FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Without being able to use "no deal"..
Without being able to use "no deal"..
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here. "
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave "
So we're too far in to leave. We're riding the rollercoaster like it or not!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave
So we're too far in to leave. We're riding the rollercoaster like it or not! "
Yes. Imagine being a leave voter now, they must feel very foolish. After the shit has settled we can always apply to rejoin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave "
Leavers were promised by the Leave campaign an undeliverable set of lies that we would easily get everything we wanted because we held all the cards while remain voters knew that was a total crock of shite and we've been saying for over 3 years it'll be a fuck up but we have constantly been shouted down as scaremongering and project fear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave
Leavers were promised by the Leave campaign an undeliverable set of lies that we would easily get everything we wanted because we held all the cards while remain voters knew that was a total crock of shite and we've been saying for over 3 years it'll be a fuck up but we have constantly been shouted down as scaremongering and project fear. "
Exactly, they must feel so foolish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave
So we're too far in to leave. We're riding the rollercoaster like it or not!
Yes. Imagine being a leave voter now, they must feel very foolish. After the shit has settled we can always apply to rejoin. "
I expect they're feeling rather let down. Probably end up with a Tory/brexit party coalition. Joy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Having the option of No Deal isn't this amazing negotiating tactic that Brexiteers want to claim.
We all know the number one block to a deal currently is the backstop. And the EU aren't refusing to remove backstop just to be stubborn.
They've promised Ireland that the backstop will stay and that it's the only way forward.
We can get as close as we like to a no deal, and threaten it till we're blue in the race, but the EU aren't suddenly going to cave and say the backstop is gone - not until there is something to replace it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The negotiations for a new deal were a sham .Boris and Cummings had no intention of getting a different deal and they’ve been found out .They only want a no deal and the good and decent people in parliament decided to stand against the liars.Well done!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The negotiations for a new deal were a sham .Boris and Cummings had no intention of getting a different deal and they’ve been found out .They only want a no deal and the good and decent people in parliament decided to stand against the liars.Well done! "
Exactly. We democratically voted in these MP to do exactly what they have done . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here. "
It wasn't quite like that  . The UK negotiated an agreement settlement, rather than just getting an offer from the EU - although the UK ministers, like Davis,didn't often spend much time in Brussels, they took most of 2 years to formulate a plan that Johnson was involved with at Chequers too.
The agreement allowed the UK government to fulfil the referendum guarantee of departure with a deal, as no deal exit was very clearly excluded as not being voted for.
The government also has legal responsibilities as part of the Good Friday agreement, to preserve an open border between the UK and the EU member state of Ireland - the UK solution to this was to have the Backstop element of the exit agreement.
In short - the 2 sides created the departure agreement: It was not what 1 side imposed on the other.
Although the UK asked to leave, it was legally clarified that the Article 50 notice could be cancelled by the UK, where it would continue as before. It could then resubmit another, where the 2 sides get another 2 years to negotiate another exit deal.
Leaving on a specific date is not essential. Leaving without a deal does not give voters what was promised. The PM has a responsibility to do the right thing for the country. That would be a deal exit that is not substantially worse for the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?"
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers."
So you think we can negotiate better without a no deal option? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers.
So you think we can negotiate better without a no deal option?"
So you go to your boss to ask for a pay rise, do you start the conversation by saying give me more money or I quit. He says no. So you quit your job leaving him slightly inconvenienced by having to find your replacement meanwhile you go home with no job.
Having no money coming in and a possibly of losing your house, your wife and even the dog.
Or would you start the conversation by outlining your positive contribution to the firm and how you can make the company better.
I know every negotiation is different but they are always best started off in a friendly manner. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers.
So you think we can negotiate better without a no deal option?
So you go to your boss to ask for a pay rise, do you start the conversation by saying give me more money or I quit. He says no. So you quit your job leaving him slightly inconvenienced by having to find your replacement meanwhile you go home with no job.
