Dirtyshubb
Member
Is this him trying to win back support I assume?Breaking on Sky News:
We are so unbelievably fucked.
Is this him trying to win back support I assume?Breaking on Sky News:
We are so unbelievably fucked.
Breaking on Sky News:
We are so unbelievably fucked.
Breaking on Sky News:
We are so unbelievably fucked.
Is this him trying to win back support I assume?
May should sack him.
May should sack him.
Before some people were saying he should have not only been sacked but also tried for Treason for his anti-brexit stances.May should sack him.
Before some people were saying he should have not only been sacked but also tried for Treason for his anti-brexit stances.
It's kind of amazing how perfectly split this is. No wonder we can't decide on a government.
also who are those 5% that voted remain but look at it NOW and want to leave?
Yeah, surely there cant be 5% of remainers who look at whats going on now and think "I was wrong, everything happening now is all great!"
My only guess is that maybe its short sighted Labour voters happy that the Tories are all stabbing each other in the back?
Eh, there is that guy that posts here from time to time that thinks the leave vote will lead the UK into a socialist utopia.
You have to remember that Juncker isn't primarily talking to UK citizens. They aren't his concern and there is also very little that they can do at this point.It doesn't help when Junker is so blunt and offers the perfect sound bite to get the foaming leavers riled up. I get what he is saying and he isn't be mean but just the headline is enough for loads of people to stick with screw the EU, take back control!
Hammond is just playing party politics to confuse the leavers, get out..wait yeah, screw the EU, rule Britannia!
Brexit is an embarrassment and Labour dealing with it is another version of awful.
You have to remember that Juncker isn't primarily talking to UK citizens. They aren't his concern and there is also very little that they can do at this point.
I wonder how many people are lying in that survey, that is if they can see that Brexit is a bad idea now then they are more likely to say they voted remain.
edit: I also dislike the positioning of the question made by Yougov. The UK hasn't left yet, therefore it can't be wrong to have left. It makes it sound definitive, as if it couldn't be stopped. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.
Yeah, surely there cant be 5% of remainers who look at whats going on now and think "I was wrong, everything happening now is all great!"
My only guess is that maybe its short sighted Labour voters happy that the Tories are all stabbing each other in the back?
On the C4 debate recently, there was one guy in the audience who had voted Remain but changed his mind because of how he perceived the EU were acting during the negotiations.
Think eventually a lot of people are going to end up believing the EU was a bad actor that caused an undesirable post-Brexit situation despite the best intentions of the British government. The same media that pushed for Brexit will ensure it.
Think eventually a lot of people are going to end up believing the EU was a bad actor that caused an undesirable post-Brexit situation despite the best intentions of the British government. The same media that pushed for Brexit will ensure it.
Think eventually a lot of people are going to end up believing the EU was a bad actor that caused an undesirable post-Brexit situation despite the best intentions of the British government. The same media that pushed for Brexit will ensure it.
Think eventually a lot of people are going to end up believing the EU was a bad actor that caused an undesirable post-Brexit situation despite the best intentions of the British government. The same media that pushed for Brexit will ensure it.
To be fair, the UK could still try to opt for a EEA solution years after Brexit. The EU gets more money, and access to a large market, so I don't see them denying it. Assuming there is a no deal "solution" after 2019, it will likely lead to big economic shock that would likely sober most people up from their nationalistic fervor. One would hope, at least.The politicians could have gone for an EEA/EFTA solution (or at least tried) which would have been the least worst choice, but they've condemned themselves by choosing the stupidest way and then going about it in such a cack-handed fashion.
The UK hasn't left yet, therefore it can't be wrong to have left. It makes it sound definitive, as if it couldn't be stopped. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...over-citizens-rights-is-nonsense-says-juncker'Now they have to pay': Juncker says UK stance on Brexit bill untenable.
They have never been anything but.
Germany took us to war twice. Italy and Spain allied or allowed their citizens to join Hitlers forces.
