[sahajesh]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

What table, the negotiating table is in the removals van on its way into storage, it won't come back out until some other country votes out.

Thing is we've inadvertently helped the EU, other countries that were teetering on the edge will never leave now after the fuck up we're making of it.

Just wondering why people think the EU should give us a good deal. It is us acting arrogantly saying we want to be allowed to keep anything that benefits us. Why can't the EU openly mock our government and leaders, we've made ourselves a laughing stock throughout the whole process? Our own government can't agree on what we want, how are the EU supposed to react to that?

Exactly - it's a divorce, instigated by the UK. Each side will look out for their own interests. Anyone expecting the EU to make it easy, especially when we had cunts like Davis and Johnson making stuff up, is as deluded as some others on here.

We are of course the "envy of the world" - oh, that was the other fucker.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Have you read the excerpts from the draft exit agreement ?

For example :

How does being in a UK-EU Customs Territory but not being permitted to leave, unless both parties agree, make this an acceptable deal ?

How does lack of access to crucial security databases makes this an acceptable deal ?

How does an ongoing role for the ECJ after March 2019 make this an acceptable deal ?

How does preventing the UK from trading with nations outside the EU, if those terms were more advantageous than the terms in place between the UK-EU, make this an acceptable deal ?

People may, and do, say that this is better than No Deal. I disagree. We'd be paying the EU to lock us to the gates of Europe, with no freedom, bound by EU rules and not able to influence them.

The EU has acted arrogantly throughout the entire process, to the extent that it has openly mocked Thera May. This deal is a shocker and should be kicked back to the negotiating table.

Those that voted for Brexit have got the deal they deserve, did you think we'd just walk off set up a new arrangement keeping everything we needed but lose everything we didn't like? (Did you really believe Nigel and Boris? Please tell me you didn't)

She's got you out of the EU with a transition period to allow a new trade deal, she outlined everything in her press conference and in parliament it was all pretty clear.

I know it's awful how they treated her, when it's the ERGs job to undermine her at every turn how dare the EU have a go at her as it leaves very little room for Jacob's knife.

In way I'm glad that Brexiters are getting a long over due dose of reality.

[Tengocity]

If JRM doesn't like it then it looks alright to me, don't see what all the palava is!

It's exactly the deal you'd expect in a country with no consensus on what it wants. Quite frankly Theresa May is a bloody genius to have got this far with such a weak government.

They say people get the government they deserve and this proves it yet again.

No one was ever going to be happy, and at least everyone is equally unhappy.

Ps. Don't people have work to do?!

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Those that voted for Brexit have got the deal they deserve, did you think we'd just walk off set up a new arrangement keeping everything we needed but lose everything we didn't like? (Did you really believe Nigel and Boris? Please tell me you didn't)

She's got you out of the EU with a transition period to allow a new trade deal, she outlined everything in her press conference and in parliament it was all pretty clear.

I know it's awful how they treated her, when it's the ERGs job to undermine her at every turn how dare the EU have a go at her as it leaves very little room for Jacob's knife.

In way I'm glad that Brexiters are getting a long over due dose of reality.

I'm not arguing it from the standpoint of Leave or Remain, I'm looking at it with the question "is this in the best interests of the country?". From any UK perspective the answer has to be "no". It doesn't satisfy the various political parties and it doesn't meet the reasonable assurances and expectations set out for the Referendum (feet on the ground mentality here; no fantasy land gold & riches).

[R0B]

Originally Posted by Herr August Schmidhuber

I'd piss myself laughing. You taxpayers would be fucked.

See you over on the Skoda forum comrades

Says the man on 'sick' leave, driving a 1 series

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Those that voted for Brexit have got the deal they deserve

In way I'm glad that Brexiters are getting a long over due dose of reality.

Not really, had the UK approached the Brexit negotiations differently it could - and should - have been rather different. That's not to say it was ever going to be easy (it wasn't) but we've scored own goal after own goal with this.

For me Mervyn King summed it up quite well with his comments a few weeks ago when he said the 27 EU countries had maintained a more united front in the negotiations than the UK has managed on its own. Even now there's still talk of us doing a U-turn and remaining and so long as the EU can see those divisions we're just making life easy for them and guaranteeing ourselves a poor deal.

