O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[rolymiller]

I'll do you a deal you answer my question then i will answer yours. Fair?

[KerrAvon]

I'll do you a deal you answer my question then i will answer yours. Fair?

No.

This thread is about Brexit. I have indulged MMM by dealing with some of his points, but, have no interest in yet another thread that turns into people obesssing about me. I had kempo stalking me for a short while and have had Exile for a number of years; I don't really mind being stalked, but it gets tiresome answering this sort of drivel when I just want to stay at least vaguely on topic.

If you don't want to justify your claim that is fine with me, but you rehashing raging's posts, because it seems like a good idea to you simply isn't floating my boat.

[ragingpup]

So you were wrong when you claimed, that Davis made an ‘exact same benefits’ promise before the referendum? Unfortunately, you are still wrong when you claim that he made a ‘pledge’ shortly after the referendum. There was no pledge and it was seven months after the referendum.

Of course, whether it was weeks or months after the referendum doesn’t really matter - either way, your claim that it was a promise or a pledge (what do you say is the difference?) that influenced our vote to leave the EU cannot be correct can it?

If you open a post with OK, to be precise, it would be helpful if what followed immediately thereafter was accurate.

I’m not that interested in what Starmer said when he announced the six tests; I’m interested in what he is saying now and how it is influencing the actions of the Labour Party. In his speech to the Labour Party conference in September, he said:

So, let me be very clear – right here, right now: If Theresa May brings back a deal that fails our tests – and that looks increasingly likely – Labour will vote against it.

So there you have it, as you have admitted, Labour is hiding the reality of the consequences of it tests and intent upon playing political games. In doing so, they are ignoring the interests of the country and risking a no deal Brexit by using tests that cannot be met short of either staying in the EU or having a deal that involves paying money to the EU, accepting the four freedoms, being subject to the European Court of Justice and above all abiding by EU rules that we will have no say in. That is something that they need to be held to account for.

For the privilege of the deal that it has and which you apparently want this country to emulate, Norway, is the 10th biggest contributor to the EU budget and allows EU trawlers to fish in its waters. I don’t see that as a good outcome. I think you can wish away any seats in fishing ports too – they’ll be going to UKIP.

You appear very confused about what the deal is that was announced last week. It is the withdrawal deal, which is why ‘there is very little about our relationship afterward’. It confirms the end of free movement and the ending of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies – it isn’t about a continuing relationship save that it provides a ‘backstop’ of country wide membership of the CU until a trade deal is reached, (which, from experience, may take a some time – about ten years for Canada?). To state the obvious for you, nobody is going to know what the final trading arrangement with the EU will be until it has been negotiated.

I feel the same disquiet that many MPs do about the deal, which is that the backstop is not time limited and cannot be unilaterally ended by the UK (of course, in practice it can be, but that might cause some friction with our then former EU partners). That being said, I suspect it is the best that the EU is going to offer -they have already given more than I thought they would – and it is infinitely better than the no deal outcome that Labour is risking with its gaming. It is far less restrictive than the Norwegian model that you favour…

P.s. I don’t feel at all frustrated when people call me a Tory, just as I don’t when the right wingers call me a ‘liberal apologist’ etc. I express opinions that people don’t like and rather than debate, some people choose to label. It’s the way it is – I just like accuracy.

Lol.

I can always tell when you're on the backfoot when you fall back into semantics and precise dates, ignoring the essence of arguments. Very much the lawyer. Good for you.

I know you'll keep going on about it to cloak the huge cracks in your arguments that matter. so let me concede: Yes, I accept that Davis made that comment after the referendum. And I accept that it was a pledge, or aim, rather than a promise.

But why no comment on the 10 other promises/pledges/aims made by your party (for they are your party so cut the crap lad - you're just trying to claim an air of sophistication in your arguments that you are above party politics but it just doesn't wash. I've asked you many times to clarify the actual differences between your views and the Conservatives, and you know, as well as everyone on here that you can't do that as we will all see through it. So just stop it, for the love of God!

