Brexit negotiations thread

[Bielzibubz]

The fact that you have to resort to personal abuse once again only underlines the poverty of your arguments. The free market means rampant uncontrolled capitalism which is only in the interests of a few, certainly not you or me. You might believe in that and the far from widely accepted horseshoe theory and various other right wing inventions to justify their hegemony, I don't.

That's strange. I have and continue to do 'all right' by this uncontrolled capitalism you speak of. Certainly a lot better than my mother and father did back in the days of a Socialist left wing UK government.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I’m surprised by the traction it has got.

Firstly it clearly only applies to those without a plan. Why would Leavers therefore be insulted if they had a viable plan?

Secondly, it’s hardly out of place compared to the rhetoric coming from the UK on an almost daily basis. We’re constantly hearing comparisons to WWII - which would actually have been a living hell for Tusk’s parents - and the use of a war rhetoric (May going into battle etc) when we’re supposed to be reaching an agreement with them, not declaring war. Remainers get labelled saboteurs and traitors etc etc.

It seems a surprising time to insist on a new style of conciliatory politics when domestically the language used towards them is so hostile. We may not follow news in the EU but they read our newspapers etc.

Thirdly, I’m surprised how sensitive people are to criticism are on the Leave side. I thought Leavers couldn’t abide such snowflake behaviour of taking offence at the slightest thing?

Fourth, May is clearly setting up a scenario where she’s trying to blame the EU and make them seem unreasonable. Why the surprise when the EU defends itself by highlighting how underprepared the UK was and how this is self-inflicted? Pointing out that it is the UK not the EU that got the UK into this mess is hardly unreasonable and it is helpful when deciding what pundits to listen to when deciding what to do next: those who foresaw these issues or those caught out by them?

Finally, his comments on Corbyn have largely been ignored and there’s no outrage about his comments on the Leader of the Opposition’s (lack of) leadership on this issue.

Indeed .You get the distinct impression that the EU are getting fed up with the UK expecting them to sort a solution to Brexit.Why should they ? After all it was the UK which voted to leave. HMG (ie The Tories) are charged with implementing Brexit policy,which neatly answers your last point too.

 

[GBJ]

I’m surprised by the traction it has got.

Firstly it clearly only applies to those without a plan. Why would Leavers therefore be insulted if they had a viable plan?

If May had said something similar - special place in hell for those who won’t negotiate fairly etc - she’d have been lambasted, from all sides.

They both hold extremely important positions in all of this, and getting into petty jibes in the public eye, just seems counterproductive, regardless if there’s any truth to them or not. It’s just not very professional.

Secondly, it’s hardly out of place compared to the rhetoric coming from the UK on an almost daily basis. We’re constantly hearing comparisons to WWII - which would actually have been a living hell for Tusk’s parents - and the use of a war rhetoric (May going into battle etc) when we’re supposed to be reaching an agreement with them, not declaring war. Remainers get labelled saboteurs and traitors etc etc.

That’s the media’s fault.

If his response was one of vengeance, it hardly paints him in a good light.

Thirdly, I’m surprised how sensitive people are to criticism are on the Leave side. I thought Leavers couldn’t abide such snowflake behaviour of taking offence at the slightest thing?

Meh, It hasn’t got me riled up, I’m not particularly bothered by the comments to be truthful. All it’s done is make negotiations even harder & push us closer to a No Deal. I’d have thought the remain side would be more annoyed than the leavers tbh.

Fourth, May is clearly setting up a scenario where she’s trying to blame the EU and make them seem unreasonable. Why the surprise when the EU defends itself by highlighting how underprepared the UK was and how this is self-inflicted? Pointing out that it is the UK not the EU that got the UK into this mess is hardly unreasonable and it is helpful when deciding what pundits to listen to when deciding what to do next: those who foresaw these issues or those caught out by them?

That was the plan from the very beginning. She knew she wouldn’t be able to appease the country, so had to make the EU look like the bad guys. That way, her & her party could shift blame away from themselves, whenever they needed to. It’s the very reason why she shouldn’t have been elected into that role, in the first place. And.....

Finally, his comments on Corbyn have largely been ignored and there’s no outrage about his comments on the Leader of the Opposition’s (lack of) leadership on this issue.

