• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

the dza said:
Assuming we don't get a 2nd vote on the type of leave we're gonna take, then I hope you are right. Because this would be much better than no-deal, imo.
Click to expand...

I hate May. Especially her social conservatism. But I think she may pull this off.

Personally I came round to the Ukraine compromise a few months ago so, even as a leaver of 20 years standing, Chequers wasn't too too disappointing.

All it needs is the EU to be a little constructive with it - not kick-back on anything that will cause the ERG to nuke it and be creative with the non-border border - and it could all be done by October.

I think there is a degree of complicitness going on between May and the EU, and a lot of the dance now is for show
 
Gutter Boy said:
I think there is a degree of complicitness going on between May and the EU, and a lot of the dance now is for show
Click to expand...

That's a common and dangerous assumption. The EU negotiates in a pretty open way. They've been transparent and consistent about their objectives and red lines from day one, largely because the Commission gets a mandate from the Council and that's what they have to stick to.

Hence, they tend to mean what they say -and they've said a lot about which bits of Chequers are intolerable.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
That's a common and dangerous assumption. The EU negotiates in a pretty open way. They've been transparent and consistent about their objectives and red lines from day one, largely because the Commission gets a mandate from the Council and that's what they have to stick to.

Hence, they tend to mean what they say -and they've said a lot about which bits of Chequers are intolerable.
Click to expand...

But May knows the other 27 members of the European Council well. She's visited at least 3 of them this week. Some of them (Visegrad Group, Austria, Greece and now Italy) are actually quite anti-EU

Again, the bits about Chequers they've said are intolerable are the little technical bits that can easily be changed. The big principles have so far gone uncriticised.

I suspect the backroom deal that has happened is that we've sacrificed services and capital, so we don't have to have labour. So from the EU's point of view it's a less good deal than Ukraine
 
Majority opinion rules in the Council, though - and it certainly does in the Parliament. So the madmen now running Italy don't have much of an impact on things. Nor does Merkel, really, despite the Leaver belief that everything can be sorted in a haggle with Mutti.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
They already declined us better terms. Why would they go back on that now?

And, given the way in which they have nailed us on negotiation so far, why would they suddenly give us our own way to stay rather than try to push us more toward closer union - as is the desired destination of the bloc?
Click to expand...

Bruv please read the post you quoted. I already answered those exact questions.

All in my honest opinion of course
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Its all done, and cant be changed, so what good does banging on about it do looking ahead? You might not like how (you think) the decision was arrived at, but it was, and here we are.
Click to expand...

But that's why I think there is valid grounds for a second referendum.

Which was what I was talking about in the first place (in response to your point)
 
DTA said:
But that's why I think there is valid grounds for a second referendum.

Which was what I was talking about in the first place (in response to your point)
Click to expand...

It worked both ways though. Remain had threefold spending on its campaign compared to leave, was effectively state sponsored, had interference from foreign actors (Obama, Junker, Soros) and spread blatant lies about economic collapse/doomsday scenarios. There was also the Jo Cox incident (no conspiracy theory, but it had a big affect), that created a significant swing away from leave a few days before the vote
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
We should be looking to become self sufficient in food through vertical farming. I agree if it happens through brexit some will be tinkled off but I think it would be an amazing opportunity to set up something we should be doing anyway.

A better Britain though innovation and new outward looking partnerships.
Click to expand...

 
DTA said:
Bruv please read the post you quoted. I already answered those exact questions.

All in my honest opinion of course
Click to expand...

"Bruv", "Dude", you havent.

Your response? We would have to have a second referendum, and remain would stand a better chance if the EU were nice. But if we dont want to stay theyll happily screw us. Which clearly shows why you are so keen to find an angle for another referendum, but I dont think its as straight forward as you say.


Think about it. We went to them looking for better terms, and good ole Dave got laughed back home with is tail between his legs. We raised an issue, went looking for concessions, and rather unceremoniously got told to fudge off.

So we have a referendum, we vote leave. The EU approach the negotiations with a clear intent to screw us for all we are worth.

[Hypothetically] We decide, actually, lets just stay.

