Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Andrew~ said:
Well, this is Theresa May's (and partly the EU's too) fault IMO. A frictionless border is only impossible if there is no customs arrangement, and for some reason, you seem to think the European Customs Union is the only such arrangement possible. I disagree. If the EU are so eager to set an example of the UK, then I think a no deal scenario might play out in the short term. There are things we can do unilaterally to prevent major changes to the Ireland/NI situation until a comprehensive FTA is agreed.
Click to expand...

As said before it is not just the CU, also the SM as well. This has nothing to do with setting an example of the UK, there is nothing the UK can do unilaterally. This is international law. If there's no deal it is for the duration, not just short term, until the UK reapply to join the EU but no deal means a border, there's no escape from that.
Also the withdrawal agreement is not the same as a trade agreement.They are entirely separate other than the declaration of what both sides declare what they think the future relationship may look like. Discussions will only start after the UK has left.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I didn't and I'd vote remain again if we could unilaterally repeal Article 50.
Click to expand...

I only asked that, now seemingly in vain, as you couldn't seem to grasp the answer of your follow-up question despite quoting it.

They don't want to be reliant on NATO due to the influence USA, and whoever their president may be, has over it and want something in house instead.

I personally think that having a European Army is a bad idea just because of the humongous funding required to keep something like that ticking. At the moment USA foots the bill quite nicely paying almost 3x the amount that the other members so they should stick to being freeloaders from a cost perspective.
 
You can't have a customs union without regulatory alignment. You think the EU are going to let our unregulated goods into the single market without controls?

Speaking as a manufacturer who sells to the UK and Europe, removing reglatory alignment means more costs to consumers and more bearaucracy, and makes British businesses less competitive. And don't tell me about the wonders of the rest if the world, we already trade with companies in Australia etc. but the distances and differences in culture and market means the volumes are tiny. The USA meanwhile are too protectionist to even sell my product into.

Multiply that across other SMEs in the UK and its a stupid plan.
 
sun_tzu said:
Not yet - but on the 29th of march we are going to start rounding up Africans to sell to trump and send our gunboats to start shelling china till they agree to sell our opium again.
Mogg is printing the overpriced Make Britian and Empire Again, union jack (MBEA) caps right now
Click to expand...

The caps will be made my under aged children in Bangledesh btw.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
There are still border controls on goods in the Canada FTA I’m afraid. There is an element of regulatory alignment in the Canada deal, but it’s not full alignment, hence border controls remain.

Also, financial services are not included.
Click to expand...

Sure, read up for what I said was my preferred solution.

Paul the Wolf said:
As said before it is not just the CU, also the SM as well. This has nothing to do with setting an example of the UK, there is nothing the UK can do unilaterally. This is international law. If there's no deal it is for the duration, not just short term, until the UK reapply to join the EU but no deal means a border, there's no escape from that.
Also the withdrawal agreement is not the same as a trade agreement.They are entirely separate other than the declaration of what both sides declare what they think the future relationship may look like. Discussions will only start after the UK has left.
Click to expand...

Ha, this is patently not true. But I'm starting to feel like we're not going anywhere here. There is no international law that states you can't have agreements not named the European Customs Union, my International Law classes at uni were about four years ago but I'm pretty sure I remember that at least!
 
Was reading up on the story about Ulster Farmers backing the deal. The DUP response? "You don't know what you're talking about..."

:lol:

Doesn't quite fit the 'the people are smarter than you think' narrative Brexiteers have been banging on about for the last two years.

Makes sense though. Any farmers in Britain or N.Ireland voting for Brexit were literally voting to fcuk themselves over and have poorer living (never mind the rest of us).
 
Andrew~ said:
Sure, read up for what I said was my preferred solution.



Ha, this is patently not true. But I'm starting to feel like we're not going anywhere here. There is no international law that states you can't have agreements not named the European Customs Union, my International Law classes at uni were about four years ago but I'm pretty sure I remember that at least!
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the EU customs union. I'm talking about the treaty and that under WTO rules the UK has to have a border, both are incompatible. If the UK didn't include NI then there wouldn't be that problem but if the UK were under WTO rules there would be a border.
Although there's a FTA between the EU and Canada, there is a still a border. The border exists on the perimeter of the EU CU.

Any country outside that perimeter will still have a border between them and if the UK leave the EU CU then there will be a border between them and every other country unless they join another CU and there would then be no border between them and the other members of that CU.
 