I'm generally a polite poster, but it is why I respect you less than any other poster on here. Including IBS. At least his **** is easy to see through.

So let's cut through what you seem to be saying:

1) You appear to be saying that the May deal is the best that we can get from the EU. So, are you saying that you are willing from this point to support waving that deal through? You are not willing to pursue any further detail in what the future trade deal with the EU might look like? Don't you feel that we have a right to see more detail? Do you buy stuff in the real world with such vague description of what you're buying?

2. So let's say that, following the withdrawal agreement, that May agrees that in order to secure free movement and complete break from the ECJ, that we fall back on trade tariffs that are in line with WTO and/or result in border friction that are likely to have a substantial impact on our economy. Can you confirm that you are happy with that and the likely consequences that this would have? You seem to be saying that you are giving your agreement for her to agree to whatever she wants in future? Is that what you are saying? If not, what are you saying?

3. You say that the future deal is far less restrictive than the Norwegian model that I favour? Please tell me, specifically, in what way is it far less restrictive? On what basis in the agreement published last week, can you say that? What detail do you have that backs this up?


P.s. I note that you didn't answer the first 2 of the 3 questions I asked you in the post you responded to. I know why, you know why. Wink, wink.

[rolymiller]

Is it not on topic though asking about your views on tory policy on brexit? I aint bothered about stalking you as you put it because I have far better things to do but if you keep appearing on the same threads as me we are likely to engage in some sort of conversation. Maybe if you answered our questions we wouldn't need to ask em again. We would know where we stand.

I am going tp leave you alone now since you plainly find me irritating and just assume that you have no views on tory policies.

[Exiletyke]

No.

This thread is about Brexit. I have indulged MMM by dealing with some of his points, but, have no interest in yet another thread that turns into people obesssing about me. I had kempo stalking me for a short while and have had Exile for a number of years; I don't really mind being stalked, but it gets tiresome answering this sort of drivel when I just want to stay at least vaguely on topic.

If you don't want to justify your claim that is fine with me, but you rehashing raging's posts, because it seems like a good idea to you simply isn't floating my boat.

I just want to stay at least vaguely on topic

Vaguely
never a truer word

[KerrAvon]

Lol.

I can always tell when you're on the backfoot when you fall back into semantics and precise dates, ignoring the essence of arguments. Very much the lawyer. Good for you.

I know you'll keep going on about it to cloak the huge cracks in your arguments that matter. so let me concede: Yes, I accept that Davis made that comment after the referendum. And I accept that it was a pledge, or aim, rather than a promise.

But why no comment on the 10 other promises/pledges/aims made by your party (for they are your party so cut the crap lad - you're just trying to claim an air of sophistication in your arguments that you are above party politics but it just doesn't wash. I've asked you many times to clarify the actual differences between your views and the Conservatives, and you know, as well as everyone on here that you can't do that as we will all see through it. So just stop it, for the love of God!

I'm generally a polite poster, but it is why I respect you less than any other poster on here. Including IBS. At least his **** is easy to see through.

So let's cut through what you seem to be saying:

1) You appear to be saying that the May deal is the best that we can get from the EU. So, are you saying that you are willing from this point to support waving that deal through? You are not willing to pursue any further detail in what the future trade deal with the EU might look like? Don't you feel that we have a right to see more detail? Do you buy stuff in the real world with such vague description of what you're buying?

2. So let's say that, following the withdrawal agreement, that May agrees that in order to secure free movement and complete break from the ECJ, that we fall back on trade tariffs that are in line with WTO and/or result in border friction that are likely to have a substantial impact on our economy. Can you confirm that you are happy with that and the likely consequences that this would have? You seem to be saying that you are giving your agreement for her to agree to whatever she wants in future? Is that what you are saying? If not, what are you saying?

3. You say that the future deal is far less restrictive than the Norwegian model that I favour? Please tell me, specifically, in what way is it far less restrictive? On what basis in the agreement published last week, can you say that? What detail do you have that backs this up?


