Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Kopfkino]

Mrs May says she wants to lead the Conservatives into another election and is in it for the long term 

 

Now a lot can happen in 5 years but she can't seriously believe she will allowed to do that or even capable of delivering now.

Edited 30 August 2017 by KingGTF

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, KingGTF said:

Mrs May says she wants to lead the Conservatives into another election and is in it for the long term 

 

Now a lot can happen in 5 years but she can't seriously believe she will allowed to do that or even capable of delivering now

She has to say or she'll be even more of a lame duck than she is now. I think the Aug 2019 rumour seems realistic.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Fair point, is most likely just a bit of PR

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

Mrs May says she wants to lead the Conservatives into another election and is in it for the long term 

 

Now a lot can happen in 5 years but she can't seriously believe she will allowed to do that or even capable of delivering now.

 

38 minutes ago, Webbo said:

She has to say or she'll be even more of a lame duck than she is now. I think the Aug 2019 rumour seems realistic.

I'm sure you're both right. This isn't necessarily a party political point as they all do it but isn't it ridiculous the way politicians carry on? She has to say it even though everybody knows it isn't true. You're right, she does but it's just farce isn't it?

[Guest Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

I'm sure you're both right. This isn't necessarily a party political point as they all do it but isn't it ridiculous the way politicians carry on? She has to say it even though everybody knows it isn't true. You're right, she does but it's just farce isn't it?

 

Thing is, if she doesn't say it, she ends up like Blair when he said he wouldnt serve the full third term and lost his authority. She can't afford to lose any more.

If she is truthful and says she is there to handle Brexit, she gets slated like Cameron did by some when he said he wouldn't seek a third term.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Thing is, if she doesn't say it, she ends up like Blair when he said he wouldnt serve the full third term and lost his authority. She can't afford to lose any more.

If she is truthful and says she is there to handle Brexit, she gets slated like Cameron did by some when he said he wouldn't seek a third term.

Oh i know but then, let's be honest, there isn't anybody not slating her as it is?

[Strokes]

35 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Thing is, if she doesn't say it, she ends up like Blair when he said he wouldnt serve the full third term and lost his authority. She can't afford to lose any more.

If she is truthful and says she is there to handle Brexit, she gets slated like Cameron did by some when he said he wouldn't seek a third term.

Lost authority, I think I see the ship in the distance.

[Guest Kopfkino]

17 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Oh i know but then, let's be honest, there isn't anybody not slating her as it is?

 

I mean she's being laughed at for thinking she could lead another election campaign. Cameron was properly slated for being arrogant, presumptuous and game-playing. Actually reading it properly, she has just said she won't resign so fair play to her for that. The party won't get rid of her because too many Brexiteers won't want to risk Hammond or someone of that ilk getting. And actually then, if the Conservatives get the good deal they believe they can, then there's no reason to get rid of her because she'll be in a strong position. So again if she says anything other than she is there til 2022 and beyond, she would basically be saying she won't be getting a good Brexit deal. Anyway, I do think she genuinely believes she is the right person and can carry on past 2022 let alone 2019 and has actually just been honest here. And tbh, she probably is the right person at the moment, or more the best the Conservatives can muster. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

[Guest]

Nothing to see here. Just a leftie nuisance posting leftie news.

 

No decisive progress on key Brexit issues, says EU's chief negotiator

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/31/no-decisive-progress-on-key-issues-says-eus-chief-brexit-negotiator?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Guest MattP]

Guardian pumping out the EU line again, you would hope our own press would be pointing out how absurd the whole thing is now that they won't negotiate ANYTHING unless we throw a load of money at them, although the fact they put this above everything else shows they aren't in as strong as position as the Guardian would like them to be.

 

Can't believe the reaction to May either, even the broadsheets claiming she "wants to fight the next election" despite not a single quote from her saying anything like that.

 

Fake news off the scale in 2017.

 

P.S Has any politician ever looked more like a peadophile than Guy Verhofstadt?

Edited 31 August 2017 by MattP

[Guest Kopfkino]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Guardian pumping out the EU line again, you would hope our own press would be pointing out how absurd the whole thing is now that they won't negotiate ANYTHING unless we throw a load of money at them, although the fact they put this above everything else shows they aren't in as strong as position as the Guardian would like them to be.

