the new year Gove, Johnson and the rest of the gob****es will be hyping up the flag waving unionists once more into a frenzy pointing the finger at the Republic for all the separation that the sea border creates as some secret republican plot. The Northern unionist is like a battered wife in thinking that the UK has changed and this time they really care for them.
When chimps (UK Gov) get frustrated they tend to fling there **** around for a while and attack who they perceive as weak until they calm down and come to there senses.

Which would have serious diplomatic and trade consequences with the United States and with the EU. It doesn't mean they wouldn't try it anyway though. However, it would mean no US trade deal.

Approved User Assesment

Perhaps a bad omen for Boris, someone in France has won 200m euro on the Euromillion jackpot. Can only imagine the amount of tickets bought tonight in the uk for this big ticket event.

Assume they can still play after Jan 1st, the Swiss play, but they also tax winners at 30%.

20silkcut

looksee wrote: »

I have no great enthusiasm for the BBC these days, but I have just read that article and it seems balanced enough and reasonable in its discussion about individual leaders not meeting directly with the UK? What particular or alternative point would anyone have wished them to make? And the EU attitude towards 'sovereignty' is expressed in a pretty straightforward way. The article is not abusing Johnson or the government in any overt manner, but it isn't making excuses either.

The article says :

“Brexit happened but rules didn't change at once: The UK left the European Union on 31 January 2020, but leaders needed time to negotiate a deal for life afterwards - they got 11 months.”

Are they for real???

The U.K. chose that itself. The U.K. refused to extend the transition period.

Reading that it implies that the EU gave the poor old U.K. 11 months to do a deal.
The EU would-have given the U.K. all the time it wants in a transition period in which to conclude a deal.
But the U.K. refused that.
And they had the perfect cover of the pandemic to justify such an extension.
But they didn’t do it. They chose 11 months to do the deal.

They should be reminded of this at every turn.
This is self inflicted.
This is their deadline.
What more can anyone do?

looksee

20silkcut wrote: »

The article says :

“Brexit happened but rules didn't change at once: The UK left the European Union on 31 January 2020, but leaders needed time to negotiate a deal for life afterwards - they got 11 months.”

Are they for real???

The U.K. chose that itself. The U.K. refused to extend the transition period.

Reading that it implies that the EU gave the poor old U.K. 11 months to do a deal.
The EU would-have given the U.K. all the time it wants in a transition period in which to conclude a deal.
But the U.K. refused that.
And they had the perfect cover of the pandemic to justify such an extension.
But they didn’t do it. They chose 11 months to do the deal.

They should be reminded of this at every turn.
This is self inflicted.
This is their deadline.
What more can anyone do?

Agreed, though it could be read either way - 'that's all they got' or 'how much more could they want?' However I agree with your specific argument. I was disputing the fact that on the whole the article was not the red-top jingoistic nonsense that a couple of posters appeared to be suggesting it was. On the whole, while being an opinion published by the state broadcaster, it was not the outrageous propaganda, or deluded rhetoric of most of the main players in government.

The whole situation is totally absurd and beyond defence without negatively interpreting, in a somewhat derisory, sensationalist tone, a generally reasonable article. In doing that the credibility of this discussion is undermined, which was the main point I was making.

ElJeffe

48hrs until they are gone thankfully.

Hermy

ElJeffe wrote: »

48hrs until they are gone thankfully.

Except they won't be gone, will they?

They'll still be our neighbours and we'll still have to deal with them for better or worse.