'Trust me', Britain's May tells EU leaders she can get Brexit deal passed

[tebee]

 

1) The UK is asking help from the EU to deliver Brexit and stopping it from committing economic suicide.

 

2) Ireland is now dictating terms to the U.K.

 

3) The hard Brexit crowd, like Raab in the article above, has just lost a leadership challenge 2:1. They won’t accept the result but are telling everyone they must bend to their will because of a win of 52:48 on something much more loosely defined.

 

 

Am I the only one highly amused by these ironies?
 

[My Thai Life]

@Basil

 The graph is illustrative of the extremely high levels of youth unemployment in some areas of the Eurozone. It is also indicative of the north-south Eurozone divide. Plenty of googleable stuff about the toxic effects of the EU's monetary union. I've included a few in the last couple of weeks.

[tebee]

 

 The Brexit delusion lives on.

 

When will Brexiters accept some basic points ? In particular relating to trade.

 

Any form of Brexit will be economically damaging for both the UK and the EU.

 

The damage will be proportionately higher for the UK .

 

The " no deal" scenario is the worst option.

 

The UK alone will not be able to negotiate "trade deals" that are better than those that we already benefit from by being an EU member and any deals we do can't compensate for the losses associated with increasing " friction" in trade with the EU.

 

We are perfectly able to grow our trade with the fastest growing countries whilst remaining an EU member.

 

Every comment that the EU is being "intransigent" reveals ignorance of political and economic reality.
.

[tebee]

 

Some window dressing and a show of goodwill from the 27 is fine. But English swivels must understand that even if they are prepared to throw their own country under a bus the EU will never do that to one of its own member states.  

 

I realize not treating Ireland as a whipping boy is a difficult concept for some English people to get their heads around but Ireland is an EU member state.

 

That makes it equal to the UK through European eyes and if the UK really does leave the EU it will make Ireland more important than the UK through European eyes. That's just the way it is.
 

[melvinmelvin]

29 minutes ago, tebee said:

The Eu was not impressed with Mrs May 

 

 

    Michel Barnier, EU chief Brexit negotiator, claimed that Mrs May was not seeking reassurances but was reviving old ideas rejected during Brexit negotiations. One EU diplomat briefed on the talks said Mrs May was “unprofessional”.

 

Another EU diplomat claimed that there was even a suggestion that it might have been better if Mrs May had been ejected from Downing Street in this week’s abortive coup by Tory Eurosceptics.

 

“She didn’t know what she wanted,” the diplomat said. 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/5a649ddc-ff0a-11e8-ac00-57a2a826423e

 

will UK parliament follow upon this

or sit quietly for 5 weeks playing thumbs and drink in Westminster pubs

until mama comes back on 21 January to chat about the deal?

 

impressive indeed the UK political leadership

 

 

[My Thai Life]

6 minutes ago, tebee said:

The Brexit delusion lives on.

 

When will Brexiters accept some basic points ? In particular relating to trade.

 

Any form of Brexit will be economically damaging for both the UK and the EU.

 

The damage will be proportionately higher for the UK .

 

The " no deal" scenario is the worst option.

In the short term of course it is, any major disruption to business is. When will you understand some basic points, particularly that Brexit is not a short term project.

 

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the WTO option, so I'll try to clarify some points:

 

- WTO is just the starting point, not the end-point

- WTO is just free trade, actually the free-est of free tade

- most of the world operates on WTO rules

- WTO rules would allow us to operate with frictionless zero tariff imports from the EU in key sectors if we chose to

- WTO rules would allow us to reduce costs of imports in key sectors, notably food

- following on from the previous point: we currently pay a huge amount to import food from the EU - in the form of CAP subsidies, these disappear with WTO (tariffs always need to be considered together with subsidies, quotas and non-tariff barriers)

- WTO does not require a hard border in Ireland, and renders the backstop discussion irrelevant

- WTO allows the 39 billion to be used at home

- WTO is available now - this is an important point - one thing we can all agree on is that much of the last 2 years has been wasted - WTO would bring that to an immediate end

- WTO would put the UK in a much stronger negotiating position for future EU talks

- currently the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. 