 

https://capx.co/the-eu-will-soften-its-stance-on-brexit-heres-why/ - as noted here

Also Iain Martin in The Times today making some good points on the matter

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

https://capx.co/the-eu-will-soften-its-stance-on-brexit-heres-why/ - as noted here

Also Iain Martin in The Times today making some good points on the matter

Read Iain Martin this morning, summed it up perfect.

 

I've never seen an organisation so desperate for money, it's almost comical they are prepared to put this above trade, citizens rights etc and it's probably become fairly obvious to our team that they aren't in a great position.

[Innovindil]

Imagine the outrage there would have been (from both sides!) if we'd have just sat down and said "Kay, we'll pay you whatever you want" without actually checking any of the figures. 

 

We pay money when we know what it's for and after we've starting talking about a trade deal. As it should be. If we're going to get shafted you don't hand over tens of billions for the pleasure. Don't give a shite what "promises" were made before. 

 

[Guest]

Make what you want of it

 

Davis/Barnier press conference - Full summary

Here is a full summary of the Davis/Barnier press conference, with all the key quotes.

• Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, claimed that Britain was making demands relating to single market access that were “simply impossible”. In his opening remarks he said:

The UK decided to leave the European Union.

The UK government decided to leave the single market and the customs union.

We respect this sovereign decision.

But one thing is clear: The single market, the EU capacity to regulate, to supervise, to enforce our laws, must not and will not be undermined by Brexit.

The UK strongly contributed to the development of our single market which is the foundation of the EU. It understands well, very well, how it works.

The European council guidelines state that the Union will preserve its autonomy of decision-making.

The UK wants to take back control, it wants to adopt its own standards and regulations.

But it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. That is what UK papers ask for.

This is simply impossible. You cannot be outside the single market and shape its legal order.

He repeated the point during the Q&A, accusing the British government of “nostalgia”. He said:

When I read some of the papers that David has sent me on behalf of the British government, in some proposals I see a sort of nostalgia in the form of specific requests which would amount to continuing to enjoy the benefits of the single market and EU membership without actually being part of it. Maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick. Maybe there is no nostaglia. But, as I said earlier, Brexit means Brexit. Leaving the single market means leaving the single market. If that is what has been decided, there will be consequences.

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, responded to this point by saying it was wrong to mistake belief in the free market for nostalgia.

• Barnier said there was no “decisive progress” on the key issue in this week’s talks.

We did not get any decisive progress on any of the principal subjects.

• Barnier strongly hinted that, given the current rate of progress, he would not be advising EU leaders to let the talks move on to phase two in October. Currently the talks focus on withdrawal issues, but the UK wants the talks to move to phase two, covering the future trade relationship, as soon as possible. The EU says it will agree this when sufficient progress has been made on withdrawal issues (citizens’ rights, Ireland and the “Brexit bill”) and it had been hoped that this would happen in October. Barnier said:

At the current state of progress we are quite far from being able to say that sufficient progress has taken place, sufficient for me to be able to recommend to the European Council that it engage in discussions on the future relationship between the UK and EU at the same time as we would, during the course of 2018, go on working on finalising the exit and withdrawal agreement.

• Barnier claimed that this week’s talks showed that the UK did not feel legally obliged to honour its legal finacial obligations after Brexit. In his opening remarks he said:

EU taxpayers should not pay at 27 for the obligations undertaken at 28. This would not be fair.

In July, the UK recognised that it has obligations beyond the Brexit date.

But this week the UK explained that these obligations will be limited to their last payment to the EU budget before departure.

Yet we have joint obligations towards third countries. For example:

We have guaranteed long-term loans to Ukraine, together.

We jointly support development in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific countries through the European development fund.

After this week, it is clear that the UK does not feel legally obliged to honour these obligations after departure.

We have also jointly committed to support innovative enterprises and green infrastructure in European regions until 2020. These are not recognised by the UK as legal obligations.

With such uncertainty, how can we build trust and start discussing a future relationship?

