EU must change its negotiating terms for Brexit, says Britain's Barclay

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

please, please do and when the NI start the bombings don't come back crying the blues

Why would there be bombings when the UK, The ROI and the EU have all said there would be no hard border? 

 

Frankly I am growing tired of Remainers using the threat of violence to try and overturn the result of the democratic vote.

[Mavideol]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Why would there be bombings when the UK, The ROI and the EU have all said there would be no hard border? 

 

Frankly I am growing tired of Remainers using the threat of violence to try and overturn the result of the democratic vote.

would you be so kind to provide supporting data for such a non sense comment, you really think the EU would allow a no hard border with the UK, if that is/was the case why all the fuss

[7by7]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Equally, we don't have to give the EU anything, we just leave. No hard border, no 39 Billion, no more ECJ jurisdiction, no more access to UK fishing waters, no more 8.9 Billion pounds a year net contribution to support the EU's failing economic model.

 

You are merely repeating what I said, with a few misconceptions thrown in. Misconceptions which have been covered and proven to be just that time after time in various topics.

 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

All that is ultimately left on 1st November is a 64 Billion pound trade surplus that the EU has with the UK. I'd be looking for a trade deal to protect that if I was in the EU. The only question is how much of their nose are they prepared to cut off to spite their face. 

It is not a question of nose cutting; it is a question of coming up with a deal which is accepted by both parties.

 

May negotiated such a deal, only Rees-Mogg blocked it for his own purposes. Had he put county before personal ambition then we would have left the EU last March.

 

As for the trade surplus; I think the UK will be more effected by losing 13% of our market (Welsh sheep farmers 98% of theirs!) than the EU will be by losing 3 to 4 % of theirs!

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Mavideol said:

would you be so kind to provide supporting data for such a non sense comment, you really think the EU would allow a no hard border with the UK, if that is/was the case why all the fuss

From the horses mouth so to speak.

 

[Mavideol]

Just now, vogie said:

From the horses mouth so to speak.

 

I didn't say the Irish, I did say the EU will install a hard border to protect their trade, basic logic

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

would you be so kind to provide supporting data for such a non sense comment, you really think the EU would allow a no hard border with the UK, if that is/was the case why all the fuss

https://www.westmonster.com/barnier-no-hard-border-after-no-deal-brexit1/

 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

You are merely repeating what I said, with a few misconceptions thrown in. Misconceptions which have been covered and proven to be just that time after time in various topics.

 

It is not a question of nose cutting; it is a question of coming up with a deal which is accepted by both parties.

 

May negotiated such a deal, only Rees-Mogg blocked it for his own purposes. Had he put county before personal ambition then we would have left the EU last March.

 

As for the trade surplus; I think the UK will be more effected by losing 13% of our market (Welsh sheep farmers 98% of theirs!) than the EU will be by losing 3 to 4 % of theirs!

 

This 'deal' is so good that it was defeated the first time by a margin of more than 200. It is hard to believe that only one man (JRM) has so much influence.   

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

I didn't say the Irish, I did say the EU will install a hard border to protect their trade, basic logic

Did you watch the full video, Jean Claude Juncker says no.

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

From the horses mouth so to speak.

 

From the other end of the horse, Jean Claude didn't look too happy about admitting it either!   

[JonnyF]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You are merely repeating what I said, with a few misconceptions thrown in. Misconceptions which have been covered and proven to be just that time after time in various topics.

 

It is not a question of nose cutting; it is a question of coming up with a deal which is accepted by both parties.

 

May negotiated such a deal, only Rees-Mogg blocked it for his own purposes. Had he put county before personal ambition then we would have left the EU last March.

 

As for the trade surplus; I think the UK will be more effected by losing 13% of our market (Welsh sheep farmers 98% of theirs!) than the EU will be by losing 3 to 4 % of theirs!

 

What misconceptions? Please let me know which part of what I said is untrue?

