Quote ="King Street Cat"All that, and that's the only thing you comment on? I bet you've got a great posting history in the Daily Mail and Daily Express echo chambers.'" as said before, I don't read any right wing media, I just see the facts as they are. And wrencat1873, I am aware of the differences in legality, summed up quite well by Channel 4. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -explained

Quote ="King Street Cat"All that, and that's the only thing you comment on? I bet you've got a great posting history in the Daily Mail and Daily Express echo chambers.'" as said before, I don't read any right wing media, I just see the facts as they are. And wrencat1873, I am aware of the differences in legality, summed up quite well by Channel 4. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -explained

I think we might find his inability to keep his nob in his pants led him to commit a criminal offence while mayor.

I doubt that very much what is for certain his use/misuse will pale into insignificance when compared to the antics of Livinstone.

What I don’t understand is if being a member of the EU is great why don’t the EU teach us a short sharp lesson. Let us go with no deal and then we will surely encounter the Armageddon you so confidently predict and we will then coming running back with our tails between our legs on a deal much more preferable to the EU?

Always a negative to break a deal up on bad terms. A lot of people are not happy with comments like Tusk’s hell etc and if we do leave there will need to be another vote to go back in?

Could it be the EU really needs our money and that is the bottom line here

*Bangs head on desk*

You still think the EU is some monster. They aren't interested in "teaching us a lesson" FFS. They will collaterally be affected by our chaos, especially the Republic of Ireland, whose interests have been paramount from their position throughout this mess.

And honestly, your whataboutism is staggering. Brexiteers come up with all sorts of pseudo-racist, mostly outlandish, generally tremendously unpleasant comments about EU and EU leaders but as soon as Tusk makes a little joke or makes a very reasonable prediction of the likely future you are into full on snowflake mode and crying like Robert Hicks has just ruled out a try without checking with the video ref. It's unbelievable, staggering hypocrisy.

As for "the money". You really think EU leaders are hooked up to British money like a drip. It's just such a total misunderstanding of the situation, of how politics works and of how small an amount of money it is in the overall scheme of things that I don't think there's much hope for you.

So why are they so keen for us to stay - something you have yet to address - and yes you are not the only one banging their head on the desk - your complete adoration for the EU has blinded you views your comments and most of your logic which simply doesn’t add up. As you say there is simply no hope for you

Nope, it failed because the Tories couldn't get their house in order.

They had a majority in the house, thanks to the D.U.P. bribe, they shouldn't have to rely on the opposition to get it over the line.

Why should opposition M.P's. who were given no input into said deal, bail out a fractured Government?

Well as I mentioned they would receive be collateral damage, especially ROI, from our departure. There is going to be economic harm on all sides from Britain leaving, especially without a deal. But the intransigent approach of the current government has made negotiating very difficult.

But moreover they view us as obvious trading partners, fellow democracies, keepers of the European peace and neighbours who by any sense would be, and are, part of the same trading bloc. We also bring more scale to the EU which helps us project on a world stage beyond what we could do alone or incrementally what they will be able to do without us.

We have been behind most of the EU's strategic decisions in the past couple of decades, from having a twin track approach in certain areas to embedding free market ideology at the heart of the EU to, most of all, EU expansion which was triumphed by Thatcher and Major. In other words, Britain is one of the leaders so of course they are sad to see us go.


I'm not in thrall to the EU. I just understand how the modern world works, which is a series of huge trading blocs. Being outside one, least of all being outside one on WTO terms which is preposterous and hugely damaging economically.

The UK has prospered so much since it entered and has steered the EU in a positive way for our country. There are things which can be done better, much as there are in any democracy and any bureaucracy, but chucking it all away for totally spurious reasons is the height of irresponsibility. And every reason I've seen has been spurious, from the money on the bus to foreign workers taking benefits to lies about EU regulations right down to "Tusk was rude about us".

I just don't understand where some people get the "love in" with Europe. I voted remain because I thought it better for us at the time, seeing how the EU has behaved has made me reconsider that. The EU are desparate for our money, it greases the wheels of the gravy train!

Trying not to cover the same ground as ‘99 too much, this question leads to different answers depending on your view of the EU, and so for those of us with a less negative or even borderline positive attitude to it, this isn’t a powerful point.

Framing it along the lines of ‘Given that the EU is a malign adversary that wishes to grind the UK beneath its Federalist jackboot, surely they’d chuck us out with no deal if that was really so bad.’ hits the problem that many of us find that characterisation of the EU a bit ridiculous.