P.s. I note that you didn't answer the first 2 of the 3 questions I asked you in the post you responded to. I know why, you know why. Wink, wink.

Well we can both fantasise about how the other is feeling, but neither of us ‘can always tell’ as you claim. You forget that I argue for a living, such that it wouldn’t do for me to be bothered by it. I see the waspishness in your latest post and suspect that you are a bit riled, but maybe you aren’t.

Why you want it to be like this is beyond me.

There is nothing ‘semantic’ about my response to your Davis claim. You were just plain wrong as you now acknowledge (and what do you see as the difference between promised and pledged?). But for your arrogance in post 137, I would have happily ignored it.

I’ve ignored the other ten (nine, surely?) promises/pledges/aims that you say were made by the Tories, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to check them out (and would certainly want to in light of your Davis debacle) and they are irrelevant to where we are now. If you and the Labour Party want to play the ‘who said what and when’ fiddle whilst (the Treaty of) Rome burns, you will have to do so without my accompaniment. I only hope that the Labour Party eventually decides to start acting like it is run by grown-ups.

Dealing with your numbered points:

1. For the reasons that I have set out ad nauseum, I suspect that the withdrawal deal on the table is the best we are going to get. It hurt the EU to offer UK access to the customs union, whilst scrapping the CAP and CFP and ending free movement. I doubt if they will give more.

Again, I must point out that it’s a withdrawal deal not a future relationship deal that is currently on the table – the EU isn’t going to be talking about the detail of a future relationship until after we have left, hence the need for a transition period and backstop. And when they do start talking it will take time, not least because at that point individual EU states are going to be looking to include bits that specifically benefit their interests.

You aren’t being asked to buy a future relationship, because it hasn’t been discussed other than in vague terms. This as much as you are getting at the moment:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...lationship.pdf

2. I will have no more say over what Parliament ultimately agrees by way of a permanent new relationship with the EU than I do over whether the withdrawal deal is accepted. I doubt that the deal you describe would get through Parliament.

3. We don’t have a future deal hence I did not compare it to the Norwegian model. Norway is the 10th largest donor to the EU budget, has accepted the four freedoms and allows access to its fisheries by EU trawlers. It is also required to accept significantly more EU generated law than we would under the terms of the withdrawal agreement.

Norway is a dreadful model largely supported by people who don’t really want to leave, but are willing to go through the motions.

[great_fire]

Should go back to the terms of the EEC, when it was a trading block, that actually worked.

[BigLadonOS]

Why do the stay voters think a hard Brexit would be a bad thing? I personally am hoping for a no deal Brexit that would at least let us get on with what needs to be done instead of hanging on for maybe 10 more years before a final deal can be done.

While ever the Euro squad have a fingertip hold on us we wont be free from them and for me we cannot let that happen. If traders still left in the Euro Union think they can get by without trading with us then they need their heads feeling because it will never happen.
If anything we would be bigger spenders in Europe than we are already because we will have a bigger Government budget to spend than we currently have.

We are a fully grown up country who does not need a nanny like the Euro Union to keep us in check. We are more than capable of making and upholding our own laws. We have our own tradesman who can build. We have the means to look after ourselves as a country and buy whatever else we need from either inside or outside of Europe.

To cut a long story short Europe needs us more than we need them and they KNOW IT.

[WanChaiMiller]

To cut a long story short Europe needs us more than we need them and they KNOW IT.

To cut a long story short - they dont (need us more than we need them).

The Leave campaign (Johnson, Gove, et al - see my earlier post) promised a 'Free Trade Deal' with the EU. They did not say we would bomb out with no deal. If we dont get the Trade Deal they descrubed I think we should go to a second vote.

[KerrAvon]

How does that work, WanChai? The EU is not willing to enter into detailed negotiations about the future relationship until the withdrawal deal is agreed. In practical terms, that means that we will have left before we know what that relationship will look like.

You are arguing for a referendum in the future upon whether to apply to rejoin.