Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Typical Brexiter logic. You're contradicting yourself at every turn. If you don't know what you want, what did you vote for? Open border with the EU or not? Leaving the EU means being outside the EU's external border. Which means violating the GFA. You can have one or the other.
How remain
Right. So those who voted out can't complain if the UK remains as close as possible to the EU. As long as the UK techically leaves the EU then they got what they voted for, even if underlying things like FOM don't change at all. If Leavers don't like that then tough because, as you say, the vote was "in" or "out". "Out" could mean a brexit in name only that involves little actual change.
I doubt you actually think that would be okay though?
What are you on about? Who told you to vote for something you don't like?
The situation is simple, if you don't like something it means that you know that thing therefore your opinion is educated and you can justifiably vote against it. Now if you don't know something, you have zero reason to not like it, you have zero reason to vote against it, you have zero reason to alter the current situation.
Im glad you brits can be so flippant about possibly starting up another conflict in NI just because you want to leave the fecking EU when ALL the signs are telling you its a bad idea.
The people voted for a pm that offered a yes no choice. They need to live with that.
Thay seem unhappy that the 48 pc dont get a listen but voters of the 2nd largest party in NL also dont. Its hypocracy at its worst.
So the second largest party in NL doesn't get seats in parliament?
The ignorance your posts display is astounding. Even after 33 thousand.
More charm from the remainers
I don't respect posts that are blatantly wrong and I feel absolutely no need to show any respect to the posters responsible for them. False respect in the name of manners/charm is part of what brought us here. I wish more remainers had the guts to confront brexiteers with their BS, their lies and falsehoods should never remain unanswered.
And obviously you don't answer the question... does the 2nd largest party in the Netherlands get seats in the Gerneralstaaten?
The charm offensive continues. You sound bitter about something.
Yeah brexiteers ruining one of the countries I love makes me a little bitter... Boris/Davis/Mogg/Farage etc. repeatedly lying about the country that I live in makes me angry. Mrs.May doing her best to mess up a horrible situation even more makes me hopeless.
Your posts would just make me laugh if I hadn't realised that illinformed people are actually listening to the likes of you, which made this whole thing possible.
You're slowly winning me over
If you had listened to Davis in front of the European Scrutiny Committee you would have blown your top, can't remember the exact words but along the lines of "the men of violence using the border issue as an excuse".
It might be hard for you to grasp but I'm not here to win you over.
Listen they havent given a shit for 600 years so I cannot imagine why the would give one now. People still continually suffer because of the empire.
Oh? I hadn't realized. Probably cos I'm not part of the super intelligent remain camp.
Stanley, you still haven't answered my original question. Does anyone other than the winner get representation in NL or not? At this point I simply have to assume you do not know... which raises the question why you brought it up?
Ok, I will help as you have been so polite. All parties said they would not form a coalition with the party that got the 2nd largest amount of votes so they basically said fukk you voters, you just wasted your ballot paper. Do you think those voters feel happy about that? But what can they do? Suck it up like the 48% in the uk. If you don't get the comparison then that's fine, you can just continue the charm offensive.
Coalitions require compromises... No party has a right to a coalition if they can't find common ground with another party to form one, it is their own responsibility to do so, and neither they nor their voters can complain if they are incapable of doing so.
It isn't comparable to the 48% being utterly ignored at all.
I'm sure some remainers hold seats in parliament, mrs may for example.
To have compromise you need discussion, in nl discussion with the 2nd largest party was refused by all the rest. As a voter how would you feel?
Remainers hold seats because of elections they won, not because of the 48% referendum result. The government had to be brought to court to give them their voice on the topic too and they do not have that voice as a result of the referendum.
I'd feel pretty disgusted with myself if I voted PVV to be perfectly honest. That said, unlike the referendum there's always a next election, I'd do what one does in democracies, I'd argue my point and work towards a better result next time around.
ll
The real issue here is probably on page 1 of this thread, the uk public voted for a party that offered a referendum. Thats really where this discussion should end.
You may feel disgusted if you voted pvv but the comparison is a bunch of people that dont feel represented by the party in power vs a bunch of people that dont feel represented by the govt in nl.
Yes i know how works. They say that you get the goverment you deserve.
The real issue here is probably on page 1 of this thread, the uk public voted for a party that offered a referendum. Thats really where this discussion should end.
You may feel disgusted if you voted pvv but the comparison is a bunch of people that dont feel represented by the party in power vs a bunch of people that dont feel represented by the govt in nl.
Nice deflection. Now answer the question. Did you vote to be outside of the EU external border or not?
You'll better ask him if he's going to live outside of the EU external border first.
I have no voting rights in any country and nor does paul. Good enuff?
Statement by President Donald Tusk on the draft guidelines on the framework for the future relationship with the UK.
Good afternoon. I am very happy to be back in Luxembourg. And very happy to be here with my colleague and good friend, Prime Minister Bettel, to discuss the agenda of the March European Council.
