Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Apr '17 13:53
    https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1619485934745471/

    Worth hearing this detailed explanation of the fallacies and lies in May's claims to justify her snap election.

    Her strategy is unrealistic and not feasible and it will crash and burn. Raising such absurd expectations actually harms Bitain's negotiating position and undermines the national interest.
  2. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Apr '17 17:34
    May claims the referendum result was clear and May's hard Brexit is the correct approach. In reality the result was a narrow one and many who voted Leave relied on the assurance that the UK could remain within the customs union after leaving the EU - a most uncertain prospect.

    She claims that parliamentary opposition is damaging her work for the country and she needs a bigger majority to protect UK interests. In reality the job of the opposition is to challenge the executive - that is how Parliamentary democracy works.

    She claims the country is united around her government's plans for Brexit yet this is patently untrue. Her appeal to a spurious national unity is not credible and she is not entitled to wrap the national flag around her own shoulders as though her opponents were somehow disloyal to the nation. There is both opposition and anxiety around the country and the job of the elected MPs is to address their concerns.

    The claim that her gov't has a clear plan, which a good result would help her to deliver, is untrue. In fact, her government has refused to listen to sound advice and the EU negotiation position cannot be removed by wishful thinking, no matter how large or small her majority.

    The fundamental flaw is the UK demands about sequencing and timing of different strands. May in her Feb White Paper wants BOTH agreement on the mechanics of withdrawal and an ambitious and far reaching agreement on trade, security et al to be achieved within 18 months and implemented on a phased basis. This CANNOT happen as May was told repeatedly. Firstly, withdrawal has to be resolved before negotiating a trade agreement. Secondly, the only viable option for a phased change process is to allow the UK to linger on as a member of the EU while the trade negotiations continue beyond the two year limit. It is not conceivable to have a phased implementation of an agreement that does not exist.

    But listen to the full account on the video.
  3. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    30 Apr '17 19:48
    Originally posted by finnegan
    May claims the referendum result was clear and May's hard Brexit is the correct approach. In reality the result was a narrow one and many who voted Leave relied on the assurance that the UK could remain within the customs union after leaving the EU - a most uncertain prospect.

    She claims that parliamentary opposition is damaging her work for the countr ...[text shortened]... tation of an agreement that does not exist.


    But listen to the full account on the video.[/b]
    I'm not aware that the EU's position that a trade agreement cannot be negotiated simultaneously with the separation agreement is supported by article 50. While I agree that the Conservatives have been digging a hole for themselves, the EU appear to wish to be difficult.
  4. 30 Apr '17 19:54
    Originally posted by finnegan
    https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1619485934745471/

    Worth hearing this detailed explanation of the fallacies and lies in May's claims to justify her snap election.

    Her strategy is unrealistic and not feasible and it will crash and burn. Raising such absurd expectations actually harms Bitain's negotiating position and undermines the national interest.
    The English have gone mad, mad I say!

    After getting out of the EU, they will all be dying in the streets!!!
  5. 30 Apr '17 21:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    The English have gone mad, mad I say!

    After getting out of the EU, they will all be dying in the streets!!!
    After returning to be just like 90% of the countries in the world, the whole country is going to fall to ruins.
  6. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Apr '17 21:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    After returning to be just like 90% of the countries in the world, the whole country is going to fall to ruins.
    Where does your 90% come from?
    What does it even mean? Can we have an explanation?

    Which countries do you imagine are not members of trade agreements?

    Get informed: Click on a country or territory on the map given at this link to see its participation in Regional Trade Agreements.

    https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/rta_participation_map_e.htm

    Since in reality much of the global economy is already tied into trade blocs, I think you will find that the UK is not going to be in a great position to bully other countries into favourable trade deals with the UK. It will often be negotiating, not with individual countries, but with the blocs of which they are members.
    If the EU seems not to mind losing the UK's contribution, how much do you think the other significant trade blocs will care?

