Cable Forum - Brexit (Old)

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Brexit (Old) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33706539)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35971301)

I've not seen any EU apologists on this thread, just people seeking to help you better understand where the EU is coming from.

And they are wasting their time, especially with me.

EU is totally corrupt and being a member paying extortionate amount of money to be so, is a total con job and nothing nobody says on here will change my view ever!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35971308)

Agreed. However, I think Theresa May has done us all a favour, because we now know exactly how far the EU is prepared to go to give us a withdrawal agreement. What now needs to be decided is whether what they are offering is worth £39bn or whether we should just leave.

When that dawns on Parliament, I dare say there will be a few about turns, particularly by the Opposition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35971307)

He is a former Prime Minister of Australia, and he seems to be making perfect sense. What is there in that article with which you disagree, and why?

Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world does not revolve around the EU.

I understand that you are a remainer, and that's fair enough. But to accuse people of being delusional when they post a factual piece like this tends to make me think that it is your mind that is closed to any information you receive that doesn't fit your preference.

I continue to listen to both sides of the argument but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that tells me that staying in is better than leaving. Maintaining frictionless trade is the most convincing of the remainer arguments, which is why I would prefer a deal, but Tony Abbott's article shows that a 'no deal' is not the end of the world, by any means!

It's an opinion piece from a politician who hasn't held office in this country or within the European Union.

I have already pointed out areas of concern about that piece. Maintaining EU standards means we adhere to their rules, on their terms and affects our ability to negotiate trade deals with other countries.

Not imposing any borders or customs checks, in the absence of a free trade agreement with the EU is an absolute fantasy. WTO rules will simply not allow unrestricted movement of goods across the UK/EU borders, and pretending the Ireland issue doesn't exist will not make that the case.

I doubt you will ever hear a convincing argument, I'd be more likely to resurrect Ian Paisley Snr and convert him to Roman Catholicism such is the extent you are entrenched in your views - and that's fine.

The fact is that remaining within the European Union is coming back into the public discourse and this isn't by chance. Once the Theresa May deal gets voted down we will extend, delay, renegotiate and ultimately remain within the EU because nobody has made adequate contingencies for crashing out on WTO terms in March 2019.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:49 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35971308)

I'm not actually trying to convince anyone that the EU are right or "where they are coming from". I'm spelling out the cold hard reality that there's no plan for Brexit and no appetite for the politicians to go through with it in the absence of one.

Yes, someone will tell me that 17.4 million people will be pissed off with that and equally something in the region of 16.8 million will be happy with it, and a further 30 million or so people just getting on with their lives probably glad to hear the end of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35971310)

Yes, someone will tell me that 17.4 million people will be pissed off with that and equally something in the region of 16.8 million will be happy with it, and a further 30 million or so people just getting on with their lives probably glad to hear the end of it.

Well, judging by how the last pro-Brexit rally went, I doubt the Police would be overly-troubled in the event of our remaining in the EU. (Although I still think that Theresa May will get her deal through.)
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk...j5Pjg0OYqrm7Ok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35971302)

I don’t give a flying fart what the Irish position should have been. They are the cause of the problem and I wish people would cease looking at this through an EU lens other than to criticise them when they’re bullying us.

My real gripe is with the Remainist TM who never stood up to them early on.

The Irish border thing is a feint and not a good faith item; it is the EU playing the GFA and bugging up the risk of terrorism. But this is being done for the sake of the Irish economy. With that in the balance along with the 39 billion, we could have plaid stronger cards.

The Irish position is important because however much people are blaming them for the border issue they've not said how they would solve it.

Do you have a border or do you not? If you do not then how do you manage the import and export of goods when you don't want a customs union? You could put a border in the Irish Sea, the EU agreed to that idea but the DUP didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35971313)

What is there to solve? Did you read the Abbot article?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35971305)

So do you feel that the Anglo/Irish Good Friday Agreement is irrelevant to the future UK/EU relationship or is it overplayed? What would have been the ideal compromise with the UK leaving while preserving the GFA or should we ditch the GFA?

I feel that the Anglo/Irish GFA is just that and is bilateral. The EU snout is in there to support the Irish tail that is wagging the dog. The Irish interest is purely economic and their ploy is thus not in good faith.

The GFA does not mandate an open border. The issue is really a commercial matter not one of terrorism. By being tough, it could be left to the two countries to sort out. Trouble is that EU Law on which they are totally pedantic comes into play.

There is a strong case for no deal and let the EU erect a border to Ireland’s ennui. If they didn’t, then neither need we.

Why do you want to be bound to a bunch of nasties like the EU?

jfman I feel confident that the ex prime minister of Australia has a better knowledge of trade agreements, the EU and WTO rules than you, I or anyone else on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35971306)

<SNIP>

However, when you strip the emotion out of the situation the cold facts are the EU holds all the cards and we hold none.

Correct to a certain extent. If we change the game to no deal, the EU holds no playable cards other than to be nastier than ever.

If the UK can’t weather that, then we deserve TM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35971316)

jfman I feel confident that the ex prime minister of Australia has a better knowledge of trade agreements, the EU and WTO rules than you, I or anyone else on this forum.

What about the Prime Minister who followed him and said his shotgun trade agreement with India wasn't fit for purpose?

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...10-gvhrpb.html

Looks to me more like he misses the finer details and doesn't fully think through the consequences of these things.

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 14:26 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35971317)

Correct to a certain extent. If we change the game to no deal, the EU holds no playable cards other than to be nastier than ever.

If the UK can’t weather that, then we deserve TM.

We equally have no playable cards. The can gets kicked down the road 100% before we go for no deal.

Our playable card on no deal is no deal itself and the quandary into which the EU will be placed. No 39 billion either. A card or not a card?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35971318)

The following prime minister never mentioned "not fit for purpose" what he did say was

Quote:

Mr Abbott had set an ambitious 12 month timetable on the talks in 2014 after his speedy success in inking trade deals with Japan, China, and South Korea.

If you are going to use a media report to try and prove a point then at least quote what it says rather than your opinion of what it says.

No deal is hardly a quandary for the EU.

It's one of the options they have forced us into alongside 'bad deal'.

I'm sure the EU project as a whole wouldn't mind 'no deal' as an example to other Member States what life will be like for them if they leave. The EU will have been preparing for that contingency since June 2016.

While £39bn is a lot, I'm sure the largest trading bloc in the world can find it somewhere else.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35971323)

The following prime minister never mentioned "not fit for purpose" what he did say was

If you are going to use a media report to try and prove a point then at least quote what it says rather than your opinion of what it says.

Did the agreement go ahead as negotiated by Mr Abbot or did it not?

I think it's reasonable to state that something that required more work, and more negotiations, is not fit for purpose.

I'm loving how the pain in the Brexiteers is resulting in the conversation becoming sidetracked to avoid the reality that there's no Parliamentary majority for May's deal and none for No Deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35971324)

Are you for real? What agreement had been negotiated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35971326)

Are you for real? What agreement had been negotiated?

Are you for real? You are sidetracking the conversation on the back of an opinion piece. Abbot has negotiated bad deals in the past that got postponed by his successor, indicating his understanding may not be as much as you first believed.