Really goes back to what I said yesterday; collectively our Parliament has never embraced the referendum result and our divided, disunited, approach has just played into the hands of the EU. I always thought dealing with them would be difficult but IMO we should have made a far better job of it than we have (and I blame Parliament as a whole for that failure, not just our PM and her team).

[JD6]

Originally Posted by R0bb0

Says the man on 'sick' leave, driving a 1 series

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Not really, had the UK approached the Brexit negotiations differently it could - and should - have been rather different. That's not to say it was ever going to be easy (it wasn't) but we've scored own goal after own goal with this.

For me Mervyn King summed it up quite well with his comments a few weeks ago when he said the 27 EU countries had maintained a more united front in the negotiations than the UK has managed on its own. Even now there's still talk of us doing a U-turn and remaining and so long as the EU can see those divisions we're just making life easy for them and guaranteeing ourselves a poor deal.

Really goes back to what I said yesterday; collectively our Parliament has never embraced the referendum result and our divided, disunited, approach has just played into the hands of the EU. I always thought dealing with them would be difficult but IMO we should have made a far better job of it than we have (and I blame Parliament as a whole for that failure, not just our PM and her team).

Couldn't agree more with your sentiment
We have seen the worst side of our politicians from the main parties - disloyalty, disunity, disorganisation, not to mention their barely concealed, grubby self-serving motives.
Whilst we were always going to be on the back foot with the EU, our nation's longstanding reputation for diplomacy, pragmatism and strength in negotiation has all but evaporated in this sorry saga.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

It really doesn't matter how good, or how bad our negotiating was, how unified our position was would have not mattered a bit either. We were never going to get anything like a good deal from the EU, as they have to stop anyone else leaving. The end.

We voted leave, let's just leave then, and stop begging for all the good bits we seem to believe we're "entitled" to.

Plus, whilst I dislike some parts of the EU, if this is how we handle negotiations, I'd rather the EU handled our future trade deals too. We seem happy to march straight into free trade deals with certain huge economies, where they have more to gain than we have. The EU have taken ages agreeing deals with some nations for very good reasons, they can see we have a lot more to lose by just opening everything up.

Assuming absolutely everything about the EU is bad or out to get us is ridiculous.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

It really doesn't matter how good, or how bad our negotiating was, how unified our position was would have not mattered a bit either.

I don't accept the notion that the quality of negotiators - and/or the consistency and unity of the side they represent - makes no difference whatsoever to the eventual outcome of a negotiation. If one side is united while the other is fragmented and divided then IMO it's pretty obvious the latter is at an immediate (and self inflicted) disadvantage.

As I say, the Brexit negotiations with the EU were never going to be straightforward but in my view the significant divisions in the UK have made it much easier for them and much more difficult for us.

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

We were never going to get anything like a good deal from the EU, as they have to stop anyone else leaving. The end.

In that case perhaps the EU ought to consider why, if it's such a great club to be in, any member would even contemplate leaving?

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I don't accept the notion that the quality of negotiators - and/or the consistency and unity of the side they represent - makes no difference whatsoever to the eventual outcome of a negotiation. If one side is united while the other is fragmented and divided then IMO it's pretty obvious the latter is at an immediate (and self inflicted) disadvantage.

That's true 9 times out of 10. But not if the very things one side wants pose an existential threat to the other party. The EU were never going to confer any significant portion of the benefits of membership without the corresponding obligations. All the other disgruntled members would want a new cherry picked deal. I believe that would be true regardless of the strength of the negotiating team, and it's why all the current talk of going back in with a new Brexit minister and/or new PM to get a better deal is laughable. Unless of course that deal is like the Canada style one which...confers virtually none of the benefits of EU membership.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I don't accept the notion that the quality of negotiators - and/or the consistency and unity of the side they represent - makes no difference whatsoever to the eventual outcome of a negotiation. If one side is united while the other is fragmented and divided then IMO it's pretty obvious the latter is at an immediate (and self inflicted) disadvantage.

Most of my day at work is spent negotiating deals and contracts and I agree when you say the quality of negotiators makes a difference to "a negotiation" in most circumstances.

But, I don't agree in this case. This was a no win negotiation. I came up against one of those last week in my own work, we chose to walk away from the deal, rather than waste time and effort.

