Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
madzo2007 said:
The below popped up on my twitter feed, regarding trade/trade deals if No Deal happened and how Article 24 that’s spouted by Rees Mog and his cronies is totally irrelevant in our situation. The guy also speaks in ways that anyone could understand. It’s 15mins long though. Hit the soundcloud link.

Click to expand...


From what i understand for Article 24 to be used there would have to be an agreement in place with the EU. Does this guy confirm that?
 
stevoc said:
From what i understand for Article 24 to be used there would have to be an agreement in place with the EU. Does this guy confirm that?
Click to expand...

It’s from about 4mins in he talks about it. He says that Article 24 has been superseded and it was for when two countries are setting up an agreement which is almost complete they together go to the WTO to present the schedule of implementation and ask the WTO to allow them to reduce/get rid of tariffs while they work on the final details.

Also he mentions the record for setting up a trade deal was 11 months and the EU/Canada trade agreement took 9 years. Obviously EU/UK could be quick in trade deal terms due to them ‘knowing’ each other.
 
Stanley Road said:
Its hardly a poor comment when it seems staying in an eu country is the holy grail. Moving is a choice, deciding to stay in the uk is a choice, staying and moaning is also a choice. If you see a better life for you and your family abroad, your choice to stay is bewildering. I left behind family and as my parents got sick and eventually died, I went home every week. Would it have been any better for them if I lived in the uk, no. So yeah, if you hate it so much, what is it in life you actually want? If it's to stay in the uk and be unhappy but close to friends and family then fair enough. If you think your family would be better off abroad then move.
Click to expand...
Interesting window into your mind right there, fair enough...
 
4bars said:
No deal will be always a possibility, of course. But even if they don't go for May's deal, on the 28th even the politicians will say: "Shit is getting real" and they will pull out A50. if not would be insanity
Click to expand...
At some point we need to stop expecting people to suddenly become sane when they've been insane for the past 3 years. As terrible as no deal will be, it will be a terrible decision made by a government that is defined by terrible decisions, so sadly, has to be expected.
 
TheGame said:
Oh look, more evidence of Vote Leave breaking rules:

Click to expand...


YEAH BUT WE GOT OUR COUNTRY BACK!

But, to those more learned than I, how much BS has to be uncovered before the result/re-run become possible? Or to we too far in the shit now?
 
Tibs said:
YEAH BUT WE GOT OUR COUNTRY BACK!

But, to those more learned than I, how much BS has to be uncovered before the result/re-run become possible? Or to we too far in the shit now?
Click to expand...

Brexit means brexit

No one cares how much dirt has been dug up. Much like trump followers, people just close their ears and only hear what they want to hear
 
stevoc said:
I get the feeling that a lot of the Tories seem to think the EU will cave at the 11th hour, they may or they may not i have no idea.

But either way i think the Tories care more about their party and staying in power than they do the country and it's people. If May and the Tories withdrew article 50 there are 17m remainers who probably wouldn't vote for them again for a long time if ever.
Click to expand...

All political parties care more about achieving power and then staying in power, otherwise what's the point? The public and in particular their voters are just 'fodder' to be used or discarded as necessary, a means to an end. Yes, you may get individual politicians who will sacrifice-self for the right decision, but who determines what's right? Or as Pilot reportedly said to Christ "Truth... what is that"?
Lots of people voted in the referendum who had either never voted before, or had not voted in a long time, simply because it was a binary choice, Remain or Leave, it was not about Remain, half in and half out, or Leave, but only with a deal. It is still that binary choice, leave... and then deal, or Remain and cancel Brexit... there are no other choices!
 
madzo2007 said:
It’s from about 4mins in he talks about it. He says that Article 24 has been superseded and it was for when two countries are setting up an agreement which is almost complete they together go to the WTO to present the schedule of implementation and ask the WTO to allow them to reduce/get rid of tariffs while they work on the final details.

Also he mentions the record for setting up a trade deal was 11 months and the EU/Canada trade agreement took 9 years. Obviously EU/UK could be quick in trade deal terms due to them ‘knowing’ each other.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate couldn't listen to it right now, will give it a listen later.

So basically as i thought the UK would need the EU to agree to go along with article 24. So thats a non starter as an alternative to getting around the backstop.
 