Having no money coming in and a possibly of losing your house, your wife and even the dog.
Or would you start the conversation by outlining your positive contribution to the firm and how you can make the company better.
I know every negotiation is different but they are always best started off in a friendly manner."
Hmm, i don't know. That sounds like a trade union fighting for employee better terms and conditions after telling the management that they won't take any industrial action no matter what the answer is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers.
So you think we can negotiate better without a no deal option?
So you go to your boss to ask for a pay rise, do you start the conversation by saying give me more money or I quit. He says no. So you quit your job leaving him slightly inconvenienced by having to find your replacement meanwhile you go home with no job.
"
This would make sense if we were Greece. But we're not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers.
So you think we can negotiate better without a no deal option?
So you go to your boss to ask for a pay rise, do you start the conversation by saying give me more money or I quit. He says no. So you quit your job leaving him slightly inconvenienced by having to find your replacement meanwhile you go home with no job.
Having no money coming in and a possibly of losing your house, your wife and even the dog.
Or would you start the conversation by outlining your positive contribution to the firm and how you can make the company better.
I know every negotiation is different but they are always best started off in a friendly manner.
Hmm, i don't know. That sounds like a trade union fighting for employee better terms and conditions after telling the management that they won't take any industrial action no matter what the answer is."
I take your point but workers are protected during industrial action. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?"
It doesn't make much difference, because posturing about how much we will do a no deal doesn't resolve the back stop issue.
Do I need to write that a third time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers.
So you think we can negotiate better without a no deal option?
So you go to your boss to ask for a pay rise, do you start the conversation by saying give me more money or I quit. He says no. So you quit your job leaving him slightly inconvenienced by having to find your replacement meanwhile you go home with no job.
This would make sense if we were Greece. But we're not. "
And the mask slips... it was just a matter of time.
It is this very form of delusion that has damaged Britain time and time again throughout history.
We are 1, they are 27. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave "
Yes and still want to leave |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave
So we're too far in to leave. We're riding the rollercoaster like it or not!
Yes. Imagine being a leave voter now, they must feel very foolish. After the shit has settled we can always apply to rejoin. "
No angry |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
It wasn't quite like that . The UK negotiated an agreement settlement, rather than just getting an offer from the EU - although the UK ministers, like Davis,didn't often spend much time in Brussels, they took most of 2 years to formulate a plan that Johnson was involved with at Chequers too.
The agreement allowed the UK government to fulfil the referendum guarantee of departure with a deal, as no deal exit was very clearly excluded as not being voted for.
The government also has legal responsibilities as part of the Good Friday agreement, to preserve an open border between the UK and the EU member state of Ireland - the UK solution to this was to have the Backstop element of the exit agreement.
In short - the 2 sides created the departure agreement: It was not what 1 side imposed on the other.
Although the UK asked to leave, it was legally clarified that the Article 50 notice could be cancelled by the UK, where it would continue as before. It could then resubmit another, where the 2 sides get another 2 years to negotiate another exit deal.
Leaving on a specific date is not essential. Leaving without a deal does not give voters what was promised. The PM has a responsibility to do the right thing for the country. That would be a deal exit that is not substantially worse for the UK. "
We where not promised a deal either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So would we be in a better negotiating position when No deal is not an option?
Give us a deal or we will kill ourselves. That is your no deal option.
“No deal” is very simply a complete negotiation failure on the UK side.
It is only here in the UK that anyone thinks that using the threat of killing ourselves to get a good deal is anything other than simply bonkers.
So you think we can negotiate better without a no deal option?
So you go to your boss to ask for a pay rise, do you start the conversation by saying give me more money or I quit. He says no. So you quit your job leaving him slightly inconvenienced by having to find your replacement meanwhile you go home with no job.
Having no money coming in and a possibly of losing your house, your wife and even the dog.