For me the EU’s key objectives in managing Brexit from their side are:

1. Protect the interests of the remaining members, by minimising disruption
2. Be fair to other nations outside the EU by ensuring the new relationship is consistent with what has been done elsewhere, based on how close the UK decides that new relationship should be
3. Maintain as positive a relationship with the UK as possible to allow partnerships where desired by both parties in the future, smoothing the way for a trade deal of some sort etc.
4. Linking back to points 1 and 3, offer a deal to the UK that doesn’t damage it unnecessarily, but which is (a little, but clearly) worse than membership of the EU to discourage other members from following its path - not as punishment, but to protect its own integrity.

Based on those assumptions, I find it very easy to understand the EU’s position.

Which EU actions have surprised or disappointed you?

There have been a couple of presentational things, but in terms of the deal offered, surely that was utterly predictable in light of the UK’s position to almost everybody... except David Davis perhaps.

I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.

Quote ="Lilfatman"I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.'" I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Quote ="Lilfatman"I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.'" I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Sigh.
[url=https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/british-apple-trees-facing-the-chop/Euromyths: British apple trees facing the chop[/url

I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers.

How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going?

I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so.

Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?

This paranoia that we are being ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels would be laughable if the right hadn't turned it into a touchstone that has led to our current mess.
Can you give us some examples of how "EU dictats" have affected your life? Please be extra careful to not confuse these "dictats" with UK law like Boris Johnson and so many Daily Mail headlines do.

If cost is the crux of your argument then it's a poor one - the cost of the EU is massively outweighed by the benefits it brings. Our contribution to the administration of the EU represents less than 0.1% of our GDP, a vanishingly tiny number.

Again, you are tragically misinformed so I'm going to ask for examples please.

The most important parts of trade are distance and cost and the two are, unsurprisingly, linked. To support your apparent argument can you give us details of the "host" of countries which trade with the EU on WTO terms? And which of them are geographically close such that the EU is by default the primary export market? I can help out - your second list will be about as long as the list of Warrington Grand Final victories.

Well said sir.
Our friends on the "leave£ side of the argument are still, after 3+ years, hoping for a better future but, just like the solution to the Irish backstop, all they have is some thing scribbled on the back of a fag packet and the "dream" of a trade deal with Donald

Quote ="Sal Paradise"I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers. How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going? I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so. Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?'" Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year. Now, i’m not down playing down a price of more than £500 per year for a mean average family of four. Especially as it is to be a member of a club most of them don’t like. But it is estimated to be more than offset in trade cost with the EU alone, by about £12.9 billion (£4 billion net) just on tariff changes, before considering logistical disruptions and the preferential deals we have elsewhere in the world through the EU that we haven’t managed to rollover yet. Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win. It’s a cost-benefit thing, and it depends on how we each value the different costs and benefits. I’m not massively enthused by the EU, but it is not something that massively exercises me either - I just enjoy a good argument, as much as anything. Once we get into no-deal, disorderly exit territory though, for me it isn’t even close, and ‘not quite Armegeddon’ isn’t consoling me much.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers. How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going? I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so. Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?'" Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year. Now, i’m not down playing down a price of more than £500 per year for a mean average family of four. Especially as it is to be a member of a club most of them don’t like. But it is estimated to be more than offset in trade cost with the EU alone, by about £12.9 billion (£4 billion net) just on tariff changes, before considering logistical disruptions and the preferential deals we have elsewhere in the world through the EU that we haven’t managed to rollover yet. Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win. It’s a cost-benefit thing, and it depends on how we each value the different costs and benefits. I’m not massively enthused by the EU, but it is not something that massively exercises me either - I just enjoy a good argument, as much as anything. Once we get into no-deal, disorderly exit territory though, for me it isn’t even close, and ‘not quite Armegeddon’ isn’t consoling me much.

Quote ="Mild Rover"Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year.'" Before someone tries to distract with the difference between MR's 0.4% and my "less than 0.1%" of GDP, I was quoting the administrative cost of the EU, not net contributions (admin cost is about 7% of the EU budget so it ends up a lot less than 0.1% on this metric). Quote ="Mild Rover"Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.'" The great tragedy is that those with most to lose are most likely to suffer. We will battle through, no one said we wouldn't. But why should we, all to fix an ideological split in the Conservative party. We'll be a little bit poorer, a little bit sadder, a little bit less trusting and with our bonds of affection stretched. We'll end up (already are) embittered, divided by geography and by class and by generation. The only thing certain is that history will not be kind to the people who brought this division and destruction on our country.