Maticmaker said:
All political parties care more about achieving power and then staying in power, otherwise what's the point? The public and in particular their voters are just 'fodder' to be used or discarded as necessary, a means to an end. Yes, you may get individual politicians who will sacrifice-self for the right decision, but who determines what's right? Or as Pilot reportedly said to Christ "Truth... what is that"?
Click to expand...

Well sadly you are right about all parties and most politicians, but when a situation like this arises we could at least hope that the people whose job it is to do whats best for the country might actually do that instead of just taking whatever actions they think will keep them in power and improve their chances of future re-election.

But then we're talking about the Tories here so that sort of thinking is probably way too optimistic.

Maticmaker said:
Lots of people voted in the referendum who had either never voted before, or had not voted in a long time, simply because it was a binary choice, Remain or Leave, it was not about Remain, half in and half out, or Leave, but only with a deal. It is still that binary choice, leave... and then deal, or Remain and cancel Brexit... there are no other choices!
Click to expand...

A lot of leave voters might have thought thats what it meant, but i don't think that was ever going to be the case. I could be wrong but the actual procedure for leaving the EU and activating article 50 gives you 2 years to enable you to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. It would be better for any country to leave with a deal in place instead waiting 2 years to leave and then trying to negotiate one that could take 2 or more years anyway.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Yeah, that was an especially shit comment. Extremely disrespectful.
Click to expand...

Indeed but then maybe it's asking too much of a member of the current Government who was put in charge of negotiations with the EU agree a deal and find a solution to the Irish border problem to read a 32 page document that was very relevant to the negotiations he was conducting.
 
Tibs said:
YEAH BUT WE GOT OUR COUNTRY BACK!

But, to those more learned than I, how much BS has to be uncovered before the result/re-run become possible? Or to we too far in the shit now?
Click to expand...

Vast numbers of people refuse to accept that their vote could have been influenced by others. That’s why when Russia is mentioned, you hear them saying stupid shit like ‘No Russian told me how to vote!’. A re-run is basically impossible.
 
stevoc said:
Cheers mate couldn't listen to it right now, will give it a listen later.

So basically as i thought the UK would need the EU to agree to go along with article 24. So thats a non starter as an alternative to getting around the backstop.
Click to expand...

Having a free trade agreement has nothing at all to do with the backstop.

The EU has a FTA with Canada but there is still a border.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Having a free trade agreement has nothing at all to do with the backstop.

The EU has a FTA with Canada but there is still a border.
Click to expand...

Art.24 of the GATT is about custom unions and/or free trade agreements. The reason it's useless here is simply because you need to have an actual draft of an agreement to show to the council for Trade in Goods.

Edit: I mentioned it months ago.

JPRouve said:
What he said is inaccurate, you can't just say that you are working towards a free trade agreement, you need to have an official interim agreement which means that you have a plan and schedule for the formation of a custom union/free trade area within a reasonable length of time.

Then there is the problem that according to WTO and art.24 a free trade area is the substitution of two or more custom territories for one, now people probably imagine what Ireland's custom territory is, so Rees-Mogg is playing with people ignorance.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how Brexit voting Sunderland will be feeling about Nissan’s announcement today.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Having a free trade agreement has nothing at all to do with the backstop.

The EU has a FTA with Canada but there is still a border.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate but i was just referencing that the likes of Farage and Mogg have been throwing this idea of using Article 24 around as a way to get around the need for the backstop. And how it couldn't be used the way they seem to think it could.
 
Sigma said:
Click to expand...


How awful for the people of Sunderland. Having to look each other in the face everyday knowing you voted to make yourself poorer. This isn’t the imposed devestation of government policy they have previously experienced. They did this to themselves.
 
rpitchfo said:
How awful for the people of Sunderland. Having to look each other in the face everyday knowing you voted to make yourself poorer. This isn’t the imposed devestation of government policy they have previously experienced. They did this to themselves.
Click to expand...
Schadenfreude.
 
Klopper76 said:
I wonder how Brexit voting Sunderland will be feeling about Nissan’s announcement today.
Click to expand...

Good point.
Was it just me or didn't Nissan receive an undisclosed inducement to invest in the Sunderland plant just after the Referendum outcome ?
 
To my mind it makes no sense for Sunderland to vote the way it did given what the result means for Sunderland economically. Therefore I automatically assume the majority did so out of ignorance and feel sorry for them.