Or would you start the conversation by outlining your positive contribution to the firm and how you can make the company better.
I know every negotiation is different but they are always best started off in a friendly manner.
Hmm, i don't know. That sounds like a trade union fighting for employee better terms and conditions after telling the management that they won't take any industrial action no matter what the answer is.
I take your point but workers are protected during industrial action."
Additional points.
The trade union agreed terms. The workers rejected it. The company said, tell us what a good deal looks like. The workers tell them what they terms don't want. The union then decide the best course of action is to say give us a better deal or we will all quit... And the workers say woah, that's not what we want.
It gets a bit blurry as you could argue the workers are the people or MP's. I'm using MP's as representatives of the people.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Having the option of No Deal isn't this amazing negotiating tactic that Brexiteers want to claim.
"
I heard it described brilliantly on the radio the other week...
No deal is like riding through the desert on your horse to the only car showroom for miles... shooting your horse dead and then walking in and saying to the car salesman "Give me a deal on a car! Or I'll.... or I'll..... or I'll walk right back out of here!"
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Having shot ourself in one foot already, the UK's negotiating tactic appears to be to threaten the EU with shooting ourselves in the other foot, too, in the hope some of the blood might splatter them.
Not exactly the strongest negotiating position to be in.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having the option of No Deal isn't this amazing negotiating tactic that Brexiteers want to claim.
I heard it described brilliantly on the radio the other week...
No deal is like riding through the desert on your horse to the only car showroom for miles... shooting your horse dead and then walking in and saying to the car salesman "Give me a deal on a car! Or I'll.... or I'll..... or I'll walk right back out of here!"
-Matt"
Absolutely, you'd obviously get a much better deal if you weren't allowed to leave the show room...
"Give me a deal on a car, or else I'll just buy a car at whatever price you tell me.." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms. "
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
"
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
"
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay. "
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oghunter33Woman
over a year ago
on the hill NordWest of |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
"
If you want a better offer you've to come up with some bargaining chip or new suggestions, none has been provided yet by the government. It's obvious that throwing the toys out of the pram Boris style doesn't work with the EU.
As he has lost his majority anyway, Boris should consider to drop the DUP and consider a separate soft Brexit status for Nothern Ireland with a sea border. This alternative to the backstop might bring others back on board. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having the option of No Deal isn't this amazing negotiating tactic that Brexiteers want to claim.
I heard it described brilliantly on the radio the other week...
No deal is like riding through the desert on your horse to the only car showroom for miles... shooting your horse dead and then walking in and saying to the car salesman "Give me a deal on a car! Or I'll.... or I'll..... or I'll walk right back out of here!"
-Matt"
Bad analogy - You're still holding the gun you shot the horse with.
Shoot the used car salesman
Take the car. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
"
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU. "
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make. "
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so. "
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so.
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan."
If trade was the only issue, i doubt so many would have voted leave. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so.
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan.
If trade was the only issue, i doubt so many would have voted leave. "
Indeed. I am suggesting that it's not an issue for most leavers.
Hence a no deal brexit, by your definition better for trade, is not that important for them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so.
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan.
If trade was the only issue, i doubt so many would have voted leave.
Indeed. I am suggesting that it's not an issue for most leavers.
Hence a no deal brexit, by your definition better for trade, is not that important for them.
"
No. But im surprised so many think that having less options puts us in a stronger negotiating position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so.
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan.
If trade was the only issue, i doubt so many would have voted leave.
Indeed. I am suggesting that it's not an issue for most leavers.
Hence a no deal brexit, by your definition better for trade, is not that important for them.
No. But im surprised so many think that having less options puts us in a stronger negotiating position. "
As soon as the referendum result came in we had two choices. A shit deal. Or no deal.
I'm surprised that some people are only realising this now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so.
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan.
If trade was the only issue, i doubt so many would have voted leave.
Indeed. I am suggesting that it's not an issue for most leavers.
