Pritti Patel makes my blood boil the most.
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.
Pritti Patel makes my blood boil the most.
Ah yes, forgot her. And an honourable mention for the utter buffoon that is Liz Truss. Why are all the high profile Conservative women so detestable? Labour has some solid people with Beckett, Cooper et al
Yes I agree but I think it's a cop out to blame one person when you have so many people that deserve blame.
The fecking arrogance to think the EU would even talk to you after that
You are fogetting that french farmers and german car manufacturers will demand a quick deal.
Written in 2016
Re read my post and try again.
So far you are proving to be clueless. You can't answer with any detail, or answer at all it seems in most cases.
You're only parroting already disproven ideas.
Let's not rewrite history.
Fox made multiple claims about trade deals ready for when we leave. Davis talked about deals with individual countries in the EU (lolz). Hannan gave assurances that we wouldn't leave the single market, Boris said we'd have single market access. Gove talked of the free trade zone we wouldn't lose access to.
Boris again “There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal". Doesn't sound like a man who understands that the trade deal is separate to the no deal situation.
The leave campaign
“The OECD states that: ‘trade with the EU and other countries would initially revert to a WTO MFN-basis’. This is a highly flawed assumption that not even the IN campaign seriously contemplates as a realistic possibility. Leading pro-EU campaigners have admitted the UK will strike a free trade agreement if we Vote Leave.”
A leaver coming in here and suddenly using the EU rules and claims from remainers as evidence this was all always clear to brexiteers is ridiculous.
Fox made multiple claims about trade deals ready for when we leave. Davis talked about deals with individual countries in the EU (lolz). Hannan gave assurances that we wouldn't leave the single market, Boris said we'd have single market access. Gove talked of the free trade zone we wouldn't lose access to.
Boris again “There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal". Doesn't sound like a man who understands that the trade deal is separate to the no deal situation.
The leave campaign
“The OECD states that: ‘trade with the EU and other countries would initially revert to a WTO MFN-basis’. This is a highly flawed assumption that not even the IN campaign seriously contemplates as a realistic possibility. Leading pro-EU campaigners have admitted the UK will strike a free trade agreement if we Vote Leave.”
A leaver coming in here and suddenly using the EU rules and claims from remainers as evidence this was all always clear to brexiteers is ridiculous.
Snippet from The Sunday Times
Is it any more arrogant that the countless number of people in this very thread who have referred to all leave votes as racist, ignorant, idiotic etc?
That's the thing about some remain voters. They will quickly throw around such terms but when they demonstrate a lack of understanding on the subject and are called up on it, all hell breaks loose.
It also shows a terrible understanding of the purpose behind the transition period and the withdrawal agreement mentioned in Art.50. The very reason for both of these things is to avoid no deal and create a workable(and timelined) framework that can then be presented to the WTO committee which can allow both trade jurisdictions to act as if they actually have a completed trade/custom agreement.
I'm sorry: this justifies your tone how?
The only lack of understanding comes from those who seem to ignore that the WA was rejected 3 times by the UK parliament and nobody has offered a single alternative option.
If there is no WA, then there is only exiting without a deal.
The EU has agreed to the WA.
If the WA comes back and is voted through on the 4th occasion, then Parliament will not be worthy of praise but questions should be asked about why they felt it necessary to play these games and waste all this time. This applies to leave and remain MPs.
The actual meat of the trade deal comes after, when the previous treaties cease to be and the temporary deals, or WTO rules come into play.
It's a simple case of responding in the manner I have been addressed throughout the thread.
Hang on, there's still people arguing vehemently for no deal Brexit?
Which is irrelevant to art.50 and the point that you tried to make.
It really isn't.
At this point however I could state that water is wet and some would argue the toss about it.
Water isn't wet tbf
Who has called all leave voters racist?
Anyone who completely supports no deal at all costs is idiotic. That doesn’t cover all leave voters. There’s plenty that just want to leave for whatever reasons, but realise that no deal is not the best way to do it.