    I have a suspicion that only a small number of very powerful trade blocs will actually matter. Lose them and the UK is in trouble.

    What do you imagine the UK makes that anyone cannot get from elsewhere? Weapons systems will do well, of course, with customers like Saudi Arabia or Libya, but what else have the Tories left us with?
  7. 30 Apr '17 22:06
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    After returning to be just like 90% of the countries in the world, the whole country is going to fall to ruins.
    It makes me skeered. :'(
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Apr '17 22:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    It makes me skeered. :'(
    Go away. You're drunk again.
  9. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    01 May '17 10:14
    Internal notes recording May's attempt at Brexit talks. Pretty dismal reading from https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/68j43p/todays_faz_report_on_mays_disastrous_dinner_with/.

    This is From Jeremy Cliffe the Berlin Bureau Chief at The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/kaffeeklatsch) - Citing [FAZ](faz.net) - http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/brexit/eu-kommission-skeptisch-vor-brexit-verhandlungen-14993673.html
    In full:
    1) May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems; but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.
    2) May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.
    3) It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.
    4) May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures - three times.
    5) EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June.
    6) Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.
    7) Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.
    8) May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process.
    9) Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.
    10) EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them.
    11) Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".
    12) May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed.
    13) She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality.
    14) May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared.
    15) ie as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit
    16) "The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner)
    17) May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties.
    18) Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club
    19) Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
    20) ...leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).
    21) "I leave Downing St ten times as sceptical as I was before" Juncker told May as he left
    22) Next morning at c7am Juncker called Merkel on her mobile, said May living in another galaxy & totally deluding herself
    23) Merkel quickly reworked her speech to Bundestag to include her now-famous "some in Britain still have illusions" comment
    24) FAZ concludes: May in election mode & playing to crowd, but what use is a big majority won by nurturing delusions of Brexit hardliners?
    25) Juncker's team now think it more likely than not that Brexit talks will collapse & hope Brits wake up to harsh realities in time.
    26) What to make of it all? Obviously this leak is a highly tactical move by Commission. But contents deeply worrying for UK nonetheless.
    27) The report points to major communications/briefing problems. Important messages from Berlin & Brussels seem not to be getting through.
    28) Presumably as a result, May seems to be labouring under some really rather fundamental misconceptions about Brexit & the EU27.
    29) Also clear that (as some of us have been warning for a while...) No 10 should expect every detail of the Brexit talks to leak.
  10. 01 May '17 12:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Internal notes recording May's attempt at Brexit talks. Pretty dismal reading from https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/68j43p/todays_faz_report_on_mays_disastrous_dinner_with/.

    This is From Jeremy Cliffe the Berlin Bureau Chief at The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/kaffeeklatsch) - Citing [FAZ](faz.net) - http://www.faz.net/akt ...[text shortened]... en warning for a while...) No 10 should expect every detail of the Brexit talks to leak.
    Everyone is tired of your arrogant hypocrisy. Did you know that the 1970's labour party's (which you love and adore) official policy was to withdraw from the EEC? It's only new labour (which you despise) that is europhilic. Smell the contradiction?
  11. 01 May '17 12:16 / 1 edit
    Brussels' ridiculous united Ireland clause (Northern Ireland remains 80% unionist), stupid beyond all belief claim to Gibraltar, Goading the SNP and undermining the UK, giving every single EU member a veto over the final deal and demands for an outrageous concocted bill of 50 billion euros not even for a trade deal, but for talks on a trade deal to start!! Brussels does not want a deal. They want desperately for the UK to fail, and their farcical show of "unity" on the weekend has all but shown the hysteria they have towards the UK leaving.

    I was if anything a reluctant leaver. But the absolutely outrageous handling of the situation by Brussels (which couldn't happen without Berlin's blessing - since Germany once again dominates Europe, don't delude yourself) has convinced me that I will take brief economic pain (if any, seems unlikely) to leave this ghastly "club". I can for the first time say I hope the EU fails. I initially didn't want to say that as it is simply spiteful, but now, I feel I am merely returning the favour. The attitude in the UK towards cognac loving drunk Jean Claude Juncker is "do your worst". We will, as always, fight, and we will, as always, win.