 

As for the 13% the UK will lose compared to 3-4% of the EU, basically, you are saying the EU is prepared to hurt themselves based on the premise that the UK will hurt more, when in fact they could do a trade deal that benefits both sides. That is the very definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

This 'deal' is so good that it was defeated the first time by a margin of more than 200. It is hard to believe that only one man (JRM) has so much influence.   

 

Unfortunately, he has much influence amongst those Tories, and others, who swallow his lies whole.

 

Though to be fair, had Corbyn also put country before personal ambition then we would have left last March; provided Rees-Mogg had done the same.

[Mavideol]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

https://www.westmonster.com/barnier-no-hard-border-after-no-deal-brexit1/

 

so why all the fuss and why did BJ said he was adding / hiring additional customs officers

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

so why all the fuss and why did BJ said he was adding / hiring additional customs officers

Soft border.

[JonnyF]

20 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

would you be so kind to provide supporting data for such a non sense comment, you really think the EU would allow a no hard border with the UK, if that is/was the case why all the fuss

Now you have seen the handful of posts directly beneath yours confirming that the EU has confirmed there will be no hard border, I would like to ask you the same question.

 

Why all the fuss?

 

Could it possibly be that the EU has attempted to create a problem that doesn't really exist in order to lock the UK into the customs union indefinitely via the backstop? Surely our good friends and partners would never do such a thing. After all, they've acted in such good faith throughout the negotiations, right? 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

What misconceptions? Please let me know which part of what I said is untrue?

 Under May's deal we would have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ by December 2020.

 

The UK government controls fishing access to the UK's territorial waters, not the EU.

 

Whether the EU would allow a soft border between a member state and a non-member is open to question; some say yes, most say no.

 

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

As for the 13% the UK will lose compared to 3-4% of the EU, basically, you are saying the EU is prepared to hurt themselves based on the premise that the UK will hurt more, when in fact they could do a trade deal that benefits both sides. That is the very definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Yes, the EU could do a deal which benefits both sides; have offered one in fact. Want one, in fact.

 

It is those Brexiteers who want no deal who are doing the nose cutting; the UK's nose that is!

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

so why all the fuss and why did BJ said he was adding / hiring additional customs officers

Primarily for Dover/Calais.

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Under May's deal we would have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ by December 2020.

 

The UK government controls fishing access to the UK's territorial waters, not the EU.

 

Whether the EU would allow a soft border between a member state and a non-member is open to question; some say yes, most say no.

 

Yes, the EU could do a deal which benefits both sides; have offered one in fact. Want one, in fact.

 

It is those Brexiteers who want no deal who are doing the nose cutting; the UK's nose that is!

But under No deal we get all those things (except a trade deal) immediately. Why pay 39 Billion to wait for them and risk (100-1 on) the EU not letting us out of the backstop?

 

Some say yes, some say no to a soft border? Well Barnier and Junker said no hard border, Varadkar says no to a hard border, Johnson says no to a hard border, so please remind me who is insisting on it.

 

We can do the trade deal after we've left (the WA doesn't include a trade deal anyway) since it will be much easier to negotiate a deal when the EU doesn't have us handcuffed by the backstop. Why would the EU do a trade deal with us when they can unilaterally decide to keep us locked into the customs union by saying there's still issues with the Irish border? That was the whole point of exaggerating the border issue. Macron even openly threatened to use the backstop to blackmail us on fishing rights. Good faith?

 

 

There are very few benefits and loads of huge drawbacks with the WA from the UK point of view (it's massively geared towards benefiting the EU and the EU only) which is why the UK has finally grown a pair and said Thanks, but no Thanks.

[billd766]

16 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

I understand your Frustration.

mays deal was a Compromise, half in half out. Within a time window.

She tried to make the 51,xx% leavers and the 48,xx% remaines happy.

Did not succeed. Now we eat all the cockroaches.

It is so frustrating for both Leavers and Remainers.

 

It makes me want to drag both sides into a room and bang their heads together.

16 hours ago, baboon said:

Sorry, wrong post again.

 

Anyone with an ounce of common sense will know that you cannot keep both sides happy.