It really is. The purpose of Art.50 is independant of the UK parliament and their decisions. The fact that they rejected the terms of an agreement has no bearing on the puprose of the agreement itself.
Patel and and that Chameleon Gove are the the absolute worst. Sajid Javid also comes close. Career politicians with very little regard for the welfare of the country
We all know he's a lizard person. Your subtle implications are unnecessary.
You realize that for other countries the “future trade deals” took YEARS to come to pass? Also who’s to say that we can get good trade deals?? Putting a lot of trust in a bunch of morons! That’s why the WA is crucial. This is basic stuff FFS! Please will you get a clue and stop criticizing members of our forum board!
What!?
Unless the UK parliament passes the WA, then the WA does not come into play. Therefore, short of never ending extensions, we leave without a WA, aka no deal.
Of course we need a WA. I have never claimed otherwise. No deal is a moronic concept.
Sadly our parliament, for whatever reasons they have, disagreed 3 times with that, the EU are unwilling to accept any changes to something they have all agreed to and nobody on the UK side is offering an alternative.
Which leave us with only the nuclear option.
And yes, trade deals will take time. Our only advantage over other third party trading partners is that we have previously had trade with the EU, and have the foundations in place. Which should reduce the time somewhat. It will still take years to conclude.
So remind me why we’re leaving and wanting to flush it all away?
Boris' argument that he needs the threat of no deal to negotiate a better deal makes perfect sense to me. Can someone explain to me why it's such a bad idea?
If I wanted to buy a house and the owners knew I had no choice but to buy it, I'm hardly going to be able to negotiate myself a good deal.
Genuine question. I don't get a vote so I don't claim to be the best informed.
If I wanted to buy a house and the owners knew I had no choice but to buy it, I'm hardly going to be able to negotiate myself a good deal.
Genuine question. I don't get a vote so I don't claim to be the best informed.
Because they call his bluff and then we’re fecked
Because there is no better deal to negotiate.
It's basically due to the two main issues: One is about the Irish border and the other is about jurisdictions and EU countries aren't reducing their sovereignty in favor of the UK.
Cause neither the UK government nor the EU have any intention of negotiating. Boris is just lying.
Because the majority in Parliament believe that if EU called his bluff and we had to implement no deal, the impact on UK would be catastrophic. This majority believes that the risk is so severe, it simply cannot be an option.
Using threats to get your way tends not to be a great negotiating dynamic for one thing, not unless theres a significant power inbalance in your favour, in which case your not negotiating, your dictating. Its more like threatening to set yourself on fire if they dont give you the house for nothing also. Its a rubbish plan, was a stupid statement the first time and repeating it for 3 years hasn't made it any more sensible
It isn't terrible, but Conservative MPs and cabinet members have said that Johnson isn't remotely showing that he's even trying to negotiate a deal.
Because as Amber Rudd just pointed when resigning, there is zero evidence of them negotiating a deal with the EU.
In other words, no deal is now the plan. Framing it as negotiating leverage is simply a way of avoiding having to admit that this is the case.
The 'plan' is to blame the EU for...well, the crisis to come. The EU themselves have realised this.
It is perfectly simple. It is only a threat to the UK, like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
And anyway. The EU don't believe it.
Thanks for the replies. Sounds like a mess - Good luck with that!
Ok. Seems to me the hostility is primarily originating with you but it's your choice. You've dropped into a long standing thread which, clearly, is primarily pro remain and are making arguments that have been discussed extensively in a tone that, and it mat be that you can't perceive this, is aggressively condescending.
If you want to have a debate in those circumstances I'd imagine it'd be wise to take a different tack otherwise the flame war that you're at the heart of will escalate with no progress made. You will be seen as a troll, perhaps with justification.
It would be if that is what he was doing. He as no plan apart from winding down the clock. EU have moved on .