Hence a no deal brexit, by your definition better for trade, is not that important for them.
No. But im surprised so many think that having less options puts us in a stronger negotiating position.
As soon as the referendum result came in we had two choices. A shit deal. Or no deal.
I'm surprised that some people are only realising this now."
With no deal being the absolute shitiest of shit “deals” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so.
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan.
If trade was the only issue, i doubt so many would have voted leave.
Indeed. I am suggesting that it's not an issue for most leavers.
Hence a no deal brexit, by your definition better for trade, is not that important for them.
No. But im surprised so many think that having less options puts us in a stronger negotiating position.
As soon as the referendum result came in we had two choices. A shit deal. Or no deal.
I'm surprised that some people are only realising this now."
Indeed, now our MP's want what the shit deal? No, they don't want that. So what do they want? They want to remain. Could be an interesting general election! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
Why is no deal better than TMs proposed deal?
Because if you have no deal you're free to seek trade deals with countries outside of the EU. TM's deal ties us to dealing with the EU.
No it doesn’t.
For two thousand years and more human beings have traded with people near and far. There is a reason why the closest neighbours are the most important trading partners - history proves that. TM’s deal recognised that fact and so provided for a transition period to enable U.K. businesses to prepare for Brexit in an orderly manner.
There is nothing in TM’s deal that would stop any future trade deal with any other country other than the U.K. deciding whether or not in the future it would align itself with EU, American or Chinese regulations. Choosing one would limit access to others - but these are normal choices that independent nations make.
Sounds Brill, Shame parliament didn't think so.
So from a trade deal perspective, you're suggesting a no deal is better.
But if trade deals were the most important thing. Then remaining in the EU where we have all the trade deals in place. Would have been the best plan.
If trade was the only issue, i doubt so many would have voted leave.
Indeed. I am suggesting that it's not an issue for most leavers.
Hence a no deal brexit, by your definition better for trade, is not that important for them.
No. But im surprised so many think that having less options puts us in a stronger negotiating position.
As soon as the referendum result came in we had two choices. A shit deal. Or no deal.
I'm surprised that some people are only realising this now.
Indeed, now our MP's want what the shit deal? No, they don't want that. So what do they want? They want to remain. Could be an interesting general election! "
You're not wrong.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
No. But im surprised so many think that having less options puts us in a stronger negotiating position. "
To negotiate what?
The withdrawal agreement is a transition to open trade negotiations in the future.
It is a precursor, since it provides assurances about citizen rights, payment of dues and the border in Ireland.
This idea a new withdrawal agreement can be negotiated before October 31 is utterly bogus - a line being fed to moderate Tory MPs to keep them on side meantime.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No. But im surprised so many think that having less options puts us in a stronger negotiating position.
To negotiate what?
The withdrawal agreement is a transition to open trade negotiations in the future.
It is a precursor, since it provides assurances about citizen rights, payment of dues and the border in Ireland.
This idea a new withdrawal agreement can be negotiated before October 31 is utterly bogus - a line being fed to moderate Tory MPs to keep them on side meantime.
"
Absolutely. Have the EU said they are willing to negotiate further? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We will now leave 100% with no deal,just remain cant see or want to see it, i would put my house on it."
Why would remain supports be worse at predicting what the outcome will be?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here.
You can’t negotiate with the EU because they know that in reality we don’t want to leave and if we do leave without a deal we are fucked. They hold all the cards, all the leave voters were repeatedly warned this would happen but through a combination of naivety , arrogance and stupidity they still voted to leave
So we're too far in to leave. We're riding the rollercoaster like it or not!
Yes. Imagine being a leave voter now, they must feel very foolish. After the shit has settled we can always apply to rejoin. No angry"
Good, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay. "
No. It’s not. The deal is shit. But it is not worse than no deal. It is worse than remaining a member.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We made an offer. The salesman accepted the offer. We can still take that offer.
We are now trying to find a better offer.