- currently the UK sends to the EU 80% of the tariffs it collects on imports from 3rd countries, with WTO the UK keeps 100% of the tariffs collected.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Pilotman said:

As one of those you write about; I am anti the EU precisely because it is undemocratic, corrupt (accounts not certified in many years) and run by old men who are still living in fear of Germany and the outcome of WW2. I didn't vote for Tusk, nobody did.  I didn't vote for any of the Commission who run the thing, nobody did and the last thing I want is the UK to be part of a super state.  I didn't serve the country for 26 years to see it subsumed into a paranoid, undemocratic Europe.  The UK has always been apart from Europe, even the Romans failed to unite us with the mainland 2,000 years ago,  and hopefully i will remain so. That's why I am and will always remain, anti EU. Out without a deal would be a great result.  I will live with the hit on the pound.  

Thanks!

 

Good for you that the economic hit doesn't bother you. The pension must be good I assume? Would it be rude to ask at what age you retired? RAF?

[melvinmelvin]

10 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

1) The UK is asking help from the EU to deliver Brexit and stopping it from committing economic suicide.

 

2) Ireland is now dictating terms to the U.K.

 

3) The hard Brexit crowd, like Raab in the article above, has just lost a leadership challenge 2:1. They won’t accept the result but are telling everyone they must bend to their will because of a win of 52:48 on something much more loosely defined.

 

 

Am I the only one highly amused by these ironies?
 

yes, you are probably one of the few amused

 

however,

you can bend this any way you like, the 48-52 conclusion is there, that is a decisive decision

 

show me a bunch of mathematics scholars that will claim this aint decisive at all,

might as well mean majority for remain

 

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

Unlike you, the "military types" swore an oath to preserve and protect GB.

Not be subservient to Germany and the crock that makes up the rest of the EU.

You disparage those that protect GB from Europe. Shame on you

How dare you misconstrue  what I said.

 

I was enquiring as to why 100%  (apparently) of ex military types are so staunchly pro Brexit? What is wrong with that, petal?

[malagateddy]

 
1) The UK is asking help from the EU to deliver Brexit and stopping it from committing economic suicide.
 
2) Ireland is now dictating terms to the U.K.
 
3) The hard Brexit crowd, like Raab in the article above, has just lost a leadership challenge 2:1. They won’t accept the result but are telling everyone they must bend to their will because of a win of 52:48 on something much more loosely defined.
 
 
Am I the only one highly amused by these ironies?
 

Tebee..be amused all you like..tell the irish govt how wonderful they are..meanwhile back in the real world please understand that if it's HARD BREXIT time..the irish reckon that they'll run outa food in a matter of weeks
Oh dear....How sad...never mind



Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[malagateddy]

Thanks!
 
Good for you that the economic hit doesn't bother you. The pension must be good I assume? Would it be rude to ask at what age you retired? RAF?

None if your business grouse

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chomper Higgot]

53 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Eh? No!

 

It has relevance to opportunities for young people being destroyed on a massive scale within the EU, specifically by the Euro and its associated policies.

 

 

You have provided a graph and you attribute the underlying causes that lead to the data in the graph to failures of the EU.

 

You provide zero reasoning or evidence to back your claims.

 

0/10.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Vogie, let it go - don't rise to his baiting.

 

 

I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire!  ????

I asked a perfectly rational question

 

I would have expected at least some ex military types to have been pro remain. It seems there are non

 

I noted that a significant number of officers I spoke to were pro EU

 

As for your last statement, it looks like discourteousness is another common factor which is rather sad.

[Ulic]

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe you missed it, but that is what she tries to do since two years.

The UK parliament and her own party can't make up their mind what they really want.

I agree with you she should stay in the UK. She should sort out the mess there or quit and let someone else do it.

The EU made their conditions clear and they never really changed. One condition is that they don't want a hard border in Ireland to avoid further trouble. Looking at history I think that makes a lot of sense.

 I don't agree. Parliament and the people of the UK know exactly what they want. A free trade deal with no inclusion of the other "Freedoms". The EU will not give the UK that or every country would want the same. But this is what the EU should be. A trading group with minimal regulation that just sets standards. The EU should be clear that they will do no such thing, but they also would like a divorce payment and to string things along for continued payment and instability for business in the UK. The answer is of course simple. Hard Brexit, zero divorce money, or stay in the EU. Bend the knee and kiss the ring. 

[tebee]

25 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes, you are probably one of the few amused

 

however,

you can bend this any way you like, the 48-52 conclusion is there, that is a decisive decision

 

show me a bunch of mathematics scholars that will claim this aint decisive at all,

might as well mean majority for remain

 

 

It's not decisive - if it were decisive would we have been having 2 and a half years of arguments about how decisive it was ? 