    There is a lesson to be learned from history that Brussels would do well to remember. Trying to keep people in by intimidation never works, and it will ultimately destroy whatever institution seeks to impose this. Countless regimes have destroyed themselves by trying to bully people (eg Soviet Union). As a tactic, this can never last forever. If the EU is so great, why do they have to bully people to stay in? This is a question that will be asked many a time by many more people and states in the years to come.

    The uncertainty of Brexit has stemmed other states from waking up for now. However, the shock factor always wears off. If the EU thinks the existential threats it faces will be stemmed because euroscepticism has temporarily been defeated in the elections, they are wrong. This is only the beginning of many more crises on a much larger scale that they will face. Come 5 year's time (although I predict sooner), there is going to be a complete polarisation of politics and if the status quo continues (as the past 9 months and its second largest member leaving have shown), the EU will suffer a civilian revolt that will bring about its abrupt death, and I am more glad than ever that we are leaving, once again ahead of the curve.
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    01 May '17 13:54
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    Everyone is tired of your arrogant hypocrisy. Did you know that the 1970's labour party's (which you love and adore) official policy was to withdraw from the EEC? It's only new labour (which you despise) that is europhilic. Smell the contradiction?
    I consistently opposed Brexit. I have no plans to change. There is no hypocrisy - only your inability to get past the slogan chanting of a football terrace.

    Your understanding of my temporary and conditional affiliation with Labour is defective. It is also bluster and beside the point.

    The post to which you were responding describes May's behaviour in a meeting with Juncker and I would invite you to defend the negotiation positions she adopted. Most observors think she is making a very poor fist of it and that is entirely the point because that is what she claims to have called her snap election over. The British voters are invited to support her negotiating position on Brexit and yet it does not stand up to scrutiny. That is pretty fundamental to this election campaign and you need to start doing your homework if you propose to argue the issues as distinct from waving your blue scarf.
  13. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    01 May '17 14:03
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Where does your 90% come from?
    What does it even mean? Can we have an explanation?

    Which countries do you imagine are not members of trade agreements?

    Get informed: Click on a country or territory on the map given at this link to see its participation in Regional Trade Agreements.

    https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/rta_participa ...[text shortened]... f course, with customers like Saudi Arabia or Libya, but what else have the Tories left us with?
    still awaiting a response from #Toryboy #tikka
  14. 01 May '17 14:39
    Originally posted by finnegan
    still awaiting a response from #Toryboy #tikka
    Oh you won't get one, since I didn't bother reading it. With a little bit of twist anyone can turn facts into a story to suit their needs. You are a master at this. Don't worry, it's not a crime, everybody does it, but you just have to learn to filter unreliable sources that have said twist. Thus I don't read what you write.
  15. 01 May '17 14:42
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    Brussels' ridiculous united Ireland clause (Northern Ireland remains 80% unionist), stupid beyond all belief claim to Gibraltar, Goading the SNP and undermining the UK, giving every single EU member a veto over the final deal and demands for an outrageous concocted bill of 50 billion euros not even for a trade deal, but for talks on a trade deal to start! ...[text shortened]... abrupt death, and I am more glad than ever that we are leaving, once again ahead of the curve.
    May's notion that she can negotiate some kind of deal with the EU that allows U.K. businesses favourable access to the vital EU market without forking over billions of U.K. taxpayer money is utterly naive. The EU wants as few obstructions to trade between the EU and the U.K. as possible, but is in a vastly stronger negotiating position and the U.K. simply cannot afford to walk away. If May can get access to the EU market on terms approaching the single market but without freedom of movement she would be lucky to have it cost only 50 billion. Either way, she will screw over either U.K. businesses or the U.K. taxpayer, and we all know where the Tories' priorities are in this regard.