You really don’t get this insult thing do you? You’re here AGAIN having been pulled up on it by several of us. If this is acceptable @ISMF then can it be put on the forum’s acceptable phrases policy please? You see I’m pretty sure that calling people wankers is not really what this forum should endorse.
But don’t forget, this was going to be the easiest trade deal in history.
Once you’ve spun the British Public that whopper, it’s rather hard to go back to them with an extensive consultation about what that should involve and set out a decade long timeline.
I completely agree, that’s what should have happened - the obvious next step following the vote to leave should have been working out what that meant - but given the way Brexit was sold to the British People, it was always unlikely to happen.
I reserve the right to call wankers like Jacob Rees-Mogg a wanker.
It should be abundantly clear, in a discussion about Parliament (in which, by the way Kopstar called Remainers ‘twats’) who I’m referring to.
Now get on with the discussion, or don’t. But stop looking for offence when there is none to be had. I’ve already explained this several times, and it’s frankly boring now.
1 Like
No, you reserve the left and as it keeps losing, you’re bitter as hell about it
Ah word play.
I know people here like to blindly defend the EU a lot and blame the government for everything but a large part of why the ultimate withdrawal agreement and subsequent trade agreement, along with the issues being encountered with the NI protocol, was a relative shitshow is down to the EU refusing to agree the framework of the future relationship concurrently with the terms of departure.
That was how it was supposed to work but the EU ignored their own rules because it weakened our hand. The fact we didn’t guard against that and so meekly allowed that to then happen was criminal.
1 Like
That doesn’t even make sense.
Glad you’re bored with calling me a wanker. Does that mean you won’t do it again? You see the thing is that words have importance and meaning. You can’t just throw them about like confetti. For reasons best known to yourself you won’t type:
Sorry mate. fucked that one up, didn’t mean that really just a joke.
Despite being given many opportunities.
But you choose not to.
Shame really.
You reserve the right. Not tricky.
I thought I was obvious who I was referring to. When you thought it was an insult to you, I clarified. Then I clarified again. Then again. And then again. And again. I have made it very clear on multiple occasions who I mean when I say Brexit Wankers. And, as it should be abundantly clear at this point, it isn’t the 52% of the public who voted for it.
And you still. Wont. Let. It. Go.
I mean, I would normally be genuinely sorry you thought I called you a wanker. But in all honesty, if the target wasn’t clear in what I originally said, it should have been clear when I almost immediately, and for your benefit, clarified who I was talking about. The fact you have repeatedly, pointedly, ignored me trying to explain what I meant, dismissed those clarifications out of hand, and even suggested you know better what I meant than I do myself, leads me to suspect you are not not being genuine in your offence, and this whole thing is a bit of a play.
1 Like
1 Like
**OK lads lets move on. **
Brexit tore the country apart, lets not do it here. We are all on the same side. I think for the most part most of us can agree that politicians have let this country down. (whatever side of the spectrum you are on)
Lets try keep the inflammatory language out. Lets cool down and move on. 
3 Likes
But there was no immediate recession (as predicted by the Remain lobby), there is no hard border in Ireland (as predicted by the Remain lobby), we are clearly not at the back of the queue for a US trade deal (as Obama was asked by Cameron to say), we haven’t lost 3 million jobs (we currently have 1 million vacancies and unemployment, predicted to reach 12% is currently at 5% even with a global pandemic), and London continues to be the world’s financial hub.
3 Likes
So, I was just reading Article 50, and it doesn’t really say that they have to be negotiated together?
Here’s Article 50:
Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
- Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements. - A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. - The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period. - For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. - If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Here’s the EU’s own briefing on the procedure to be adopted:
The formal withdrawal process is initiated by a notification from the Member State
wishing to withdraw to the European Council, declaring its intention to do so. The
timing of this notification is entirely in the hand of the Member State concerned, and
informal discussions could take place between it and other Member States and/or
EU institutions prior to the notification. The European Council (without the participation
of the Member State concerned) then provides guidelines for the negotiations between
the EU and the state concerned, with the aim of concluding an agreement setting out
concrete withdrawal arrangements. These arrangements should also cover the
departing Member State’s future relationship with the Union.
It is clear that the future relationship (which necessarily includes the trading relationship) ought to have been agreed alongside the terms of withdrawal. Had that been done then, in my opinion, the issue of the border on the island of Ireland would/could not have been weaponised by the EU and it would not now be causing the difficulties it is.
Right, I misread the part about “taking account of” to mean that it should consider what would have been agreed either separately or together.
How did they justify that? And why would you say that they could not have weaponised the issue? Wasn’t the cause of the whole issue the Good Friday Agreement?
I think there’s a number of issues in play here which makes the whole issue of trying to measure predictions difficult. My thoughts are:
a) The pandemic. We basically shut the country down. So now we’ve restarted it’s no surprise that our recovery is quite spectacular. But our levels are still down and trying to account which is a Brexit issue and what is a pandemic issue is basically impossible. But the truth is pretty much all migrant workers have gone. That is due to both issues, but the Brexit side is that they will not return. We’re feeling it now but will continue to feel that issue down the line. So I think our economy will be smaller but this will be masked by the pandemic to some degree. So yes no immediate recession but had we left with no deal I’d say there would have been. Just like jumping off a cliff. You’re going to be a whole lot shorter shortly afterwards.
b) We are at the back of the queue on the US deal. Johnson was snubbed on the issue when he visited the States recently. That super easy trade deal is way off and linked with what ultimately happens with Ireland (according to Biden)
c) As mentioned earlier these were predictions which were highly dependent on the type of deal we ultimately ended up with I think they were a pretty good stab. It’s just a really mixed picture and I don’t think we can see it all as yet.
Only this morning I’m listening to stories of pig culls while Johnson turns round and says “well, you would have killed them anyway”. Anyone seen a clip of Andrew Marr interviewing Johnson yesterday? What is it with Tories and pigs?
Farms are really going to be hit hard. The farm subsidies are ending etc. but apparently farmers can sell their milk in the local High Street shop (Chris Loder - Conservative MP)
I used to work at a business that was on a farm. The EU used to pay them to NOT grow crops. Purely to stop competition for other country’s farmers. Now I understand the concept but in which universe is that anything like sensible?
4 Likes
I can think of 2 reasons, and I am no farmer so I could be way off but off the top of my head.
a) reintroduction of meadows.
b) Forcing fallowed fields which allows the soil to recover resulting in better crops down the line and perhaps even less fertilizers being needed.
I’m not saying the subsidies are a perfect thing by any means. My point is that farms were largely dependent on these subsidies for a whole host of reasons. That is being removed and I strongly suspect that many farms will go to the wall leaving only the larger “super / industrial type farms”. That ultimately leads to a reduction in food quality, animal welfare and probably increases the basic cost of food.
I am looking at the impact of lamb and wool in particular as sheep farming is a massive thing in my part of the world.
The CAP has been one of the biggest contributors to the destruction of hedgerows, wildlife, artificially increased prices, inefficient farming, and environmental destruction of the last 30 years. Not to mention that it is wildly inequitable among EU countries. One of the main reasons I’m glad we left was to get us out from under that bollocks.
2 Likes
I’m not aware of that so that’s yet another thing I need to look into further.
Do you think Johnson is the person to fix this given that he thinks that killing pigs in a field, burning them or burying them is no different to sending them to an abattoir?
I don’t. I just think we’re jumping off the cliff before we have the parachute ready. I know stuff been announced but I’ve not heard any more on it since. Meanwhile, we’re culling pigs. It’s such a waste.