The French collaborated with both the Germans and the Japanese in Asia in WW2., caused the Vietnam War and supplied Argentina with arms before and during the Falkland conflict.
With "Friends" like these who needs enemies or expects any kind of fair deal?
Think eventually a lot of people are going to end up believing the EU was a bad actor that caused an undesirable post-Brexit situation despite the best intentions of the British government. The same media that pushed for Brexit will ensure it.
Who cares what the british people think about whos fault brexit is? We will see in 50 years if UK is prospering or not. At that point it will be irrelevant what the press says
In that case I guess we caused mass genocide in the Americas, fought and lost a war of independence and spent hundreds of years suppressing other cultures.So I decided to have a gander at the BBC comments section on the Philip Hammond calls EU 'the enemy' article. Lots of "he was right tho no need to apologise," and "The EU just want to take all our money!" but this gem got me laughing:
In that case I guess we caused mass genocide in the Americas, fought and lost a war of independence and spent hundreds of years suppressing other cultures.
Who needs friends like the British?
One factor behind the EUs tough stance is the belief that a full standstill transition, which would effectively give the UK all the obligations of EU membership without a seat at the table, could be agreed in principle relatively quickly, even perhaps in December.
There wont be much to negotiate, said one senior EU official. They can take it or leave it.
Mr Barnier privately floated the option of opening transition talks with Britain last week, arguing that it may be the only way to provide the incentives for a deal on Britains Brexit bill. It won support from countries like Sweden and Ireland, but was rejected by Germany and France.
A powerful cross-party group of MPs is drawing up plans that would make it impossible for Theresa May to allow Britain to crash out of the EU without a deal in 2019. The move comes amid new warnings that a cliff-edge Brexit would be catastrophic for the economy.
One critical aim of the group which includes the former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke and several Conservative ex-ministers, together with prominent Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat and Green MPs is to give parliament the ability to veto, or prevent by other legal means, a bad deal or no deal outcome.
The 10 Democratic Unionist party MPs, upon whose votes May relies for a Commons majority, have made it clear to government whips that they would not accept a no deal outcome because it would mean a return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If May were to try to push such an approach, the deal with the DUP that keeps her in power could fall.
So lets say they block a bad deal or no deal.
So lets say they block a bad deal or no deal.
Time runs out-> Britain leaves with no deal anyway.
Are thesee people just mocking their constituents at this point?
In evidence to the Treasury select committee on Wednesday, chancellor Philip Hammond declared that the possible no deal outcome could come about in one of two ways. The first would be quite friendly. But the other would involve a bad-tempered breakdown.
If it is [that we move to] a World Trade Organisation regime with no deal, there are then two further potential levels that you have to consider. One is no deal WTO but a friendly agreement that we are not going to reach a deal, but we will work together to cooperate to make things run as smoothly as possible, Hammond said.
But, bluntly, we also have to consider the possibility of a bad-tempered breakdown in negotiations where we have non-cooperation, and, worst-case scenario, even a situation where people are not necessarily acting in their own economic self-interest. So we need to prepare for a wide range of scenarios.
I think the idea is more that if no suitable deal can be reached then the EU withdrawal should be cancelled altogether.
I think the idea is more that if no suitable deal can be reached then the EU withdrawal should be cancelled altogether.
I agree but this would mean complete capitulation by the UK. Would that even be feasable with 30-40% of the population being leavers?Or go back and negotiate something else at the very least. If the EU are offering the Norway option, then that shouldn't take much time to negotiate, and could possibly get sorted in early 2019, in an extreme situation.
Or go back and negotiate something else at the very least. If the EU are offering the Norway option, then that shouldn't take much time to negotiate, and could possibly get sorted in early 2019, in an extreme situation.
So it seems the europeans are gonna offer a take it or leave it offer when they talk transition.
Offer apparently is keep all the obligations without having a seat at the table.
https://www.ft.com/content/bb39b0da-affa-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4
Also thought this was interesting:
What does keep all the obligations but not a seat at the table mean?
What does keep all the obligations but not a seat at the table mean?