Last edited:
Andrew~ said:
I don't think it sets any precedent at all. If the EU is as great a project as you all seem to think it is, there is no need to create some kind of forceful deterrent against leaving.
Click to expand...

This doesn’t make any sense though. The EU is a great project that only works because it’s members contribute in a variety of ways towards the result. You can’t just say you want all the benefits but don’t want to contribute. That’s the only ‘forceful deterrent’ here, that if you leave you’re not going to have all the nice things you had while you were a member.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Yes, all I saw was a picture of a cake.
Click to expand...
ahhh reminds me of the good old days of brexit negotiations
88d2b868e61033d255e7719c6c4249f011f31eb109a574917c7d883002d972b2_3842433.jpg


Ironically just noticed this in the old article

"The notes appear to suggest that a transitional arrangement - which would allow the UK continued access to the single market after Brexit while it negotiates a new trade deal - is also unlikely."

2 years old and pretty accurate - yup its looking unlikley

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38134859
 
Last edited:
Andrew~ said:
A view from 'the enemy' - May has misunderstood Brexit. In her head, all you have to do is end freedom of movement, and that's it. While it's true immigration was a part of it for some people, for others (like myself), sovereignty was the biggest part. And I think most Brexiteer MPs think the same. Hence why this deal she's got is so unpalatable.
Click to expand...
The truth of the matter is that apart from on trade and employment 99% of the laws that govern a country in the EU are past by that countries parliament. Even immigration we had the right under EU law to deport anybody that doesn't contribute to the economy even if they come from an EU country we just didn't enact that part of the free movement agreement.


When it comes to trade and employment any trade agreement we make with any country with an economy bigger than our's will be subject to conditions that they place upon us. For example the US just insisted that Mexico pay the workers of any company exporting goods to the US a living wage. What ever country or block that we deal with, if they are bigger than us, they will make us agree to things that we don't want to. The one that has been prevalent on this thread is America making us purchase substandard Chlorinated Chicken.
 
You can't tell me that this level of hatred and vitriol towards the EU across the general population ever existed before 2016. From barely giving a toss the country has now been whipped into a frenzy.
 
Maybe a second referendum should be single transferable vote, do you want Brexit with the deal, Brexit without the deal, or Remain?

Assuming the EU are willing to clarify what Remain would entail of course.
 
711 said:
Maybe a second referendum should be single transferable vote, do you want Brexit with the deal, Brexit without the deal, or Remain?

Assuming the EU are willing to clarify what Remain would entail of course.
Click to expand...

No thatd be too bias towards remain from a polling perspective. You could have a 40 percent vote for remain and 30 each for the leave options and then remain wins despite 60% voting to leave.

Only way it could work would be 2 seperate votes imo, one for leave / remain. Another saying given we choose to leave, would you prefer the deal / no deal
 
BarcaSpurs said:
No thatd be too bias towards remain from a polling perspective. You could have a 40 percent vote for remain and 30 each for the leave options and then remain wins despite 60% voting to leave.

Only way it could work would be 2 seperate votes imo, one for leave / remain. Another saying given we choose to leave, would you prefer the deal / no deal
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that, nice one.
 
711 said:
Maybe a second referendum should be single transferable vote, do you want Brexit with the deal, Brexit without the deal, or Remain?

Assuming the EU are willing to clarify what Remain would entail of course.
Click to expand...

Not sure that will happen - if it did though I think its pretty clear the votes would go a big chunk to Brexit no deal, a big chunk to remain and basically the deciding votes to the middle... these votes then get split and it becomes a straight vote between hard brexit and remain... might as well just put the binary options on the table to start with

Of course the big problem is when you get a result something like
leave no deal 46% mays deal 12% remain 42%

then the votes transfer and it goes to
leave 49% and remain 51%

Basically leave won the first referendum... gets the most votes in the second referendum but after the transferable votes we remain - honestly I think the political landscape becomes ungovernable at that point

If there is a second vote (i don't think there will be) I think it needs to be a binary choice

Also I dont think there has been a legal ruling on if remain is even an option has there (i.e. can A50 be stopped?)... so as I say I have my dounts there will be but if there is I think it will be 2 options
 
711 said:
Maybe a second referendum should be single transferable vote, do you want Brexit with the deal, Brexit without the deal, or Remain?

Assuming the EU are willing to clarify what Remain would entail of course.
Click to expand...

That would split the leave vote. It doesn't matter anyway as there's very little chance of another referendum - no Tory PM will call for one and Corbyn is avowedly opposed.
 