However, in light of the discussion about remainers patronisingly assuming that the people who voted leave did so out of stupidity rather than because they had simply different priorities, I salute the principles of those wise and informed leave voters who simply decided that "sovereignty" was more important than the economic well being of themselves and those around them. I sincerely hope as much of the economic impact as possible hits them as they are surely the most intellectually and emotionally prepared to deal with the consequences of their decision. Certainly better them than the poor bastards who either voted remain or were too ill-informed to realise the self-harm they were commiting economically.
 
Am I right in thinking once Brexit is all over, one of the first things the government will be looking to do is re-nationalise the railways?
 
stevoc said:
Well sadly you are right about all parties and most politicians, but when a situation like this arises we could at least hope that the people whose job it is to do whats best for the country might actually do that instead of just taking whatever actions they think will keep them in power and improve their chances of future re-election.

But then we're talking about the Tories here so that sort of thinking is probably way too optimistic.



A lot of leave voters might have thought thats what it meant, but i don't think that was ever going to be the case. I could be wrong but the actual procedure for leaving the EU and activating article 50 gives you 2 years to enable you to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. It would be better for any country to leave with a deal in place instead waiting 2 years to leave and then trying to negotiate one that could take 2 or more years anyway.
Click to expand...

That is correct, but since the EU made it clear from day one that they would not negotiate (or at one point even talk about) a future trade deal, until we had left the EU, then it seemed ridiculous for the UK Government to agree a withdrawal (or as it became known a divorce deal) agreement; instead the two years allowed in art 50 should have been used to prepare internally for a no deal on the 29th March. Otherwise, as Mrs May has now found out, we have become a hostage to fortune, promising to settle with the EU before we have anything concrete in return.
The binary choices are still there, we either Leave, without a deal, or Remain, and cancel Brexit. None of the other so called 'choices' satisfy either leavers or remainers' and will poison UK politics for decades, primarily because they will be seen to be 'a fix' cobbled together to save, not the country, but the embarrassment of our political classes and which anyhow doesn't work!
 
Maticmaker said:
That is correct, but since the EU made it clear from day one that they would not negotiate (or at one point even talk about) a future trade deal, until we had left the EU, then it seemed ridiculous for the UK Government to agree a withdrawal (or as it became known a divorce deal) agreement; instead the two years allowed in art 50 should have been used to prepare internally for a no deal on the 29th March. Otherwise, as Mrs May has now found out, we have become a hostage to fortune, promising to settle with the EU before we have anything concrete in return.
The binary choices are still there, we either Leave, without a deal, or Remain, and cancel Brexit. None of the other so called 'choices' satisfy either leavers or remainers' and will poison UK politics for decades, primarily because they will be seen to be 'a fix' cobbled together to save, not the country, but the embarrassment of our political classes and which anyhow doesn't work!
Click to expand...

The Uk are not a hostage to fortune, they just have to pay what they owe, part of the settlement is for the transitional period, which they won't pay if they leave with no deal.

They also were never going to have a trade deal before they left because until they leave they are still part of the EU. The political declaration is to provide the basis of negotiations when the UK have left.

Unfortunately the British public have been lied to since day one and were never ever going to have a trade deal before they left.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The Uk are not a hostage to fortune, they just have to pay what they owe, part of the settlement is for the transitional period, which they won't pay if they leave with no deal.

They also were never going to have a trade deal before they left because until they leave they are still part of the EU. The political declaration is to provide the basis of negotiations when the UK have left.

Unfortunately the British public have been lied to since day one and were never ever going to have a trade deal before they left.
Click to expand...

We weren't, but we are now, thanks to Mrs May's 'cack-handed' approach to negotiation.

You are correct in that both sides knew no discussion or negotiation on a future trade deal was possible until we left the EU officially. Therefore the decision by the UK Government to try to negotiate a withdrawal deal was a nonsense, it was no longer a negotiation but a form of 'post nuptial' agreement defined by Art 50 with the UK going where it was pushed!. The fact May/Tories and the majority of parliament, including Labour, agreed to instigate Art 50 before they (appeared) to have any clear strategy, just demonstrates political incompetence, on all sides.

There was never going to be an orderly transition, the two years associated with Art 50 allowed at best for contingency planning on both side. Any actual transition can only be defined properly once the trade deal is done and everyone on both sides knows the positions they are moving to/from and what measures are necessary.
 
Maticmaker said:
We weren't, but we are now, thanks to Mrs May's 'cack-handed' approach to negotiation.

