Deadlock Over Uk's Brexit Bill, Says Eu's Michel Barnier

Avatar Image
mikey4444 | 12:52 Thu 12th Oct 2017 | News
33 Answers

As I thought SuperPoodle David Davies has come back from Brussels empty-handed.....again.

Time to send someone who can actually do something right.


21 to 33 of 33rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's called negotiation, this is how it's done.

Why do people find it hard to grasp that concept, and simply wait until the outcome?

Any speculation is simply a waste of time and effort.
// Not capitulating to the intransigent other side of the table is doing something right.\\. Spot on OG at 13.52.
Question Author said

"A Sky News poll finds that 74 per cent of the public think ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ while 26 per cent think ‘any deal is better than no deal’.

That may very well be true, but I would feel a little better if many of the public knows what a "no deal" actually means.

Last night, I attended a focus group, to discuss the IICSA....the Independent Inquiry of Child Sexual Abuse. There were 12 of us there, all men of about my age and more than half didn't even know that IICSA had been set up, or what it was all about. It was set up in June 2014, and yet they not aware of anything about it, despite all the difficulty in getting a Chair for the Inquiry, when that was reported on a weekly basis for 3 years.

So I would take a large pinch of salt, with any information that purports to reflect what people actually think and say.
There were 12 of us there, all men of about my age and more than half didn't even know that IICSA had been set up, or what it was all about.

Sounds more like an unfocused group.
12 men gather to discuss an organisation they have never heard of?
Yes Mikey, why were they there? Did they just wonder in off the street lol

It doesn't matter what the no deal is. If it is better than the deal on offer it is a better deal.

In any case better by who's standard?

Remainers want more than we will get at a reasonable price. If (I'm using deliberately small numbers for ease) we pay the EU £10 for free trade but the net result is £20 loss and no deal would mean £20 for WTO fees but the net result was break even. I would go for no deal. Anything bigger than a loss is the only option. Otherwise you are paying o er the odds.
Mikey - How can you say that you take with a pinch anything that purports to reflect what people think or say, when day after day you try to make an issue out of everything anti-tory what some reporter has put in your paper, and is not necessarily true.
That's it from me on this thread.
^^^ should say 'pinch of salt'
Question Author
The reality is that these negotiations have been going for ages and nothing has been achieved.

A couple of weeks ago, Mrs May was forced to go to Florence, to beg for two more years. But the EU still hasn't said if its going to allow that.

David Davies is obliviously not up the job that he has been given.
What is far more blindingly obvious is that the senior Euromaniacs have been determined from the outset to ensure that these “negotiations” will not conclude in an outcome that gives the impression that the UK has received some sort of special treatment. That’s their prerogative. It’s their club, their rules and we are leaving. What is also apparent is that the “European Project” trumps any sort of pragmatism that might be present among some of the more sensible Eurocrats. Nothing must stand in its way. Remember this is an organisation that imposed “sanctions” against one of its members – Austria. That country had the temerity to include in its coalition government some members of a party that was vehemently opposed to the EU. They had been properly elected and had broken no laws. But Austria had to be punished. So it is no wonder at all that the UK must not only be punished, but also seen to be punished. That is why, unless some wiser, less fanatical pragmatists have a say in these talks that they have little to no chance of concluding in anything meaningful.

Another question asked whether there was a definitive table of the pros and cons of a “No Deal” (i.e. “proper”) Brexit. It was said that nobody can see into the future. Quite correct. But what is beyond speculation is that a country with no formal ties to the EU and with no possibility of its integrity being harmed by the pernicious influence which it wields during its march to a Federal State will be in a much better position to pursue its own agenda than EU members will be. The idea of leaving the EU is to free the UK of those influences and if it means sacrificing some of the (limited) advantages then so be it. Nobody said a “Hard” Brexit would be easy. In fact, in the short term, it’s the option that presents the most difficulty. But it’s the option that creates the greatest opportunity for reward. Mr Davies and his colleagues should resist the blackmailing tactics of the Euromaniacs to screw totally unjustified sums from the UK. If it means walking away that should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat.
Also, let's not forget that from the EU's point of view these 'negotiations' will be as much about sending a message to any other nations that might be getting uppity ideas about leaving the club, than they are about punishing the UK.

Their goal will be to make it as painful for us as possible, and as the judge says, this will trump pragmatic concerns about trade etc.
I don't recall Mrs May being forced to go to Florence, to beg for two more years. I do recall her going and suggesting stuff such as an extension, because she hadn't the nerve to cope with negotiating so started to crack, and proved she should have left it to her band of three.
The problem is for the UK that the hapless PM is deep down a remainer and her friend the chancellor is not only likewise in extreme, but a traitor to boot.
These people and their likes have brought the whole subject to appear as if trade issues were the only subject on the agenda when the majority voted for a return to sovereignty - to have their country back, something so important that any temporary dip in the economy would be worth paying for, though after witnessing how the 'fear project' not only failed to materialise but the opposite has been the case, should take courage.

21 to 33 of 33rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Deadlock Over Uk's Brexit Bill, Says Eu's Michel Barnier

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.