Fully Fledged said:
Never trust a Lib Dem, just ask the students.
Click to expand...
to be fair if he stood in the general election and said i will vote for a deal whatever that deal is then I think hes right to honour that - I also think it was stupid of people to vote him in if he was basically going to vote for something not knowing what it is - but will of the people and all that
 
I genuinely believe that given another referendum, the turn out would be higher and remain would win by a 5 point margin.

I think there's a hell of a lot of people who are just sick to death of the chaos now, realise how damaging it's going to be and would like life to go back to how it was before 2016.

It's currently a case right now of those with the loudest voices being heard the most.
 
sun_tzu said:
Not yet - but on the 29th of march we are going to start rounding up Africans to sell to trump and send our gunboats to start shelling china till they agree to sell our opium again.
Mogg is printing the overpriced Make Britian and Empire Again, union jack (MBEA) caps right now
Click to expand...
I know this was a sarcastic post but you do know that it's the Union Flag. It is only the Union Jack if it is on a naval vessel.
 
golden_blunder said:
The average joe bloggs in the street wouldn’t have known the phrases “customs union” or “single market” never mind hard or soft brexit before they voted. People were led to this outcome. For such a decision with massive repercussions, its really disgusting how it went down
Click to expand...
It's such a technical decision. Should never have gone to a vote.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
I only asked that, now seemingly in vain, as you couldn't seem to grasp the answer of your follow-up question despite quoting it.

They don't want to be reliant on NATO due to the influence USA, and whoever their president may be, has over it and want something in house instead.

I personally think that having a European Army is a bad idea just because of the humongous funding required to keep something like that ticking. At the moment USA foots the bill quite nicely paying almost 3x the amount that the other members so they should stick to being freeloaders from a cost perspective.
Click to expand...

Well, Europe could have an army that it used to defending it's borders rather than fighting for oil. that'd reduce costs.
 
sun_tzu said:
to be fair if he stood in the general election and said i will vote for a deal whatever that deal is then I think hes right to honour that - I also think it was stupid of people to vote him in if he was basically going to vote for something not knowing what it is - but will of the people and all that
Click to expand...
I will admit that even tough I feel that any party that would prop up the Tories are aberrant I would vote for them if they were the only feasible opponent to said Tories. For me voting for somebody who has no chance of getting elected is a wasted vote and wasting a vote is just as bad a not voting.
 
Zlatattack said:
Well, Europe could have an army that it used to defending it's borders rather than fighting for oil. that'd reduce costs.
Click to expand...
I don't like the idea of armies defending boarders unless we are actually at war. Securing the boarders should be a job for Police, customs and excise and Boarder Force.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
I only asked that, now seemingly in vain, as you couldn't seem to grasp the answer of your follow-up question despite quoting it.

They don't want to be reliant on NATO due to the influence USA, and whoever their president may be, has over it and want something in house instead.

I personally think that having a European Army is a bad idea just because of the humongous funding required to keep something like that ticking. At the moment USA foots the bill quite nicely paying almost 3x the amount that the other members so they should stick to being freeloaders from a cost perspective.
Click to expand...

We are at cross purposes I think. I agree that the EU needs its own army but that doesn't mean how it manifests will be any good. It will highly like be a bloated bureaucratic nightmare that isn't fit for purpose.

Germany et al have played a blinder freeloading off the US but Trump has started to turn the screw so how much longer can that go on for?
 
Last edited:
Classical Mechanic said:
We are at cross purposes I think. I agree that the EU needs its own army but that doesn't mean how it manifests will be any good. It will highly like be a bloated bureaucratic nightmare that isn't fit for purpose.

Germany have played a blinder freeloading off the US but Trump has started to turn the screw so how much longer can that go on for?
Click to expand...

I love the way history gets distorted...

The facts are that after WWII (West) Germany was only permitted a limited army by the Allies in the 50's. In fact, I'm not even sure the treaty was ever changed/dissolved. So, to say Germany has been playing a blinder by freeloading off the US is completely false. But don't let a few facts get in your way!
 
Rams said:
I love the way history gets distorted...

The facts are that after WWII (West) Germany was only permitted a limited army by the Allies in the 50's. In fact, I'm not even sure the treaty was ever changed/dissolved. So, to say Germany has been playing a blinder by freeloading off the US is completely false. But don't let a few facts get in your way!
Click to expand...

They have a military spending responsibility as a member of NATO that they don't come close to meeting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.