..... Following on from that, Corbyn can take his fair share of the blame aswell. The proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing. He wants out of the EU, and always has done. I’d even go as far as saying, it wouldn’t surprise me if he would be happy to leave with No Deal. All he’s done, is given the Tories the rope they need, and sat back and watched as they’ve hung themselves.

Anyway, You make some good points. I don’t agree with them all, but at least they’re thought provoking.

I feel like we’ve digressed. This type of petty jibing - from either side - doesn’t actually help the negotiations progress. And aside from whataboutary, I can’t see any feasible argument otherwise.

 

[blues exile]

That's strange. I have and continue to do 'all right' by this uncontrolled capitalism you speak of. Certainly a lot better than my mother and father did back in the days of a Socialist left wing UK government.

Good for you but if you are referring to the period of the Wilson governments to those of us around then it was a time of hope, of greater opportunity, of the narrowing of social inequality and a time when the UK was becoming a civilised country in terms of the social reforms that took place. Far preferable to the loadsamoney 'culture' unleashed by Thatcher when the city was given free rein to exploit the unwary and the pay gap started to widen.

 

[GBJ]

Indeed .You get the distinct impression that the EU are getting fed up with the UK expecting them to sort a solution to Brexit.Why should they ? After all it was the UK which voted to leave. HMG (ie The Tories) are charged with implementing Brexit policy,which neatly answers your last point too.

You realise Brexit affects them aswell, don’t you?

It’s in both parties interests, that it goes smoothly.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Good for you but if you are referring to the period of the Wilson governments to those of us around then it was a time of hope, of greater opportunity, of the narrowing of social inequality and a time when the UK was becoming a civilised country in terms of the social reforms that took place. Far preferable to the loadsamoney 'culture' unleashed by Thatcher when the city was given free rein to exploit the unwary and the pay gap started to widen.

I would imagine he is referring to that, and I don't remember it with the rose tinted glassed you do. I remember us going cap in hand to the IMF to bail us out, the Winter of Discontent etc.

 

[blues exile]

I would imagine he is referring to that, and I don't remember it with the rose tinted glassed you do. I remember us going cap in hand to the IMF to bail us out, the Winter of Discontent etc.

That was in 1978, I was referring to the sixties. Wilson had retired by the so called Winter of Discontent, Callaghan was PM.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Good for you but if you are referring to the period of the Wilson governments to those of us around then it was a time of hope, of greater opportunity, of the narrowing of social inequality and a time when the UK was becoming a civilised country in terms of the social reforms that took place. Far preferable to the loadsamoney 'culture' unleashed by Thatcher when the city was given free rein to exploit the unwary and the pay gap started to widen.

Are you for real!!? London was one big bomb site during the 60's/70's, while the rest of the country was flat on it's arse. How can you possibly say it was a time of hope under Wilson or any other so called leader back then. You do know what the rest of the world was calling us then right?

The poor man of Europe. Where was the hope?

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

That was in 1978, I was referring to the sixties. Wilson had retired by the so called Winter of Discontent, Callaghan was PM.

He was leader from 74-76 before bailing out and letting Callaghan take over, so he was certainly culpable, surely you don’t think the problems of the late 70’s started then? They’d been brewing for years prior to that, the vast majority of that time under Labour government

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

The fact that you have to resort to personal abuse once again only underlines the poverty of your arguments. The free market means rampant uncontrolled capitalism which is only in the interests of a few, certainly not you or me. You might believe in that and the far from widely accepted horseshoe theory and various other right wing inventions to justify their hegemony, I don't.

What personal abuse? I haven't abused you! I pointed out that despite many discussions and evidenced responses you are the one person who never seems to acknowledge anything unless it was your opinion to start with. That is not abuse, it is an observation and a fair one - which was not delivered in an abusive way.

Furthermore, any objective analysis of this thread would not (in my view) assess a paucity or lack of research, knowledge and understanding through my contributions when compared to yours.