 

Now the UK is reliant on Boris to get another deal which seems very unlikely given that Barnier and his team have taken the Charles De Gaulle stand of no to everything.

 

Hopefully somebody will explain that if there is NO compromise than the default position on a no deal Brexit will come into force and both sides will suffer. It may also cause the UK to split up and perhaps parts of the EU also.

[billd766]

16 hours ago, baboon said:

https://medium.com/@UKIPNFKN/uk-voters-knew-the-1975-referendum-was-about-both-an-economic-political-union-with-the-rest-of-2f565b972cd6

I was in the RAF in Germany in 1975 and I don't remember seeing any of that stuff nor do I remember getting a briefing on it either.

 

Perhaps I did get the info and forgot it but I don't think so.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 Under May's deal we would have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ by December 2020.

 

The UK government controls fishing access to the UK's territorial waters, not the EU.

 

Whether the EU would allow a soft border between a member state and a non-member is open to question; some say yes, most say no.

 

Yes, the EU could do a deal which benefits both sides; have offered one in fact. Want one, in fact.

 

It is those Brexiteers who want no deal who are doing the nose cutting; the UK's nose that is!

Wrong. Under the WA the ECJ has power to prosecute the UK Gov for any breaches of EU Law for at least a further 4 years after the end of transition - potentially for much longer depending on progress with this "deal". The backstop period is not limited (until 2099) but forces the UK to accept EU rules in trade, competition, environmental, social and some tax policies. These policies could all be 'modified' to the UK's disadvantage during the transition period, when the UK has no say or veto and is defenceless against such changes. 

 

And the French are already trying for a fishing advantage using the backstop for leverage.

 

The EU might want a deal but it is obvious that it is not interested in a fair deal.

[OneMoreFarang]

I think the amazing part is that Boris and that stupid No Deal Brexit still has so many supporters.

Do his supporters watch the news from time to time? 

It's impossible to miss all that information about the BIG crisis coming up if they leave without a deal.

Amazing UK

[ThomasThBKK]

32 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Under May's deal we would have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ by December 2020.

 

The UK government controls fishing access to the UK's territorial waters, not the EU.

 

Whether the EU would allow a soft border between a member state and a non-member is open to question; some say yes, most say no.

 

Yes, the EU could do a deal which benefits both sides; have offered one in fact. Want one, in fact.

 

It is those Brexiteers who want no deal who are doing the nose cutting; the UK's nose that is!

 

There's no such thing as a soft border.

You are either in or out the Customs Unit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/06/brexit-clinton-treasury-secretary-larry-summers-dismisses-desperate-uk-hopes-of-us-trade-deal but this is funny.

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I was in the RAF in Germany in 1975 and I don't remember seeing any of that stuff nor do I remember getting a briefing on it either.

 

Perhaps I did get the info and forgot it but I don't think so.

You are correct, Bill. The remain propaganda made it to every UK house and BFPO as far as I know. But the leave (propaganda too if you like) did not. Certainly not to our house and many of our family friends. How strange is that then?  

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think the amazing part is that Boris and that stupid No Deal Brexit still has so many supporters.

Do his supporters watch the news from time to time? 

It's impossible to miss all that information about the BIG crisis coming up if they leave without a deal.

Amazing UK

Looks like we have a big crisis on the horizon now anyway, Brexit or not. But after the last 3 years it's become difficult to differentiate genuine information, from just as genuine horse doo.

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think the amazing part is that Boris and that stupid No Deal Brexit still has so many supporters.

Do his supporters watch the news from time to time? 

It's impossible to miss all that information about the BIG crisis coming up if they leave without a deal.

Amazing UK

You mean the horror stories from the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky News? ????

 

If you believe that nonsense, that's on you but please don't assume we are all that naive.

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

But under No deal we get all those things (except a trade deal) immediately. Why pay 39 Billion to wait for them and risk (100-1 on) the EU not letting us out of the backstop?