Quote ="Mild Rover"Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year.'" Before someone tries to distract with the difference between MR's 0.4% and my "less than 0.1%" of GDP, I was quoting the administrative cost of the EU, not net contributions (admin cost is about 7% of the EU budget so it ends up a lot less than 0.1% on this metric). Quote ="Mild Rover"Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.'" The great tragedy is that those with most to lose are most likely to suffer. We will battle through, no one said we wouldn't. But why should we, all to fix an ideological split in the Conservative party. We'll be a little bit poorer, a little bit sadder, a little bit less trusting and with our bonds of affection stretched. We'll end up (already are) embittered, divided by geography and by class and by generation. The only thing certain is that history will not be kind to the people who brought this division and destruction on our country.

Indeed, the MP's on all sides who ignored a DEMOCRATIC VOTE and the EU politicians that desparately want our money in their trough.

It hasn't been ignored though, has it.
They are working their way through, in the hope that a decent solution can be found.

Unfortunately, the whole Brexit issue isn't/wasn't quite as simple as certain politicians told us that it would be to gain a "free trade" deal and then take the advantages of being able to negotiate our own deals with the rest of the world.
The whole issue has been driven by idealism on the right of the political spectrum, with some stalling techniques being used by some Tory members to fill their pockets with "anti Brexit gambling".
I dont actually think that you can blame the EU negotiators, who gave Mrs May an offer of a deal that she was happy with.

To try to be fair to everybody, when you look at the motivations of all the key players, few of them have have behaved terribly.

Cameron was under enormous pressure to have a referendum to put the issue to bed for the sake of Conservative unity, and see off the threat to them of UKIP. He fought ineffectively for Remain, because he wanted his party to stay united after he’d won and didn’t want to upset MPs he’d still need to rely on.

Johnson just really, really, really want to be PM one day and would do anything to try to make that happen. He has to bear responsibility for his actions, but blaming him for putting his ambition first is like blaming a tiger for not being vegan.

Corbyn - he’s ambivalent about the EU at best, and why should he have expended political capital on a mess of the Tories making?

May, she could have tried to take a cross party approach, but she wanted to hold her own together and asking her to work hand in glove with Red Jez would have been a huge ask of both of them, and i’m pretty confident it wouldn’t have worked.

Our democratically elected parliamentarians can’t form a majority for any single course of action, but that reflects the will of the people pretty well. Most people voted Leave, but most people are against leaving without a deal and most people don’t like the deal on the table or any other realistic deal. Which is their right, but it demonstrates a limitation of claiming a democratic mandate for a course of action that needs external agreement. My wife and I could unanimously agree we want a new Ferrari for the price of a Ford but expecting it to happen would be daft.

You are, of course, having a giggle.

Aren't you?



The only "solution" most of those on the opposite benches want is to revoke Article 50, or at best, a second referendum, and to remove the government. Almost without exception, they've lied and lied that they will "honour and respect" the result of the referendum.

At the same time they inflict defeat after defeat in the Commons to damage the government. Can't blame them for that, but there are bigger things at play - such as honouring the referendum, which they all promised to respect. There's a word for behaviour like that.



Labour have simply monitored the polls and public opinion and changed their policy with 2 goals: 1 - damage the government, and 2 - get a shot at No.10 (until the last few weeks, of course).

Oh look, the remainer conflates a leaver with the hard right. Wrong. I don't, and never have, read 'hard right press'. I form my own judgements. I listen to the words of the EU leaders and read their social media posts. Even in the Paxman documentary I mentioned earlier, one of the EU execs speaks of the UK as the naughty member of the family who should be taught a lesson.

Snowflake?

Pal, you're seriously on the wrong track there. But don't melt about it.




Again, you're wrong. I don't view the EU as a monster, nor - from your previous posts - am I scared of them. Quite simply, I don't agree with them or the direction in which they are inevitably heading, which is a gradual weakening of the nation state and increasingly centralised power.

As a trading bloc - wonderful concept, all for it. But as you claim to be an expert on the EU, please explain why a trading bloc requires ever encroaching closer political union, and why membership of this trading bloc is dependant on accepting ideological core values? Why should membership of a trading bloc necessitate accepting freedom of movement, for example. Where else in the world is this necessary?

Go on, guess my views on helping the poor and climate change. I bet you get it wrong.

But on another point I agree with you. The fundamental values of the EU will not change. Hence I want to leave.

You have to start from the base understanding that Mr Whippy doesn't like anyone who disagrees, he lurves the EU and anyone who doesn't is a jack boot wearing skin headed racist with Mam 'n' Dad tattooed on their neck, love and hate on their knuckles (such as you can see from them being bruised and cut from dragging along the ground) and is incapable of forming their own opinion and simply follows any media that has the temerity to not suck up to liberal left leaning opinion.