[Guest BlueBrett]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

• Barnier claimed that this week’s talks showed that the UK did not feel legally obliged to honour its legal finacial obligations after Brexit. In his opening remarks he said:

EU taxpayers should not pay at 27 for the obligations undertaken at 28. This would not be fair.

In July, the UK recognised that it has obligations beyond the Brexit date.

But this week the UK explained that these obligations will be limited to their last payment to the EU budget before departure.

Yet we have joint obligations towards third countries. For example:

We have guaranteed long-term loans to Ukraine, together.

We jointly support development in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific countries through the European development fund.

After this week, it is clear that the UK does not feel legally obliged to honour these obligations after departure.

We have also jointly committed to support innovative enterprises and green infrastructure in European regions until 2020. These are not recognised by the UK as legal obligations.

With such uncertainty, how can we build trust and start discussing a future relationship?

Is he taking the piss?

[Guest]

Here's the rest

 

• Davis said the UK had a “very different legal stance” on the issue of financial obligations.And, although the UK would pay what it owed, the government had an obligation to taxpayers to challenge what the EU was demanding, he said.

The commission has set out its position and we have a duty to our taxpayers to interrogate it rigorously. At this round we presented our legal analysis, on on-budget issues, on off-budget issues, and on the EIB - European Investment Bank. It’s fair to say across the piece we have a very different legal stance, but as we said in the article 50 letter the settlement should be in accordance with law and in the spirit of the UK’s continuing partnership with the EU.

Davis also said, during the Q&A, that Britain was a country that met its obligations but that “those obligations have got to be well specified, they’ve got to be real.”

• Davis also said the UK would acknowledge its moral obligations, as well as its legal obligations, when agreeing what to pay the EU.Talking about the obligations the UK would meet, he said:

They don’t necessarily have to be legal. We also recognise moral obligations sometimes.

• Barnier said he was willing to speed up the pace of talks if necessary. He said:

Time is flying, it is passing very quickly, if we need to, we on our side, on behalf of the 27, are prepared on behalf of the EU institutions to step up and intensify the rhythm of the negotiations.

• Davis claimed that some “concrete progress” had been made this week.

This week we have had long and detailed discussions across multiple areas and I think it’s fair to say we have seen some concrete progress, and Michel referred to one but there’s more than that.

• Davis said that both sides had reached agreement in some new areas relating to citizens’ rights. In his opening speech he said:

This week we have discussed a wide range of issues which will have a significant impact on people’s lives. In particular, both sides have agreed:

To protect the rights of frontier workers.

To cover future social security contributions for those covered by the withdrawal agreement.

That we should at least protect existing healthcare rights and arrangements for EU27 citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU. The EHIC [European health insurance card] arrangements.

That is good news for example, for British pensioners in the EU: it means that they will continue to have their health care arrangements protected both where they live and – when they travel to another member state – to be able to use an EHIC card.

On economic rights, we have secured the right of British citizens in the EU27 to set up and manage a business within their member state of residence, and of course visa versa.

On mutual recognition of qualifications, we have made progress in protecting the recognition of qualifications for British citizens resident in the EU27 and EU27 citizens in the UK.

For every one of these, of course, in fact every single thing I’ve said, all of these are reciprocal, they work for Brits in the EU and the EU27 in the UK.

• Davis claimed that the UK was being more “flexible and pragmatic” than the EU.

Our discussions this week have exposed yet again that the UK’s approach is substantially more flexible and pragmatic than that of the EU, as it avoids unnecessary disruption for businesses and consumers.

• Barnier said that the Home Office decision to send letters (mistakenly) to 100 EU nationals threatening them with deportation highlighted the case for the European court of justice having a role protecting the rights of EU citizens after Brexit. This is something Brussels is demanding but the UK is resisting. Barnier said in his opening remarks:

Over the summer, around one hundred EU and EEA citizens living lawfully in the UK received deportation letters.

The UK government quickly recognised that this was a mistake.

But this is not the first time that something like this has happened.

It reinforces the need to ensure that citizens’ rights are directly enforceable in front of national jurisdictions, under the control of the European court of justice, a point on which we disagree today.

