What's in the news?

[gw_leics772]

I know im monopolising this page but bear with me for my "and another ****ing thing" post....

 

Therr are cross party elected officials who are asking for no deal to be taken off the table.

 

So how does that work then. We negotiate hard with eu making demabds for a better deal, alongside the threat that if they dont give us what we want, we'll bloody well give them exactly what they want and remain, sitting in the corner embarrassed and never mention it again.

 

I repeat. This is their full time job. Which pays better than the national average.

 

****ing inbreds the lot of em!

[peach0000]

Just now, gw_leics772 said:

I know im monopolising this page but bear with me for my "and another ****ing thing" post....

 

Therr are cross party elected officials who are asking for no deal to be taken off the table.

 

So how does that work then. We negotiate hard with eu making demabds for a better deal, alongside the threat that if they dont give us what we want, we'll bloody well give them exactly what they want and remain, sitting in the corner embarrassed and never mention it again.

 

I repeat. This is their full time job. Which pays better than the national average.

 

****ing inbreds the lot of em!

Well said. I don't mind a lot of what corbyn says but on this point he is just deluded. What kind of negotiating strategy is it to take the other sides worst option off the table. 

[gw_leics772]

12 hours ago, bovril said:

What happens in May if we're still in the EU? We take part in European elections?!

If you mean what happens in THERESA May, my hopes lie with a chemical reaction caused by an overload of stubbornness and delusion, resulting in spontaneous combustion.

 

It wouldnt even make the top 10 of unbelievable things to happen in this brexit malarkey.

[Toddybad]

8 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

I know im monopolising this page but bear with me for my "and another ****ing thing" post....

 

Therr are cross party elected officials who are asking for no deal to be taken off the table.

 

So how does that work then. We negotiate hard with eu making demabds for a better deal, alongside the threat that if they dont give us what we want, we'll bloody well give them exactly what they want and remain, sitting in the corner embarrassed and never mention it again.

 

I repeat. This is their full time job. Which pays better than the national average.

 

****ing inbreds the lot of em!

Threatening no deal has worked extraordinarily well so far. You might just be on to something 

[gw_leics772]

47 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Leaver and on the fence, but forced to make a decision Puel in.

Leave and puel in. Seems to be a trend but not the one we expected or is most easily explained.

 

Try this, do what you want with the country but dont you dare **** with the stability of my football club.

Edited 16 January 2019 by gw_leics772

[Salisbury Fox]

13 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

Threatening no deal has worked extraordinarily well so far. You might just be on to something 

To be fair we haven't threatened no deal as clearly we have not prepared for it. 

[Guest MattP]

Is Leave/Puel in or Remain/Puel out what is expected then??

 

I rarely read the safehouse thread 

[gw_leics772]

13 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

Threatening no deal has worked extraordinarily well so far. You might just be on to something 

Too early for this reaction.

 

Eu have been over confident from the start.

 

Junckers comments. How can we make a deal when we dont know what they want?

 

A fair question abd good rhetoric, on tje face of it. But for the past 2 years they didnt care what we wanted, just told us what we couldnt have.

 

Of our own government could get their ****ing act together and stop talking in a way that nullifies our biggest threat, this is the time to renegotiate (obviously not led by theresa)

 

They threatened us with no deal, but apart from our elected officials, there are a hell of a lot of the public who would accept that. Its our underdog mentality.

 

You might not agree with it, but its the way a lot of us are, and if they could see we werr nit scared of it, i think you will see that they ARE scared of it.

 

I dont think it would take much positivity at our end in the aftermath for other eu minnows to follow suit.

 

Probably lasting a week without the country sinking below the ocean(in a physical way, not a metaphorical way.)

 

But that aint gonna happen anyway so... whatever.

 

 

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

To be fair we haven't threatened no deal as clearly we have not prepared for it. 

This. If we'd have prepared from the start for a no deal an actual threat of it may have held some weight. Let's be honest, we've actually been planning it for a couple of months as a last ditch effort. Unlikely to come across as anything other than a bluff, I mean we just gave a ferry contract to a company with no boats ffs. 

[Toddybad]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Is Leave/Puel in or Remain/Puel out what is expected then??

 

I rarely read the safehouse thread 

No idea but is take remain/puel out

 

11 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

To be fair we haven't threatened no deal as clearly we have not prepared for it. 

You can't prepare for it.

 

Overnight we'd lose not just free trade with the EU but trade deals with 100+ other countries.

Tariffs would be applied to all of our exports by the importing nations, as per WTO rules. Our exporters would become uncompetitive overnight.

 

When it comes to imports, we'd have to apply tariffs to every country in the planet, making goods more expensive for me and you to buy. We could attempt to reduce or remove tariffs on imports, but if we give the whole world (as it had to be the same for everybody until a free trade deal is in place, as per the WTO) free trade into the UK, we have no leverage to seek free trade on exports.

 

Both the ERG's tame (and rubbished) economist Minford and the WTO itself predict that this would see the end of manufacturing and farming in this country as US companies would rip us to shreds by selling into our market cheaply until our companies went bust. That's what the actual WTO's simulations showed.