 

For referenda that do constitutional changes that can affect a generation or more you need a supermajority - a straight majority just leads to the sort of divisive  argument we've had since the referendum. 

 

Such a narrow margin can mean that by the time you come to implement a policy it is no longer the will of the people.

 

Given the respective ages of the two sides  this is almost certainly already the case with brexit due to natural attrition of the older leave voters.

 

Look at the age divide in this recent poll 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I asked a perfectly rational question

 

I would have expected at least some ex military types to have been pro remain. It seems there are non

 

I noted that a significant number of officers I spoke to were pro EU

 

As for your last statement, it looks like discourteousness is another common factor which is rather sad.

I find it very hard to believe that there is not a bunch of remain fans within the UK defence forces, very hard.

If there are no remainers in the defence forces it is high time the UK government starts thinking about

what kind of sods they recruit to the armed forces.

 

this Pilotman is just rambling drunkardly about protecting/taking care of UK -ie  no EU abuse would be welcome

 

pretty close to chan-o-cha in Thailand - strong views on what views ordinary people should/should not have

re  EU and the future of OK

 

[tebee]

45 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

In the short term of course it is, any major disruption to business is. When will you understand some basic points, particularly that Brexit is not a short term project.

 

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the WTO option, so I'll try to clarify some points:

 

- WTO is just the starting point, not the end-point

- WTO is just free trade, actually the free-est of free tade

- most of the world operates on WTO rules

- WTO rules would allow us to operate with frictionless zero tariff imports from the EU in key sectors if we chose to

- WTO rules would allow us to reduce costs of imports in key sectors, notably food

- following on from the previous point: we currently pay a huge amount to import food from the EU - in the form of CAP subsidies, these disappear with WTO (tariffs always need to be considered together with subsidies, quotas and non-tariff barriers)

- WTO does not require a hard border in Ireland, and renders the backstop discussion irrelevant

- WTO allows the 39 billion to be used at home

- WTO is available now - this is an important point - one thing we can all agree on is that much of the last 2 years has been wasted - WTO would bring that to an immediate end

- WTO would put the UK in a much stronger negotiating position for future EU talks

- currently the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. 

- currently the UK sends to the EU 80% of the tariffs it collects on imports from 3rd countries, with WTO the UK keeps 100% of the tariffs collected.

 

So wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.

 

Wto deals with tariffs - tariffs are at an all time low now, most of the barriers to trade are non-tariff barriers.

 

No other country in the world relies on WTO rules for the entirety of it's trade 

 

You can eliminate tariffs on imports, but you can't make them frictionless - how are you going to collect the VAT on them if there is no paperwork? What is to stop people importing sub-standard goods?

 

You can eliminate your import tariffs, but that does not stop other people slamming taxes  and tariffs on your exports. 

 

You're not going to get the 39 billion. 

 

There is more bit I can't be bothered...

[melvinmelvin]

9 minutes ago, tebee said:

It's not decisive - if it were decisive would we have been having 2 and a half years of arguments about how decisive it was ? 

 

For referenda that do constitutional changes that can affect a generation or more you need a supermajority - a straight majority just leads to the sort of divisive  argument we've had since the referendum. 

 

Such a narrow margin can mean that by the time you come to implement a policy it is no longer the will of the people.

 

Given the respective ages of the two sides  this is almost certainly already the case with brexit due to natural attrition of the older leave voters.

 

Look at the age divide in this recent poll 

 

 

 

 

show me a bunch of scholars in mathematics that will claim that the referendum was not decisive

not silly camerons or blairs or hazeltines or whatever

but somebody who knows the substance of referendums

 

no,

you don't need a qualified majority - that is facts - and it was not called for

 

hence, you have this 48-52 and you act upon that -this 48-52 is all you have got

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

show me a bunch of scholars in mathematics that will claim that the referendum was not decisive

not silly camerons or blairs or hazeltines or whatever

but somebody who knows the substance of referendums

 

no,

you don't need a qualified majority - that is facts - and it was not called for

 

hence, you have this 48-52 and you act upon that -this 48-52 is all you have got

 

 

 

But as Farage said at that time.

 

'A 48/52 result would not be game over, not by a long way'.