• Barnier urged people not to underestimate the important of the European parliament in the Brexit process. He made this point in his opening remarks when he stressed that he was operating under a mandate agreed by EU leaders that says trade talks should not start under sufficient progress has been made on withdrawal issues. The European parliament has also passed a resolution, by a large majority, saying the same thing.

 

[Guest MattP]

Yet again, I would advise anyone interested in this to read "Adults in the Room" by Yanis Varoufakis, it will give you a insight into exactly what any negotiation with the EU is actually like.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Imagine the outrage there would have been (from both sides!) if we'd have just sat down and said "Kay, we'll pay you whatever you want" without actually checking any of the figures. 

 

We pay money when we know what it's for and after we've starting talking about a trade deal. As it should be. If we're going to get shafted you don't hand over tens of billions for the pleasure. Don't give a shite what "promises" were made before.

Absolutely spot on. They seem to think we are Greece, we aren't.

[foxinexile]

Barnier's opening sentence is the most pertinent: The UK decided to leave the European Union.

 

We are not being forced out; we have not been asked to leave; we are not being punished. Through a democratic process we have voted to leave. Of course there will be consequences, and the continued  personification of the EU27 as some kind of pantomime villain is possibly the most delusional vocal diatribe I have heard yet from Leavers. 

That negotiations are not proceeding as we wish is not down to comic villainy on the EU's behalf. It is simply a demonstration that the UK is not as influential (or dare I say it, as important in the grand scheme of the world stage)  as many people wish or think we are. 

 

Theresa May's visit to Japan is a useful indication of our future global negotiations with other countries. Note that she had to go there to attempt to reassure the Japanese that we could (in her opinion) be a dependable trading partner after Brexit. And note that she was advised, as by others, that a trade deal with the EU is a priority for Japan. I am still waiting to see evidence of all the countries that will be clambering over themselves to be first in our own trading partner queue. 

[Guest MattP]

Whoever this young man is, promote him immediately. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/30/brexit-showdown-eu-left-flabbergasted-british-negotiators-dismantle/amp/

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

Barnier's opening sentence is the most pertinent: The UK decided to leave the European Union.

 

We are not being forced out; we have not been asked to leave; we are not being punished. Through a democratic process we have voted to leave. Of course there will be consequences, and the continued  personification of the EU27 as some kind of pantomime villain is possibly the most delusional vocal diatribe I have heard yet from Leavers. 

That negotiations are not proceeding as we wish is not down to comic villainy on the EU's behalf. It is simply a demonstration that the UK is not as influential (or dare I say it, as important in the grand scheme of the world stage)  as many people wish or think we are. 

 

Theresa May's visit to Japan is a useful indication of our future global negotiations with other countries. Note that she had to go there to attempt to reassure the Japanese that we could (in her opinion) be a dependable trading partner after Brexit. And note that she was advised, as by others, that a trade deal with the EU is a priority for Japan. I am still waiting to see evidence of all the countries that will be clambering over themselves to be first in our own trading partner queue. 

I think the negotiations are going much better than you think and today I little chink appeared in the armoury of EUs position. We are beginning to outflank and expose their need for a deal with us as much as we need one with them.

Getting free trade deals tied up around the world post brexit-transition, is hardly going to be that difficult is it? We aren't talking about solving world peace or putting man on mars. It doesn't matter if they are knocking our door down or not, it will happen and relatively quickly.

 

Like it or not, it is the EU being unreasonable, article 50 mentions nothing of extended obligations beyond the period, quite the opposite. It suits your stance and agenda to paint us as the bad guys but it is the remainers that have demanded these open negotiations and lapped up all the EUs PR as gospel. It's like you do not understand negotiations, it's like you actually think we have no value, it's kind of like you hate us, yourselves. It's tragic.

If we leave on WTO terms, It will cost the EU roughly £15billion, also they lose our contributions which net is about £8.5 billion iirc. That a big hole in the budget, that's why they won't talk to us until it's filled because they've never been in this weak position before.

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

 

 

 

[foxinexile]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think the negotiations are going much better than you think and today I little chink appeared in the armoury of EUs position. We are beginning to outflank and expose their need for a deal with us as much as we need one with them.