What makes you think the EU will just say "Yes, fine, and Ill tell you what - how about a slightly better deal as well?".

During negotiations they havent given an inch on anything, and seem pretty intent on boxing us into a Noway type deal which will suit them wonderfully.

Why on earth would they not take the opportunity to fully integrate us, and remove any chance of further dissent, should we try and back out and rejoin/not leave?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
"Bruv", "Dude", you havent.

Your response? We would have to have a second referendum, and remain would stand a better chance if the EU were nice. But if we dont want to stay theyll happily screw us. Which clearly shows why you are so keen to find an angle for another referendum, but I dont think its as straight forward as you say.


Think about it. We went to them looking for better terms, and good ole Dave got laughed back home with is tail between his legs. We raised an issue, went looking for concessions, and rather unceremoniously got told to fudge off.

So we have a referendum, we vote leave. The EU approach the negotiations with a clear intent to screw us for all we are worth.

[Hypothetically] We decide, actually, lets just stay.

What makes you think the EU will just say "Yes, fine, and Ill tell you what - how about a slightly better deal as well?".

During negotiations they havent given an inch on anything, and seem pretty intent on boxing us into a Noway type deal which will suit them wonderfully.

Why on earth would they not take the opportunity to fully integrate us, and remove any chance of further dissent, should we try and back out and rejoin/not leave?
Click to expand...

Pal ;) yes I did. Maybe I'm just not articulating my points properly.

They want us to stay. To do that we must

A) call a second referendum
B) remain must win that referendum.

So what we should do is say to them, we would like to call a second referendum. But we are not guaranteed to win it. So we need you to give us some small consessions to help us (remain) win it. We can sell it to the right wing knuckle draggers (not you or any (I hope) leaver on here)… as another win for the UK... Just like the world cup and two world wars. It will be great... (Put on the theme tune of dam busters)

What you say you garlic munching F annys?

They say: what is f anny?"

We say: don't worry about it. What you say?

They say: for sure (if they are Dutch)
 
DTA said:
Pal ;) yes I did. Maybe I'm just not articulating my points properly.

They want us to stay. To do that we must

A) call a second referendum
B) remain must win that referendum.

So what we should do is say to them, we would like to call a second referendum. But we are not guaranteed to win it. So we need you to give us some small consessions to help us (remain) win it. We can sell it to the right wing knuckle draggers (not you or any (I hope) leaver on here)… as another win for the UK... Just like the world cup and two world wars. It will be great... (Put on the theme tune of dam busters)

What you say you garlic munching F annys?

They say: what is f anny?"

We say: don't worry about it. What you say?

They say: for sure (if they are Dutch)
Click to expand...

So why didnt they do that in the first place if they would do it now?

Answer - they wont.

Lets be honest - the concessions we want would go against the pillars. If we leave, I believe we have a chance of getting something that works for us and them. If we stay you can be damn sure thats a non starter immediately.

So what small consessions are they going to offer (/be able to offer?) that they wouldnt before, and would help swing the vote?

And - again - after all that, why wouldnt they take the chance to get us fully on board? Youve said its all about whats best for the union, well, the UK being a fully paid up member completely intergrated and on message is MUCH better for the union that The UK still being a reluctant team mate, with its own currency, and rebate etc...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
So why didnt they do that in the first place if they would do it now?

Answer - they wont.

Lets be honest - the concessions we want would go against the pillars. If we leave, I believe we have a chance of getting something that works for us and them. If we stay you can be damn sure thats a non starter immediately.

So what small consessions are they going to offer (/be able to offer?) that they wouldnt before, and would help swing the vote?

And - again - after all that, why wouldnt they take the chance to get us fully on board? Youve said its all about whats best for the union, well, the UK being a fully paid up member completely intergrated and on message is MUCH better for the union that The UK still being a reluctant team mate, with its own currency, and rebate etc...
Click to expand...

I have said this before bur What's best for the union differs if the UK is in the union or if the UK is out of the union.

If the UK is in the union. They also have a responsibilty to us. If we are out. They don't.

The small concessions will be... Um... small. Nothing like ending freedom of movement etc. Maybe easing some of our concerns and that of other countries with similar concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back