There are definitely negotiations where you cannot influence the outcome, where the other parties position is too strong, or there is too much at risk for them to change their position. This is one of those. Doesn't matter who you put in front of them, there were a lot of points that they were never ever going to move on. And if you think that Theresa May walking in there holding hands with Jacob Rees Mogg would have had them quaking and backing down, I believe that you are deluded.

[Herr Dreier]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Most of my day at work is spent negotiating deals and contracts and I agree when you say the quality of negotiators makes a difference to "a negotiation" in most circumstances.

But, I don't agree in this case. This was a no win negotiation. I came up against one of those last week in my own work, we chose to walk away from the deal, rather than waste time and effort.

There are definitely negotiations where you cannot influence the outcome, where the other parties position is too strong, or there is too much at risk for them to change their position. This is one of those. Doesn't matter who you put in front of them, there were a lot of points that they were never ever going to move on. And if you think that Theresa May walking in there holding hands with Jacob Rees Mogg would have had them quaking and backing down, I believe that you are deluded.

Which is exactly why we should have gone in there with "no deal" as our starting point, and be prepared to follow through with it.

I don't think TM did either of those things despite saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" - with hindsight, I don't think she meant it. A strong Brexiteer may well have done so, that's the difference.

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by Herr Dreier

Which is exactly why we should have gone in there with "no deal" as our starting point, and be prepared to follow through with it.

I don't think TM did either of those things despite saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" - with hindsight, I don't think she meant it. A strong Brexiteer may well have done so, that's the difference.

Possibly although the EU would have known that no leader in their right mind would ever carry through a no deal threat and it would therefore have had limited impact. Maybe, therefore, we should have sent in someone who was completely unhinged to lead the process - Trump, for example

Part of the issue to my mind is the fact that we've been negotiating without a clear strategy and endgame, which is a major handicap in any scenario. I know people who were in Ollie Robins' team who have eluded to the lack of clear thinking and strategy from government throughout, which doesn't surprise me one bit

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Herr Dreier

Which is exactly why we should have gone in there with "no deal" as our starting point, and be prepared to follow through with it.

I don't think TM did either of those things despite saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" - with hindsight, I don't think she meant it. A strong Brexiteer may well have done so, that's the difference.

It may have been a difference in our strategy, but I don't think it would have changed theirs much.

They'd rather we left with no deal than give us what we want. They will not risk the rest of the EU leaving and the whole thing breaking up, whichever version of the UK turns up to speak to them.

[Alscoob]

I don't usually comment on politics as between that and religion it's the stuff wars are made of, but just today I am airing some personal views, you may agree you may not, I don't really care either way.

It's very easy to contradict and argue that you can do it better and just what you should be doing for the country... and giving advice on how poor a deal or no deal is looking, especially when you are not the person or persons actually dealing with it on a day to day business. TM is at the sharp end doing a job that she really doesn't want to do but has to as the British public have decided that they voted to exit the EU. Although the British public really didn't know what they were voting for as they didn't know the end result at the time so how could they make an informed decision.

For me this exit is redefined as - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared to get the unspecified for the uniformed a great way to do business yes ?

Remember this is politics where no matter how well you seem to be doing, there are and always will be those who think they know and could do better even when you are supposed to be on the same team. Of course it also follows that half the public know that TM isn't getting the deal or doing what the electorate want.......really what do they know, bit like getting a professional to give you advice then ignoring it as your mate down the pub knows better!

So for me it's a let's be logic about this, now there is greater clarity as to the cost / end result / potential issues, why not ask the question again of the public after all they are in a more informed position now to actually make that decision. Perhaps then life can resume to some sort of normality and the £ in your pocket is worth more than 97p against the euro. If not then well lets just continue down the road to.....who knows where.

Have a happy weekend

[isleaiw1]

I suspect the public will be asked what they think of it - but not by virtue of a second referendum as to do so would open the floodgates to calls for repeats if the result wasnt what people wanted. I think it will come by way of a general election - sometime between now and then the main two parties will have to decide what they as parties actually stand for on the great EU debate / deal.

Or we could all vote liberal, they seem to be clear and united (all 8 of them...)

