http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49739
But wanting a hard deal makes no difference as to whether the country is united or not.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:30 pmNo, I want a no deal I think we are better off with a hard brexit.
There you go it's last year's, it's actually far higher than I thought it'd be, with all the p*ssballing about it's fair to assume it'd be even higher now.TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:33 pmThat's 100% of your straw poll then. Or did you ask teo other people as well?
I agree, they should have realised that the EU was never going to negotiate with what we would consider to be good faith. They are realising it now, hence the legislation that will allow them to negate, if necessary, some of their actions.JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:42 amWe were repeatedly told in 2016 that getting a deal would be easy. That the EU would be bending over backwards to do a deal with us. That nobody was talking about leaving the single market. That there would be no down sides. That we would hold all the cards.
So my question is, how did the architects of the Leave campaigns miscalculate the situation so badly, and when will they be resigning?
I'm splitting the blame, there's a difference.
You saidGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:08 pmI'm splitting the blame, there's a difference.
We had a weak government/PM and a half arsed negotiating team who just kept rolling over to have their tummy tickled.
I believe if we'd have people who truly wanted to leave in charge, instead of being mouthpieces, then the current situation would be different.
We've then had numerous attempts at derailing Brexit via various court cases.
The EU rightly spotted the disarray and took advantage of it, anyone can see that.
I've been told to take ownership, I have done, but to then have you telling me not to be so proud about it is a tad bizarre.
It's well worth remembering without bias what vote resulted in the decision, on that basis it's the remainers that have been creating all the difficulties all along, rightfully the leavers vote won but it's not them creating problems.
Nah that's just your warped take on what I've said.
So let's get this straight. The leave campaigners had no idea what they were talking about in 2016. They were so wide of the mark in their assumptions about international politics and EU institutions that we're now on the verge of dealing with our largest and closest partner on the same terms as Uzbekistan.Burnley Ace wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:58 pmI agree, they should have realised that the EU was never going to negotiate with what we would consider to be good faith. They are realising it now, hence the legislation that will allow them to negate, if necessary, some of their actions.
You are right they should apologise for presuming the EU would negotiate as “friends”, for presuming they wanted a deal, for not realising (as the Australians did) that the EU couldn’t let our exit be a success or let us be a successful competitor on their border. The concept of “good faith” has never been evidenced.JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:14 pmSo let's get this straight. The leave campaigners had no idea what they were talking about in 2016. They were so wide of the mark in their assumptions about international politics and EU institutions that we're now on the verge of dealing with our largest and closest partner on the same terms as Uzbekistan.
And we should all just accept that, as though it's no big deal? Don't you think, at the very least, they owe the British public an apology for misleading them in such a way? Whether they misled them deliberately through lies, or accidently due to sheer incompetence, the end result is the same.
Where is the accountability here? Where is the humility from these people? They ought to be so ashamed at the size of these blunders that they resign from office.
Had they said this at the time, Leave would never have won. The Leave victory was based on things that have all come unstuck as time has passed. Even the taking back of control hasn’t panned out, with a government increasingly sidelining parliament, and the likelihood our food and environment standards will be lowered to win trade deals.Burnley Ace wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:58 pmI agree, they should have realised that the EU was never going to negotiate with what we would consider to be good faith. They are realising it now, hence the legislation that will allow them to negate, if necessary, some of their actions.
Didn't the make clear recently we wouldn't be taking chlorinated chicken?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:17 pmHad they said this at the time, Leave would never have won. The Leave victory was based on things that have all come unstuck as time has passed. Even the taking back of control hasn’t panned out, with a government increasingly sidelining parliament, and the likelihood our food and environment standards will be lowered to win trade deals.
The people making naive assumptions about trade deals back then were either stupid, or lying. Which do you think?
Cos obviously the Tories have proved themselves so trustworthy. If Boris has said no to chlorinated chicken then we can definetely rule it out.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:26 pmDidn't the make clear recently we wouldn't be taking chlorinated chicken?
Sell the NHS yes, chicken nol
OK let's put it another way that maybe you'll trust.
And it’ll be a lot cheaper and impact the viability of U.K. chicken producers.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:41 pmOK let's put it another way that maybe you'll trust.
You aren't forced to buy it.
It won't be the only chicken available to purchase.
If it somehow passes your lips then that's your own fault, no one else's.
When you go out to eat you'll be entitled to ask if the chicken is chlorinated or not, just like you can ask if meat is Halal or not.