 

 

It certainly was not the end of the democratic process, which, despite objections, continues.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

I'm not quite sure how this debate features so much about the military. Brexit has virtually nothing to do with our armed forces or anybody else's, we were not signed up for a EU force, and never had to be. There have been no wars in continental Europe since WW11 apart from the civil war in former Yugoslavia. No posters on this forum (Great heroes though they may imagine themselves to be in their Walter Mitty dreams) actually fought Germans, Italians, or anyone else in WW II, unless they are in their late 90s now. These young people you talk about come from the generation who widely recognize that the Brexiteers are on track to destroy their futures as Hestletine wisely said. There was thankfully once a time, when Tory cabinet members had brains that were capable of thinking of something other than the value of their arms shares.

My fault I'm afraid

 

I would not have expected our retired military posters to be uniformly pro Brexit.

 

There was a retired officers' lunch at the British Club yesterday and they  seemed to have mixed views like most of us.

 

What should one infer?

[Pilotman]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

I find it very hard to believe that there is not a bunch of remain fans within the UK defence forces, very hard.

If there are no remainers in the defence forces it is high time the UK government starts thinking about

what kind of sods they recruit to the armed forces.

 

this Pilotman is just rambling drunkardly about protecting/taking care of UK -ie  no EU abuse would be welcome

 

pretty close to chan-o-cha in Thailand - strong views on what views ordinary people should/should not have

re  EU and the future of OK

 

My dear boy, you truly are bent out of shape aren't you?  Why so bitter?  Were you bitten in the ass by a military  police dog at some time?  

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Eh? No!

 

It has relevance to opportunities for young people being destroyed on a massive scale within the EU, specifically by the Euro and its associated policies.

 

 

Young British people?

[vogie]

Why do I believe Nigel Farage more than most.

 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Why do I believe Nigel Farage more than most.

 

 

Because some people can easily be fooled. 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

In the short term of course it is, any major disruption to business is. When will you understand some basic points, particularly that Brexit is not a short term project.

 

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the WTO option, so I'll try to clarify some points:

 

- WTO is just the starting point, not the end-point

- WTO is just free trade, actually the free-est of free tade

- most of the world operates on WTO rules

- WTO rules would allow us to operate with frictionless zero tariff imports from the EU in key sectors if we chose to

- WTO rules would allow us to reduce costs of imports in key sectors, notably food

- following on from the previous point: we currently pay a huge amount to import food from the EU - in the form of CAP subsidies, these disappear with WTO (tariffs always need to be considered together with subsidies, quotas and non-tariff barriers)

- WTO does not require a hard border in Ireland, and renders the backstop discussion irrelevant

- WTO allows the 39 billion to be used at home

- WTO is available now - this is an important point - one thing we can all agree on is that much of the last 2 years has been wasted - WTO would bring that to an immediate end

- WTO would put the UK in a much stronger negotiating position for future EU talks

- currently the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. 

- currently the UK sends to the EU 80% of the tariffs it collects on imports from 3rd countries, with WTO the UK keeps 100% of the tariffs collected.

"WTO is available now" If by "now" you mean immediately upon exiting Brexit, no it isn't. It could take a few years.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because some people can easily be fooled. 

If that's the best you can come up with, I would go back to your old mantra.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

show me a bunch of scholars in mathematics that will claim that the referendum was not decisive

not silly camerons or blairs or hazeltines or whatever

but somebody who knows the substance of referendums

 

no,

you don't need a qualified majority - that is facts - and it was not called for

 

hence, you have this 48-52 and you act upon that -this 48-52 is all you have got

 

 

 

This one of the reasons that referendums are not used; if you have a close result, civil war may result.

 

Also for major constitutional issues you really need a significant majority of the electorate

 

Cameron committed his CON government and CON party to implement the result of the referendum without specifying any kind of super majority. Foolish and irresponsible.

 

Parliament was not bound in any way and parliament is sovereign

 

That might have worked save for the fact that May threw away the CON majority

 

It may now be the case that the DUP gets to decide if we remain or not!

 

It is a great pity that we don't have great statesmen on the front benches of either party!

 

I would favor a national unity government to lead the way forward. Any decision to be followed with ratification by the electorate with a super majority of some type to change the constitution from the status quo ante. 

[tebee]

 

[vogie]

The Prime Minister has brought her speech forward to 12 noon UK time.

[evadgib]