Two hours ago, I sent the EU27 Member States my draft guidelines for our relations with the UK after Brexit. I'm here in Luxembourg to consult the Prime Minister on these guidelines that I hope will be adopted at our European Council in March. It is not a coincidence that once again I start my consultations ahead of a European Council meeting here in Luxembourg with Prime Minister Bettel. I really value your advice - always very constructive and responsible.
My proposal shows that we doesn’t want to build a wall between the EU and Britain. On the contrary, the UK will be our closest neighbour and we want to remain friends and partners also after Brexit. Partners that are as close as possible, just like we have said from the very first day after the referendum.
And, in this spirit, I propose close cooperation within the following areas.
Firstly, as we are confronted with similar security threats, I propose that the EU and the UK continue our common fight against terrorism and international crime. The increasing global instability requires our uninterrupted cooperation in defence and foreign affairs. It is about the security of our citizens, which must be preserved beyond Brexit.
Secondly, we invite the UK to participate in EU programmes in the fields of research and innovation, as well as in education and culture. This is key to maintain mutually beneficial and enriching personal networks in these vital areas, and for our community of values to prosper also in future.
Thirdly, I am determined to avoid that particularly absurd consequence of Brexit that is the disruption of flights between the UK and the EU. To do so, we must start discussions on this issue as soon as possible.
Now, coming to the core of our future economic relationship. During my talks in London last Thursday, and in her speech last Friday, Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed that the UK will leave the Single Market, leave the customs union and leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ (European Court of Justice). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement. I hope that it will be ambitious and advanced – and we will do our best, as we did with other partners, such as Canada recently – but anyway it will only be a trade agreement.
I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other free trade agreements, it should address services. And in fisheries, reciprocal access to fishing waters and resources should be maintained.
This positive approach doesn't change the simple fact that because of Brexit we will be drifting apart. In fact, this will be the first FTA in history that loosens economic ties, instead of strengthening them. Our agreement will not make trade between the UK and the EU frictionless or smoother. It will make it more complicated and costly than today, for all of us. This is the essence of Brexit.
To sum up, we will enter the negotiations of the future relations with the UK with an open, positive and constructive mind, but also with realism. From my point of view, the outcome of the negotiations must pass two key tests:
– the test of balance of rights and obligations. For example, the EU cannot agree to grant the UK the rights of Norway with the obligations of Canada;
– the test of integrity of the Single Market. No Member State is free to pick only those sectors of the Single Market it likes, nor to accept the role of the ECJ only when it suits their interest. By the same token, a pick-and-mix approach for a non-member state is out of the question. We are not going to sacrifice these principles. It's simply not in our interest.
Finally, a few words about another topic of the March summit. Following the announcement of President Trump, there is a risk of a serious trade dispute between the United States and the rest of the world, including the EU. President Trump has recently said, and I quote: 'trade wars are good, and easy to win'. But the truth is quite the opposite: trade wars are bad, and easy to lose. For this reason, I strongly believe that now is the time for politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to act responsibly.
Given that President Trump's announcement may have repercussions for our citizens and European businesses, not to mention the global economy, I will propose that the EU leaders have an extraordinary trade debate at the upcoming summit. We should have a clear objective in mind: to keep world trade alive. And, if necessary, to protect Europeans against trade turbulence, including by proportionate responses in accordance with the WTO.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. I am very happy to be back in Luxembourg. And very happy to be here with my colleague and good friend, Prime Minister Bettel, to discuss the agenda of the March European Council.
Two hours ago, I sent the EU27 Member States my draft guidelines for our relations with the UK after Brexit. I'm here in Luxembourg to consult the Prime Minister on these guidelines that I hope will be adopted at our European Council in March. It is not a coincidence that once again I start my consultations ahead of a European Council meeting here in Luxembourg with Prime Minister Bettel. I really value your advice - always very constructive and responsible.
My proposal shows that we doesn’t want to build a wall between the EU and Britain. On the contrary, the UK will be our closest neighbour and we want to remain friends and partners also after Brexit. Partners that are as close as possible, just like we have said from the very first day after the referendum.
And, in this spirit, I propose close cooperation within the following areas.
Firstly, as we are confronted with similar security threats, I propose that the EU and the UK continue our common fight against terrorism and international crime. The increasing global instability requires our uninterrupted cooperation in defence and foreign affairs. It is about the security of our citizens, which must be preserved beyond Brexit.
Secondly, we invite the UK to participate in EU programmes in the fields of research and innovation, as well as in education and culture. This is key to maintain mutually beneficial and enriching personal networks in these vital areas, and for our community of values to prosper also in future.
Thirdly, I am determined to avoid that particularly absurd consequence of Brexit that is the disruption of flights between the UK and the EU. To do so, we must start discussions on this issue as soon as possible.