 

And that's just one issue - there are literally hundreds of problems like that it would cause. 'Catastrophic' does not do justice to the chaos that would ensue. 

 

It's absolutely crazy and any sensible government wouldn't even be joking about it. 

Edited 16 January 2019 by Toddybad

[Strokes]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Is Leave/Puel in or Remain/Puel out what is expected then??

 

I rarely read the safehouse thread 

I didn’t know there was a link, I’m still unsure....

[Foxxed]

I clearly don't understand "no deal". If we fail to agree on a deal, isn't that by default a "no deal"?

[ozleicester]

From a distance... can anyone advise what are the top sticking points for the no deal?

 

What is stopping the exit?

 

What would need to be changed?

[Realist Guy In The Room]

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

From a distance... can anyone advise what are the top sticking points for the no deal?

 

What is stopping the exit?

 

What would need to be changed?

Basically anyone that runs a business that isn’t able to operate at full capacity from within the UK would find it very difficult to operate and would most likely see a huge reduction in their output.

 

In addition, trying to then renegotiate favourable trade deals from the weakest trade position possible would land us in a dreadful position.

 

There is nothing at the moment that stops

us entering a no deal situation.  By law, at the end of March that’s what will automatically happen unless an intervention comes from Government which at the minute, doesn’t look likely.

 

What needs to change?  Politicians have to start thinking about the country and it’s interests rather than their own careers and political parties.  That isn’t going to happen though.

Edited 17 January 2019 by Realist Guy In The Room

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Basically anyone that runs a business that isn’t able to operate at full capacity from within the UK would find it very difficult to operate and would most likely see a huge reduction in their output.
I dont understand what this means?

 

In addition, trying to then renegotiate favourable trade deals from the weakest trade position possible would land us in a dreadful position. What deals?

 

There is nothing at the moment that stops

us entering a no deal situation.  By law, at the end of March that’s what will automatically happen unless an intervention comes from Government which at the minute, doesn’t look likely.

What happens then?

 

What needs to change?  Politicians have to start thinking about the country and it’s interests rather than their own careers and political parties.  That isn’t going to happen though.

Thanks, Im honestly not trying to be difficult.... if possible can you dumb it down for me... 

 

Is the suggestion that the "brexit" will have to have all of the deals in place for every business in the UK?

 

Is there a Brexit document that the public/media have seen and reviewed?

 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

33 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Thanks, Im honestly not trying to be difficult.... if possible can you dumb it down for me... 

 

Is the suggestion that the "brexit" will have to have all of the deals in place for every business in the UK?

 

Is there a Brexit document that the public/media have seen and reviewed?

 

Point 1 - If your business has anything coming in and out of the UK (physical or non physical) to help it trade, you’ll suffer quite a bit of disruption and will make less money.  This isn’t the case for every single business but generally speaking that’s what will happen.

 

Point 2 - Each country we deal with has an agreement of what each county can do for one another.  To use everyday speak, at the minute, we get wholesale price but we want to switch to retail temporarily and then try to work back up to wholesale.

 

Point 3 - Points 1 & 2 come into effect.

 

Is the suggestion that the "brexit" will have to have all of the deals in place for every business in the UK?

 

Sorry i’m not sure I know what you mean?

 

Is there a Brexit document that the public/media have seen and reviewed?

 

There are various documents on the government website but none are really comprehensive.

[Suzie the Fox]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

I’m Puel in but voted leave, so I’m half a tit.

Haha same  

[SheppyFox]

They should let me negotiate Brexit, I’d do an excellent job.

[Salisbury Fox]

9 hours ago, Toddybad said:

No idea but is take remain/puel out

 

You can't prepare for it.

 

Overnight we'd lose not just free trade with the EU but trade deals with 100+ other countries.

Tariffs would be applied to all of our exports by the importing nations, as per WTO rules. Our exporters would become uncompetitive overnight.

 

When it comes to imports, we'd have to apply tariffs to every country in the planet, making goods more expensive for me and you to buy. We could attempt to reduce or remove tariffs on imports, but if we give the whole world (as it had to be the same for everybody until a free trade deal is in place, as per the WTO) free trade into the UK, we have no leverage to seek free trade on exports.

 

Both the ERG's tame (and rubbished) economist Minford and the WTO itself predict that this would see the end of manufacturing and farming in this country as US companies would rip us to shreds by selling into our market cheaply until our companies went bust. That's what the actual WTO's simulations showed.

 

And that's just one issue - there are literally hundreds of problems like that it would cause. 'Catastrophic' does not do justice to the chaos that would ensue. 

 

It's absolutely crazy and any sensible government wouldn't even be joking about it. 

As a remainder I am not going to refute any of your points about what a no deal would entail.  What I would say is that simply saying no deal is better than a bad deal and not showing any preparation would fool no one and it clearly hasn't.  

[Alf Bentley]

I know that many posters loathe Owen Jones, but I think this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/labour-pursue-better-brexit-deal-second-referendum-norway-plus

 

It offers a partial explanation of why Labour prefers the idea of an election and isn't too keen on a second referendum (though it glosses over Corbyn's own reasons).