I think any buying or selling analogy is risky as it makes this sound like a negotiation around economics. Whereas its about mutually assured peace.
So we are like two nuclear forces agreeing terms of disarmourment. But one is threatening to press the button today if they don't get the terms they weren't. And were putting plans in place to put a timer on it, just to double down.
The irony is the term being argued about is one which allows continued mutual safetey in the absence of a better set of terms.
You say we can accept the offer, but how many times now has parliament refused to do so? How can the uk negotiate a better offer if we have nowhere to go?
The uk: "can we have a better offer?"
The EU "no"
The uk "if you don't give us a better offer, we'll never be able to leave"
The EU "cool".
How could we expect a better deal outside of the EU than in it? The reason that everything is so fucked up is that the expectations were raised so high by the liars, incompetents and snake oil salesmen.
The current divisions and hostility in society are ALL becuase of lies and exaggerations made before, during and since the referendum.
The EU is under no obligations to fix a problem that UK national politics has created. It doesn't matter that we are Great Britain and we are/were great. All that matters is that the EU is a rules-based union and we want to leave it and for them to break their rules so that we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.
The deal offered is worse than no deal. Without "no deal" there is no alternative. Parliament won't accept the offered deal, and doesn't want no deal, therefore we must stay.
No. It’s not. The deal is shit. But it is not worse than no deal. It is worse than remaining a member.
-Matt"
O dear, another ‘brain washed’ brexit fanatic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
If, let's say, a pro-No Deal majority is returned in an October election, what could the next PM do with that before Oct 31.
Much will depend on whether by then an extension to Article 50 has been sought and agreed to by the EU, in which case it will be written into EU law.
We'd probably be in the realms of UDI.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We will now leave 100% with no deal,just remain cant see or want to see it, i would put my house on it.
Not if it's against the law, which by this weekend it should be.
"
What happens if the EU don't grant an extension? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"We will now leave 100% with no deal,just remain cant see or want to see it, i would put my house on it.
Not if it's against the law, which by this weekend it should be.
What happens if the EU don't grant an extension?"
Then, I think, the UK will leave at 2300hrs on October 31.
But all the noises from the EU suggest they do not want to be seen to be the ones who inflict a crash-out exit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
To negotiate brexit without a no deal -
Spend 1.5 years working on nothing but a technical solution to the border in Ireland. Propose it and listen to any feed back. Incorporate feedback, get final confirmation and a sign off on the border situation.
Spend rest of time hammering out a trade deal.
How not to do it.
Spend 3 years asking can you skip the border issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Also it should be noted that what is happening was largely predicted, chaos during the process.
However the expert predictions start to get a lot more human if the no deal goes through. Increased suicide rate. People actually killing themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here. "
Indeed it goes like this
UK Gov, we want lots of cake ,
EU, ok here's a fair deal where you can have some cake
UK, we want more cake and we are not going to pay for it , and if you dont give us what we want we will cut our hands off
EU, you can have no more cake , we would prefer you didn't remove your hands as it will make a bloody mess but regardless no extra special cake
UK, cake or we bluntly remove our nose from our face
Eu , erm ok
UK, we will ,we will ,we will, sovereignty
Eu erm , ok
Long stupid story short , suggesting the UK may leave without a deal is not a bargaining chip of any value
All it illustrates is the current leaders of the UK, will put pride before their fall , and are not rational humans worth wasting valuable time talking with |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you negotiate Brexit? I don't get.
The EU: here's a shit deal.
Uk guv:i don't like that.
The EU: take it or leave it.
Uk guv: I'm not allowed to leave it.
The EU: we know, sign here. "
There was no real scrutiny from all mp’s on the shape of the deal, it time we face facts, there are ways to provide a brexit for both sides of the argument, trust the process which is going on now. We’ll leave not a problem, and it will not be at the hands of few, but the many. Democracy is changing, and the checks and balances are in place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