[JD6]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I suspect the public will be asked what they think of it - but not by virtue of a second referendum as to do so would open the floodgates to calls for repeats if the result wasnt what people wanted. I think it will come by way of a general election - sometime between now and then the main two parties will have to decide what they as parties actually stand for on the great EU debate / deal.

Or we could all vote liberal, they seem to be clear and united (all 8 of them...)

I can't see the Tories choosing to have another general election, unless their hand is forced by a real collapse of government and the DUP walking away. While Theresa May has been absolutely clear that there will be no second referendum, that was a position she needed to take while negotiating. Had she been advocating one before, there would be a strong incentive for the EU to offer an even worse deal.

I suspect it's the only viable option now, given that the deal is nothing like the one promised. The will of the people was to have their cake and eat it. Now it's clear to even the hard-of-thinking that cake isn't freely available, they can choose between the thin gruel on offer, a hard Brexit, or remaining.

[Herr Dreier]

Originally Posted by JD6

I can't see the Tories choosing to have another general election, unless their hand is forced by a real collapse of government and the DUP walking away. While Theresa May has been absolutely clear that there will be no second referendum, that was a position she needed to take while negotiating. Had she been advocating one before, there would be a strong incentive for the EU to offer an even worse deal.

I suspect it's the only viable option now, given that the deal is nothing like the one promised. The will of the people was to have their cake and eat it. Now it's clear to even the hard-of-thinking that cake isn't freely available, they can choose between the thin gruel on offer, a hard Brexit, or remaining.

Any referendum will have to be a 2 stage


a) leave
b) remain


and then if leave is selected, would you prefer



a) May's deal
b) no deal


otherwise the leave vote would be split.


Even this causes loads of problems, and I bet if a second ref starts being on the cards, the question(s) cause as much infighting as brexit itself!

[Witney]

Originally Posted by Herr Dreier

Any referendum will have to be a 2 stage


a) leave
b) remain


and then if leave is selected, would you prefer



a) May's deal
b) no deal


otherwise the leave vote would be split.


Even this causes loads of problems, and I bet if a second ref starts being on the cards, the question(s) cause as much infighting as brexit itself!

Makes sense. But in the unlikely event of a no deal vote, trigger a general election!!! Then the government who has to negotiate in the turbulent conditions would have the backing of the populace...

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

There are definitely negotiations where you cannot influence the outcome, where the other parties position is too strong, or there is too much at risk for them to change their position. This is one of those. Doesn't matter who you put in front of them, there were a lot of points that they were never ever going to move on.

I'm sure there are things that are a red line for the EU just as there are things that are a red line for the UK. However, the reality is no-deal is quite clearly not in the interests of either party and therefore I always thought a deal could be struck. My contention is the fact the UK has failed to present a solid, united, front, hasn't helped our cause; you may think it's made no difference whatsoever but I don't agree.

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

And if you think that Theresa May walking in there holding hands with Jacob Rees Mogg would have had them quaking and backing down, I believe that you are deluded.

I don't think that which is why I've never said it!

However, I do think many in our Parliament have continually given the impression that all is not lost - and we may yet change our minds and remain - and the EU have quite understandably exploited that. I think their stance may have been different if they'd seen a united front from the UK and had had to accept that Brexit was really going to happen; however, even at this stage I suspect they still think there's a chance the UK will walk back through the door before it closes and so long as they believe that it's bound to influence their negotiating stance.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I'm sure there are things that are a red line for the EU just as there are things that are a red line for the UK. However, the reality is no-deal is quite clearly not in the interests of either party and therefore I always thought a deal could be struck. My contention is the fact the UK has failed to present a solid, united, front, hasn't helped our cause; you may think it's made no difference whatsoever but I don't agree.



I don't think that which is why I've never said it!

However, I do think many in our Parliament have continually given the impression that all is not lost - and we may yet change our minds and remain - and the EU have quite understandably exploited that. I think their stance may have been different if they'd seen a united front from the UK and had had to accept that Brexit was really going to happen; however, even at this stage I suspect they still think there's a chance the UK will walk back through the door before it closes and so long as they believe that it's bound to influence their negotiating stance.

Why should our parliament put on a united front? Our country is split pretty much 50:50 on this, or it was at the time of the referendum. If they all suddenly started backing it 100% many of our politicians would be going against their constituents. At least their division correctly represents the public's own divisions.