 

It also makes a strong case for a Norway+ Brexit solution being feasible and a better option than a second referendum.

 

As it happens, I also think a Norway+ Soft Brexit is much more likely to be achieved than either an election or a referendum....

 

Of course, that would presumably leave the Tories in power post-Brexit - and possibly for a full parliament. All bets would then be off, though, as it's hard to predict the economic impact of Brexit or shifts in public opinion - or what would happen to the Tory party and Tory vote if the Hard Brexit crew were frustrated in this way. Plus, May would be gone, probably within a year....and Corbyn could be, too.

[Sampson]

Lib Dems have said they won't support Labour on any more no confidence votes because he won't shut up about yet another general election which no one in the country wants. 

 

You can't keep changing governments every year ffs. It's just a waste of tax payer money as initiatives and ideas and budgets get changed.

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

I know that many posters loathe Owen Jones, but I think this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/labour-pursue-better-brexit-deal-second-referendum-norway-plus

 

It offers a partial explanation of why Labour prefers the idea of an election and isn't too keen on a second referendum (though it glosses over Corbyn's own reasons).

 

It also makes a strong case for a Norway+ Brexit solution being feasible and a better option than a second referendum.

 

As it happens, I also think a Norway+ Soft Brexit is much more likely to be achieved than either an election or a referendum....

 

Of course, that would presumably leave the Tories in power post-Brexit - and possibly for a full parliament. All bets would then be off, though, as it's hard to predict the economic impact of Brexit or shifts in public opinion - or what would happen to the Tory party and Tory vote if the Hard Brexit crew were frustrated in this way. Plus, May would be gone, probably within a year....and Corbyn could be, too.

 

There is no such thing as Norway+ ffs, at least not without serious difficulty working it out. You can't be in EFTA and in a customs union with the EU, it's not currently compatible. Maybe it could be worked on, idk. EEA largely solves the Ireland problem anyway so the + isn't really necessary beyond adopting some of the customs code, which I suspect would be what officials would deem the Norway+ to be.

 

 

[The Guvnor]

When we voted to leave nearly three years ago it was clear ,despite the constant denial of remainers, what the expectations were.

To leave the EU,  thus enabling us to open up trade deals with the rest of the World without any interference from the EU.

To take back control of our borders, laws , and money

Now there is an ever increasing chance that Parliament are unable to agree a responsible way forward which honours the referendum result. So the conclusion may be another referendum, so the suggestions from remainers have been to put on the ballot paperthe government's deal or remain. I would suggest that is grossly unfair as Leavers don't  like it and remainers wouldnt have to like it as their vote would be for the status quo.

So the only fair options funnily enough would be leave or remain . So its taken three years to go back to where we started.

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Lib Dems have said they won't support Labour on any more no confidence votes because he won't shut up about yet another general election which no one in the country wants. 

 

You can't keep changing governments every year ffs. It's just a waste of tax payer money as initiatives and ideas and budgets get changed.

That's pretty big news if they stick to it, it would mean the DUP couldn't turn the vote against May on the numbers we had last night.

As for Corbyn, he's reached a ridiculous stage now, I imagine he cares as much about Brexit policy as I do about Love Island, I doubt he's read the agreement or even cares what it says, I doubt he's even thought about Canada, Norway or the actual Customs Union instead of the fantasy Customs Union in his head where we have a say in the rules and regulations of it, he's not remotely bothered, the six tests were set up as he wanted the impossible and even if May had found a way to bring back something meeting all those he would have found a way to still vote it down.

TALK TO US
TALK TO US
TALK TO US
TALK TO US

TALK TO US
OK come and talk with us

(apply a condition that can't be met)
NOT TALKING TO YOU BOOOOOO TORIES.

If only we had evidence he had previously sat down with people without any conditions to talk because it was important to keep a dialogue open to show just how stupid his position is on this?

The government lost a vote by over 200 on it's flagship policy and faced a VONC in 48 hours and still JC managed to come out of the whole process looking like a bigger turd than May, god knows what he would be like if people actually made him the Prime Minister of the country.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I know that many posters loathe Owen Jones, but I think this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/labour-pursue-better-brexit-deal-second-referendum-norway-plus

 

It offers a partial explanation of why Labour prefers the idea of an election and isn't too keen on a second referendum (though it glosses over Corbyn's own reasons).

 

It also makes a strong case for a Norway+ Brexit solution being feasible and a better option than a second referendum.

 

As it happens, I also think a Norway+ Soft Brexit is much more likely to be achieved than either an election or a referendum....

 

Of course, that would presumably leave the Tories in power post-Brexit - and possibly for a full parliament. All bets would then be off, though, as it's hard to predict the economic impact of Brexit or shifts in public opinion - or what would happen to the Tory party and Tory vote if the Hard Brexit crew were frustrated in this way. Plus, May would be gone, probably within a year....and Corbyn could be, too.

I think that is probably where this now heads, you could probably get a majority for it in the house.

The ERG can't even remove May now if she moves towards it as well.