 

Some say yes, some say no to a soft border? Well Barnier and Junker said no hard border, Varadkar says no to a hard border, Johnson says no to a hard border, so please remind me who is insisting on it.

 

We can do the trade deal after we've left (the WA doesn't include a trade deal anyway) since it will be much easier to negotiate a deal when the EU doesn't have us handcuffed by the backstop. Why would the EU do a trade deal with us when they can unilaterally decide to keep us locked into the customs union by saying there's still issues with the Irish border? That was the whole point of exaggerating the border issue. Macron even openly threatened to use the backstop to blackmail us on fishing rights. Good faith?

 

 

There are very few benefits and loads of huge drawbacks with the WA from the UK point of view (it's massively geared towards benefiting the EU and the EU only) which is why the UK has finally grown a pair and said Thanks, but no Thanks.

Yes. Agree. Pretty much as I just wrote. The last thing Macron needs is all his fishermen in yellow vests too.

[OneMoreFarang]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You mean the horror stories from the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky News? ????

 

If you believe that nonsense, that's on you but please don't assume we are all that naive.

I am sure I read at least 100 articles from different sources about what the UK citizens can expect. It's bad or it's very bad - definitely not neutral and absolutely definitely not good for the people in the UK.

 

What is your opinion? Should people relax because there won't be any problems? Life will just continue like nothing happened?

 

Or do you realize that there will be massive problems but you think that is acceptable as long as the politicians do what the 52% supposedly voted for? I write supposedly because as far as I remember nobody voted for a hard Brexit.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

What has such a medieval drivel to do with the current Brexit situation? If you have not noticed yet, the 2 World War has been over since 74 years. Such a sweeping peoples hate, you should look for psychological treatment.

 

 

11 hours ago, candide said:

When Brexiteers mention WW2, one knows they are really short of valid arguments....

If both of you care to look back they were referring to this post by puipuitom who started the stirring as he often does, including the inevitable insults to the Brexiteers. 

 

8 hours ago, puipuitom said:
When you, British, want to buy or sell something in €uroland, you will be confronted with the currency exchange rate. Same for other countries. Ask the British pensionario's trying to survive in e.g. Thailand.

But.. for a Brexiteer, who is still in the times of Kitchener and Gordon, of course a gigantic step too far.

Also the wild-haired clown, as minister of foreign affairs, did not have the slightest idea about the British behavior in Burma, 19+20th century.

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am sure I read at least 100 articles from different sources about what the UK citizens can expect. It's bad or it's very bad - definitely not neutral and absolutely definitely not good for the people in the UK.

 

What is your opinion? Should people relax because there won't be any problems? Life will just continue like nothing happened?

 

Or do you realize that there will be massive problems but you think that is acceptable as long as the politicians do what the 52% supposedly voted for? I write supposedly because as far as I remember nobody voted for a hard Brexit.

Well, supposedly, they just chose to leave. No conditions specified, requested or imposed.

Edited August 6, 2019 by nauseus

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am sure I read at least 100 articles from different sources about what the UK citizens can expect. It's bad or it's very bad - definitely not neutral and absolutely definitely not good for the people in the UK.

 

What is your opinion? Should people relax because there won't be any problems? Life will just continue like nothing happened?

 

Or do you realize that there will be massive problems but you think that is acceptable as long as the politicians do what the 52% supposedly voted for? I write supposedly because as far as I remember nobody voted for a hard Brexit.

Well, supposedly the chose to leave. No conditions specified or imposed.

It seems you confirm you still want to leave (do or die) because 52% voted for that, correct?

Did maybe 3% or more of the voters change their mind in the last 3 years after realizing what a huge difference it would make to leave the EU?

May presented "her" withdrawal agreement three times and three times it was voted down (for various reasons).

Why not let the people confirm if they still want to leave and under which conditions they want to leave?

 

As far as I see most people made their decision in 2016 based on few and often wrong information. Now people had 3 years to learn in detail about the downsides of leaving the EU. If they still want to leave let them confirm that. It won't take long to organize another referendum.