Let's be honest with most of the backstreet takeaways after a few beers nobody is really bothered about the traceability, you eat the food it taste good you go home, for years we've been eating meat unsure about the source & nobody as ever really bothered until now.
We’ve had a government committed to delivering Brexit since the referendum. The reality of what is deliverable could never match the promises made about it. That’s been, and continues to be the problem.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:08 pmI'm splitting the blame, there's a difference.
We had a weak government/PM and a half arsed negotiating team who just kept rolling over to have their tummy tickled.
I believe if we'd have people who truly wanted to leave in charge, instead of being mouthpieces, then the current situation would be different.
We've then had numerous attempts at derailing Brexit via various court cases.
The EU rightly spotted the disarray and took advantage of it, anyone can see that.
I've been told to take ownership, I have done, but to then have you telling me not to be so proud about it is a tad bizarre.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rs-furiousGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:26 pmDidn't the make clear recently we wouldn't be taking chlorinated chicken?
Sell the NHS yes, chicken nol
There's a kebab van between Newbury and Basingstoke.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:07 pmLet's be honest with most of the backstreet takeaways after a few beers nobody is really bothered about the traceability, you eat the food it taste good you go home, for years we've been eating meat unsure about the source & nobody as ever really bothered until now.
Ah - so now you’re admitting the possibility our standards will be compromised. So that is another nail in the coffin of taking back control.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:41 pmOK let's put it another way that maybe you'll trust.
You aren't forced to buy it.
It won't be the only chicken available to purchase.
If it somehow passes your lips then that's your own fault, no one else's.
When you go out to eat you'll be entitled to ask if the chicken is chlorinated or not, just like you can ask if meat is Halal or not.
I think some leave advocates were as full of **** as remainers.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:35 pmhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rs-furious
They didn’t make anything clear because they voted down the amendment that would have protected our standards. We only have their word.
As you responded to the post, do you think the Leave advocates who insisted leaving with a great deal would be easy (and also claimed people saying otherwise were merely fearmongers) were stupid, or lying to us?
The country as a result of Brexit could lower standards in order to get a trade deal. Otherwise the government would have passed the amendment.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:42 pmNot admitted anything, just making it crystal clear that no one is forced to lower their standards.
Those leave advocates are now in government.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:43 pmI think some leave advocates were as full of **** as remainers.
How do the rich get richer from WTO? Thought it was going to be economically catastrophic for the country? In which case surely the rich get poorer?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:09 pmThose leave advocates are now in government.
As for the remain d*******s, they all came from the same party. All the other parties had positive messages about why we should remain. Decent pragmatic arguments that were all ignored because the media chose to focus on “blue on blue” like some kind of incest porn.
This WTO Brexit is all about rich people getting richer. If it ends up being good for the country, I’ll be the first to say so, and I’ll enjoy the taking back of control. All the evidence points the other way.
Again, I can see the upside for very rich people, but not any for ordinary people. If you know some, please share. As for standards, if you want them to stay the same talk to your MP now. Waiting until they’re changed is too late.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:18 pmThe way you talk it's like you've never encountered rich people getting richer on the back of gov decisions.
Have you been living in a cave?
I'll worry about our standards later if they change.
We have higher standards on things than large chunks of the EU, but that doesn't seem to bother you for some odd reason.
Yes we didn’t want to be in a protectionist trading block, especially one we do most of our trading with. Now to get a great deal with the protectionist trading blo..... Oh ****, hang on, no, stop!
I don't even know who my MP is without googling them
The very rich - so I’m not talking about people who are a few millions of pounds rich - can soak up the initial economic hit (or move their investments off shore), and then buy cut priced investments after the crash.
Could they call it a US deal? In the same way they have talked about Canadian, Norwegian, Swiss deals. It’s pointing out other countries trade with the EU without a “deal”. It’s not a commentary on how “good”the deal is. Isn’t it established that no deal can be as good for business/economy than what we had?CombatClaret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:14 pmMinister finally admits an "Australia Deal" is simply No Deal by another name.
If No Deal was really a good thing, why would they have to dress it up and be dishonest to the public?
No it isn’t.Burnley Ace wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:39 pmCould they call it a US deal? In the same way they have talked about Canadian, Norwegian, Swiss deals. It’s pointing out other countries trade with the EU without a “deal”. It’s not a commentary on how “good”the deal is. Isn’t it established that no deal can be as good for business/economy than what we had?
Dress it up and justify it to yourself however you like. The government is rhetorically disguising the absence of a deal.Burnley Ace wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:39 pmCould they call it a US deal? In the same way they have talked about Canadian, Norwegian, Swiss deals. It’s pointing out other countries trade with the EU without a “deal”. It’s not a commentary on how “good”the deal is. Isn’t it established that no deal can be as good for business/economy than what we had?