You are correct in that both sides knew no discussion or negotiation on a future trade deal was possible until we left the EU officially. Therefore the decision by the UK Government to try to negotiate a withdrawal deal was a nonsense, it was no longer a negotiation but a form of 'post nuptial' agreement defined by Art 50 with the UK going where it was pushed!. The fact May/Tories and the majority of parliament, including Labour, agreed to instigate Art 50 before they (appeared) to have any clear strategy, just demonstrates political incompetence, on all sides.

There was never going to be an orderly transition, the two years associated with Art 50 allowed at best for contingency planning on both side. Any actual transition can only be defined properly once the trade deal is done and everyone on both sides knows the positions they are moving to/from and what measures are necessary.
Click to expand...

This sentence makes no sense, Art.50 only allows an unilateral withdrawal, it doesn't define any agreement.
 
Maticmaker said:
We weren't, but we are now, thanks to Mrs May's 'cack-handed' approach to negotiation.

You are correct in that both sides knew no discussion or negotiation on a future trade deal was possible until we left the EU officially. Therefore the decision by the UK Government to try to negotiate a withdrawal deal was a nonsense, it was no longer a negotiation but a form of 'post nuptial' agreement defined by Art 50 with the UK going where it was pushed!. The fact May/Tories and the majority of parliament, including Labour, agreed to instigate Art 50 before they (appeared) to have any clear strategy, just demonstrates political incompetence, on all sides.

There was never going to be an orderly transition, the two years associated with Art 50 allowed at best for contingency planning on both side. Any actual transition can only be defined properly once the trade deal is done and everyone on both sides knows the positions they are moving to/from and what measures are necessary.
Click to expand...

But it was only ever going to be a withdrawal agreement plus a political declaration.
The reason the withdrawal agreement is as it is, is because of May's red lines.

If May had said the Uk was going to stay in the Custom's Union and the Single Market it would have been different with the political declaration orientated towards that goal but as the UK want to leave both the CU and SM the current withdrawal agreement is all the UK can expect. The cake and eat it , which is also still Corbyn's plan, has misled the public's expectations totally.

The transition is there to stop the UK falling off the cliff and to start a trade deal negotiation not the other way round.

The Withdrawal agreement may seem awful but Brexit is awful and just about the only thing I did agree with May at the end , it is the only deal available if the UK leave the CU and SM.
 
JPRouve said:
This sentence makes no sense, Art.50 only allows an unilateral withdrawal, it doesn't define any agreement.
Click to expand...

Precisely, so why did May (apparently) try to 'negotiate' a withdrawal agreement... or was that just for public consumption back home? Even DD realised eventually it was all a sham and jumped ship!
 
Maticmaker said:
Precisely, so why did May (apparently) try to 'negotiate' a withdrawal agreement... or was that just for public consumption back home? Even DD realised eventually it was all a sham and jumped ship!
Click to expand...

Because whether you like it or not, the EU and the UK are politically, geographically and socially linked. From a legal standpoint there is a need to have a set of rules and agreement that will apply between both territories and their citizens.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But it was only ever going to be a withdrawal agreement plus a political declaration.
The reason the withdrawal agreement is as it is, is because of May's red lines.

If May had said the Uk was going to stay in the Custom's Union and the Single Market it would have been different with the political declaration orientated towards that goal but as the UK want to leave both the CU and SM the current withdrawal agreement is all the UK can expect. The cake and eat it , which is also still Corbyn's plan, has misled the public's expectations totally.

The transition is there to stop the UK falling off the cliff and to start a trade deal negotiation not the other way round.

The Withdrawal agreement may seem awful but Brexit is awful and just about the only thing I did agree with May at the end , it is the only deal available if the UK leave the CU and SM.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean both sides going off the cliff with a no deal?
 
JPRouve said:
Because whether you like it or not, the EU and the UK are politically, geographically and socially linked. From a legal standpoint there is a need to have a set of rules and agreement that will apply between both territories and their citizens.
Click to expand...

Only whilst the UK remains part of the EU, when the UK becomes a 'third country' that will change, will it not?
 
Maticmaker said:
Don't you mean both sides going off the cliff with a no deal?
Click to expand...

For both sides to negotiate a new relationship and to adjust . It will hit the EU to an extent but they're not going to fall off a cliff, the EU only gets cut off from the UK, the UK gets cut off from everyone.
All the EU members will still have fluid borders with the other EU nations, the Uk would have no fluid borders at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.