Actually, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your hatred of markets. The market economy is a wide concept that encompasses everything where choices are made about purchases or transactions for goods and services. Why would anyone hate having two comparable products to choose between? That is different from what I think you really hate, which is the financial markets. Those folks who make decisions about where to lend, who lend to, how risky that lending would be etc. This is a long subject for which I don't have the time to go into all the ins and outs here, but the upshot is that governments need money. You can tax for it, or you have to earn it through charging for services, and if neither of those provide enough you have two options - borrow or print. Is it not fair that lenders assess whether they think you can afford to repay? Who has money that governments could borrow? Surely only banks or large funds. Which large funds are out there? Sovereign wealth funds and pension funds. Do you hate or object to either of those? IF you object to all that, do you advocate printing money each time we need some? Can you think of any implications that that might have for the value of money? I'm not sure you've really thought this through much beyond a fairly standard 'it must be wrong as they've got more than me and I am not in charge of the decisions' naivete.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

That was in 1978, I was referring to the sixties. Wilson had retired by the so called Winter of Discontent, Callaghan was PM.

So you basically picked a good bit out of those Labour years, and overlooked the bit where it led to a period in which the unions systematically destroyed the production side of the economy through militancy and pseudo communism. I can see why you liked it now.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So in effect unless the PM adopts Corbyn's deal we are faced with no deal?
What are the chances of May backing down and doing what Corbyn wants?
A big fat zero that's what. Corbyn could end up with a huge revolt from within his own party, he's playing a very dangerous game.

Not at all 'my deal or no deal' is May's mantra to scare MPs to vote for her deal but that is a shocking way to do politics - 2 **** options is an abdication of duty.
There are numerous other options, extending A50 looks almost inevitable though as May has stuck doggedly to her rejected deal and run down the clock.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

He was leader from 74-76 before bailing out and letting Callaghan take over, so he was certainly culpable, surely you don’t think the problems of the late 70’s started then? They’d been brewing for years prior to that, the vast majority of that time under Labour government

Harold Wilson most certainly did not bail out of office.He had a serious medical condition which he knew would only get worse with time,which is precisely why he retired..This is a matter of public record.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You realise Brexit affects them aswell, don’t you?

It’s in both parties interests, that it goes smoothly.

Of course it is.Which is precisely why it's up to HMG to find a solution to the Brexit conundrum. After all,the Tories own Brexit.It's up to them to sort it in the national interest,as best they can.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So you basically picked a good bit out of those Labour years, and overlooked the bit where it led to a period in which the unions systematically destroyed the production side of the economy through militancy and pseudo communism. I can see why you liked it now.

That's not the 60's that I remember.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

While I agree with your first premise.Technically speaking the PLP wouldn't be voting for May's deal,merely abstaining and thereby letting it pass by default and also removing the very real threat of a no deal Brexit at the end of March.

I think we both know that Mrs May won't be signing up to Labour's plan for a custom union any time soon, if ever.You'd need a general election for that and who knows what Labour's policy as regards Brexit will be next time around? Probably not the same as in 2017 since the circumstances have obviously changed since then.

We've heard a lot of talk of the national interest recently but not much sign of politicians from either of the two main parties willing to pay anything other than lip service to the idea.

I don't see that it is in the national interest to let a bad deal or no deal get through Parliament. May's deal would need significant changes to make it acceptable.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Are you for real!!? London was one big bomb site during the 60's/70's, while the rest of the country was flat on it's arse. How can you possibly say it was a time of hope under Wilson or any other so called leader back then. You do know what the rest of the world was calling us then right?

The poor man of Europe. Where was the hope?

Talk about rewriting (relatively recent) history.Any bomb sites still in London in the early 60's would be better attributed to successive Tory governments, which were in power from 1951-1964.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

That's not the 60's that I remember.

That's because in that post I was referred to what the 60s led to - the 70s.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I don't see that it is in the national interest to let a bad deal or no deal get through Parliament. May's deal would need significant changes to make it acceptable.

While I tend to agree I also think that even a bad deal (ie May's deal) would be better than no deal.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That's because in that post I was referred to what the 60s led to - the 70s.

I remember the 70's much better than the 60's, since I came of age in 1970, when I voted for Labour for the first time while in the 6th form at WHS.

I certainly don't remember"the unions systematically destroyed the production side of the economy through militancy and pseudo communism."

Must have missed that while I was working for Eastern National in Southend 70/1,studying for my degree in Brum 71-74,doing my PGCE in 76/7 and also working in London and Kent before first leaving the UK for Spain in 1978.