Getting free trade deals tied up around the world post brexit-transition, is hardly going to be that difficult is it? We aren't talking about solving world peace or putting man on mars. It doesn't matter if they are knocking our door down or not, it will happen and relatively quickly.

 

Like it or not, it is the EU being unreasonable, article 50 mentions nothing of extended obligations beyond the period, quite the opposite. It suits your stance and agenda to paint us as the bad guys but it is the remainers that have demanded these open negotiations and lapped up all the EUs PR as gospel. It's like you do not understand negotiations, it's like you actually think we have no value, it's kind of like you hate us, yourselves. It's tragic.

If we leave on WTO terms, It will cost the EU roughly £15billion, also they lose our contributions which net is about £8.5 billion iirc. That a big hole in the budget, that's why they won't talk to us until it's filled because they've never been in this weak position before.

Why do you think the EU27 are being unreasonable? I appreciate that the UK is looking to act in its own best interests ... likewise the remaining Member States will seek to look after their own interests. What's unreasonable about that? "Chink ... armoury ... outflank". You say getting free trade deals tied up around the world post-Brexit is hardly on a par with solving world peace (with which I agree), yet the language you use suggests that this is a battle, a war ... which it hardly is, or shouldn't be portrayed as. Again, this is a stance I have seen and heard a lot of Leavers take. You say it suits my stance to paint us as the bad guys yet the language you use suggests a desire to see confrontation. I always get the impression that a lot of Leavers want to see a fight with the EU27 (from the comfort of their armchairs) and you haven't convinced me otherwise.

 

Why do you think getting free trade deals tied up around the world is "hardly" going to be difficult? I've outlined before that I don't believe we are as influential around the world as we'd like to imagine, and I think that the weakening of our influence by being outside the EU will strengthen other countries' trade demands/expectations/negotiations with us. Let's hope I'm wrong and Brexit does deliver us the fluffy, harmonious future that so many Leavers have portrayed it as. But I think to say this equates to "hate" for the UK is a little strong. If we are now not allowed to question, to criticise, to be sceptical of our government's handling of negotiations so far, we are entering very murky waters. 

 

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

Why do you think the EU27 are being unreasonable? I appreciate that the UK is looking to act in its own best interests ... likewise the remaining Member States will seek to look after their own interests. What's unreasonable about that? "Chink ... armoury ... outflank". You say getting free trade deals tied up around the world post-Brexit is hardly on a par with solving world peace (with which I agree), yet the language you use suggests that this is a battle, a war ... which it hardly is, or shouldn't be portrayed as. Again, this is a stance I have seen and heard a lot of Leavers take. You say it suits my stance to paint us as the bad guys yet the language you use suggests a desire to see confrontation. I always get the impression that a lot of Leavers want to see a fight with the EU27 (from the comfort of their armchairs) and you haven't convinced me otherwise.

 

Why do you think getting free trade deals tied up around the world is "hardly" going to be difficult? I've outlined before that I don't believe we are as influential around the world as we'd like to imagine, and I think that the weakening of our influence by being outside the EU will strengthen other countries' trade demands/expectations/negotiations with us. Let's hope I'm wrong and Brexit does deliver us the fluffy, harmonious future that so many Leavers have portrayed it as. But I think to say this equates to "hate" for the UK is a little strong. If we are now not allowed to question, to criticise, to be sceptical of our government's handling of negotiations so far, we are entering very murky waters. 

 

I do think the EU is being unreasonable and I will give you examples. They say we are not allowed to seek negotiations to individual member states and it must all go through barnier and his team, yet this is not being reciprocated. Barnier and his team have talked to Sturgeon, Corbyn and today are pictured with Tony Blair (wtf). This ransom demand is not mentioned in the treaties, they won't tell us how much and want us to come up with the figure but refuse to start any other talks before agreement. 

The language I use might seem strong on here but that is intended for europhiles who we have been debating with on this for about 18 months, do not misinterpret this for me thinking these negotiations to be of more importance than they are. I'd be happy for us walk with no deal, I might even prefer it.

Have a look around the world, there are plenty of nations with much less to offer than us, standing on there own, and enjoying free trade deals with numerous nations. You don't have to be a superpower to benefit, it's an absolute fallacy.