Now, coming to the core of our future economic relationship. During my talks in London last Thursday, and in her speech last Friday, Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed that the UK will leave the Single Market, leave the customs union and leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ (European Court of Justice). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement. I hope that it will be ambitious and advanced – and we will do our best, as we did with other partners, such as Canada recently – but anyway it will only be a trade agreement.
I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other free trade agreements, it should address services. And in fisheries, reciprocal access to fishing waters and resources should be maintained.
This positive approach doesn't change the simple fact that because of Brexit we will be drifting apart. In fact, this will be the first FTA in history that loosens economic ties, instead of strengthening them. Our agreement will not make trade between the UK and the EU frictionless or smoother. It will make it more complicated and costly than today, for all of us. This is the essence of Brexit.
To sum up, we will enter the negotiations of the future relations with the UK with an open, positive and constructive mind, but also with realism. From my point of view, the outcome of the negotiations must pass two key tests:
– the test of balance of rights and obligations. For example, the EU cannot agree to grant the UK the rights of Norway with the obligations of Canada;
– the test of integrity of the Single Market. No Member State is free to pick only those sectors of the Single Market it likes, nor to accept the role of the ECJ only when it suits their interest. By the same token, a pick-and-mix approach for a non-member state is out of the question. We are not going to sacrifice these principles. It's simply not in our interest.
Finally, a few words about another topic of the March summit. Following the announcement of President Trump, there is a risk of a serious trade dispute between the United States and the rest of the world, including the EU. President Trump has recently said, and I quote: 'trade wars are good, and easy to win'. But the truth is quite the opposite: trade wars are bad, and easy to lose. For this reason, I strongly believe that now is the time for politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to act responsibly.
Given that President Trump's announcement may have repercussions for our citizens and European businesses, not to mention the global economy, I will propose that the EU leaders have an extraordinary trade debate at the upcoming summit. We should have a clear objective in mind: to keep world trade alive. And, if necessary, to protect Europeans against trade turbulence, including by proportionate responses in accordance with the WTO.
Thank you.
What do he mean?
I did listen to it and I don't remember him saying that so it's probably whoever transcribed it made an error, I'm waiting for Theresa May to address the European Council in perfect French or any foreign language for that matter.
The real issue here is you jumping around arguments all the time and never staying on topic (in this thread). The comparison fails because one was an election and the other a referendum.
What is paul?
Given that your keyboard seems to lack an apostrophe and that your capitalisation is more than sketchy you might want to rethink being a grammar nazi.
Sorry for the off-topic, I'll let it be now.
I'm happy enough with Tusk's statement there. The key is how much a free trade agreement will be viewed as endangering the single market, which is largely a matter of perception, and how much the UK will be willing to contribute to the single market for continued access.
Avoided this thread for about half a year as I'm tired of the news constantly being filled with Brexit and but I'm reasonably happy that the first stage of negotiations passed through with both sides happy.
Just reading today though that Tusk and the EU are saying that they want a free trade agreement to include 0 tarrifs on goods, but not to include financial services. So essentially they want no barriers on the things we're net importers on per year to the tune of £100bn, but not on what we're net exporters on (around £10-20b of financial services per year). A bit ludicrous imo. It's not that difficult to reach an agreement that benefits both the UK and the EU, as both sides showed during the first stage negotiations. Imo a good deal on financial services is crucial to us and we should significantly leverage the amount of EU goods through flow through the UK to get one. Just agreeing blindly to free trade on goods without anything on financial services would be daft for us over the longer-term.
Just reading today though that Tusk and the EU are saying that they want a free trade agreement to include 0 tarrifs on goods, but not to include financial services. So essentially they want no barriers on the things we're net importers on per year to the tune of £100bn, but not on what we're net exporters on (around £10-20b of financial services per year). A bit ludicrous imo. It's not that difficult to reach an agreement that benefits both the UK and the EU, as both sides showed during the first stage negotiations. Imo a good deal on financial services is crucial to us and we should significantly leverage the amount of EU goods through flow through the UK to get one. Just agreeing blindly to free trade on goods without anything on financial services would be daft for us over the longer-term.
To have full access to the service market, you need to be full member of the EU and EUCU. It's not ludicrous, it has always been like that.
May has said the UK are leaving the CU and the SM so any hope of the UK getting a financial services agreement are zero and the EU keep saying so but no-one is listening.
It doesn't fail in any way how often you keep saying it, you are in this shit because you voted( in an election )for a party that offered you the ref and now that same party has been voted in to deliver and I'm the stupid one, epic train of thought.
I love how Stanley has gone from pro Brexit to "well you voted for Cameron so its all your fault."
I didn't, for the record, so its not.
I didn't, for the record, so its not.
I did ask myself if it was a deliberate distancing or just unfortunate turns of phrases.
So if someone had a home that they didn't like they should torch it even if they don't know where they will go once it's torched?
Deliberate obfuscation i believe.
Who in their right mind would vote for either Cameron or Brexit.