Why write about things you do not understand?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:46 pmThe very rich - so I’m not talking about people who are a few millions of pounds rich - can soak up the initial economic hit (or move their investments off shore), and then buy cut priced investments after the crash.
This isn’t a new subject. For a long time remainers have talked of this, and also leavers:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ing-brexit
That's the same as saying, "The Tories won the General Election so we should all stop moaning about it and pointing out the stupidity, greed and gross incompetence that the government so eagerly displays every day."Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:19 pmIt's well worth remembering without bias what vote resulted in the decision, on that basis it's the remainers that have been creating all the difficulties all along, rightfully the leavers vote won but it's not them creating problems.
The crucial difference there being that Canada, Norway and Switzerland have a deal. Describing the absence of a deal as a deal is pretty disingenuous.Burnley Ace wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:39 pmCould they call it a US deal? In the same way they have talked about Canadian, Norwegian, Swiss deals. It’s pointing out other countries trade with the EU without a “deal”. It’s not a commentary on how “good”the deal is. Isn’t it established that no deal can be as good for business/economy than what we had?
To be fair I’m loving this new definition of ‘deal’, it makes our transfer window far less depressing, that deal we did with Liverpool for Wilson and with Watford for Dawson.aggi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:57 pmThe crucial difference there being that Canada, Norway and Switzerland have a deal. Describing the absence of a deal as a deal is pretty disingenuous.
I can't say I've seen anything where No Deal is as good as the current deal so would be interested in any links to something like that.
Yes I like it as well. As the withdrawal agreement wasn't a deal, we should be able to play Trippier and Ings this evening. Happy days!
Can we refer to the Harry Wilson outcome as the "Swansea Deal" as I believe we successfully negotiated and agreed with Liverpool the same deal they gave to Swansea.
Call it "no deal" and a lot of people hear "no" and think that is bad. Say it is the same deal that Australia has then people understand that Australia's not doing too badly, so the WTO deal will work out.CombatClaret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:14 pmMinister finally admits an "Australia Deal" is simply No Deal by another name.
If No Deal was really a good thing, why would they have to dress it up and be dishonest to the public?
Yes, but Australia weren’t part of the EU so the comparison is useless. It’s disingenuous to pretend no deal is anything but that. And perhaps people are thinking no deal is bad because it is (according to every economic forecast available).Paul Waine wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:36 pmCall it "no deal" and a lot of people hear "no" and think that is bad. Say it is the same deal that Australia has then people understand that Australia's not doing too badly, so the WTO deal will work out.
It's no difference than speaking of a "Canada style" deal - again, people can relate to a deal that already exists for a country many have some knowledge of.
Surely, we've all known all along that giving the outcome a label helps us all relate and understand what is going on a little more easily.
And, this applies for both sides (assuming there are only two sides) whether leave or remain.
“no deal”not “No Deal”CombatClaret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:46 pmDress it up and justify it to yourself however you like. The government is rhetorically disguising the absence of a deal.
And to the last question, it's categorially not established.
Nice bit of spin Paul - Mr Campbell would be proud of you !!Paul Waine wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:36 pmCall it "no deal" and a lot of people hear "no" and think that is bad. Say it is the same deal that Australia has then people understand that Australia's not doing too badly, so the WTO deal will work out.
It's no difference than speaking of a "Canada style" deal - again, people can relate to a deal that already exists for a country many have some knowledge of.
Surely, we've all known all along that giving the outcome a label helps us all relate and understand what is going on a little more easily.
And, this applies for both sides (assuming there are only two sides) whether leave or remain.
True I agree 100% with you, I don't think we've ever had the acceptance from the start as opposed to the domestic main parties fighting it out that's the difference, whatever the deal it could be made of gold & diamond encrusted some of the remainers wouldn't like it, whatever the circumstances some people just didn't want to leave the European Union & will never ever accept the democratic wish of the majority, it's the lack of acceptance I'm pointing out & will continue to do so.bfcmik wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:38 pmThat's the same as saying, "The Tories won the General Election so we should all stop moaning about it and pointing out the stupidity, greed and gross incompetence that the government so eagerly displays every day."
"Oh! and PS, The Tories won a majority at that election so we don't need another vote a few years down the line to confirm or change, that vote because no-one ever changes their mind about politics (except politicians)!"
(edited as 1 letter can totally transform the meaning of a sentence!)
