Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[ceptimus]

So...we have one so far.
That's not quite stuffed.

Hammond might be a remainer, but he was not in charge of Bexit negotiations.

Which remainer did May give that job to?

She gave that job to herself - a remainer. That's why all the Brexit secretaries resigned - all their policies were overridden by remainers May, Hammond, and others.

Why do you think the terrible deal is always referred to as 'Mrs May's deal?'. It's never David Davis's deal - he wasn't allowed to negotiate anything.

 

[Dave Rogers]

She gave that job to herself - a remainer.

You seem to be suggesting that it would have been fairer if she'd excluded herself from her own Cabinet.

Why do you think the terrible deal is always referred to as 'Mrs May's deal?'

Because it's important, when formulating effective propaganda, to poison the well by associating a deal you personally dislike with an unpopular figure?

Dave

 

[Tolls]

No.
You're attempting to rewrite history again.
David Davis, for example, was handling the opening negotiations. It was he who couldn't be arsed to actually turn up to many of the meetings, apparently only appearing at the start and end of the rounds.
He was in charge.

It wasn't until later that May took control, and that was chiefly down to Davis' incompetence.

And you'll have to point me to where Hammond overrode anything.
Or does pointing out the inevitable costs of things the likes of the ERG want to do count as "overriding"?

And "others"?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

She gave that job to herself - a remainer.

Can you point to a single instance since the referendum where May has indicated a desire to stay in the EU? Or are you just making **** up again?

 

[ceptimus]

How many remainers do you want me to list? You can start with all the ones that are resigning, add in May herself and Amber Rudd, who seems to be the most prominent remainer that still wishes to remain in the cabinet.

 

[ceptimus]

Can you point to a single instance since the referendum where May has indicated a desire to stay in the EU? Or are you just making **** up again?

Why "since"? She was always a remainer - she was never wholeheartedly in favour of leave - always looking to minimize the damage rather than embrace the opportunities. That's why she failed so spectacularly and had to be sacked. The sensible Tory MPs wanted her sacked last year, but she was propped up by remainers, so wasting an extra six months.

 

[Garrison]

How many remainers do you want me to list? You can start with all the ones that are resigning, add in May herself and Amber Rudd, who seems to be the most prominent remainer that still wishes to remain in the cabinet.

I think you are confusing not wanting a no deal Brexit with being a Remainer, but you probably knew that. I mean like all your fellow brexiteers you've never been one to let facts get in the way of your desire to see the back of all those foreigners.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How many remainers do you want me to list?

More than one [1].

Dave

[1] May doesn't count; you claimed "she'd chosen her cabinet and ministers stuffed full of remainers" and it's a bit rich to claim she stuffed herself [2].

[2] Except by calling that disastrous General Election, that is.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why "since"? .

Because if she was a remainer as you say then she would have indicated this somehow.

Not wanting to tank the economy by leaving without a deal is not 'remaining'

But you are just blustering as usual. Everything is the fault of the EU and or remoaners.

 

[ceptimus]

Because if she was a remainer as you say then she would have indicated this somehow.

She did. By attempting to push through a 'deal' that was even worse than full-blown remain: it would have us unable to negotiate independent trade deals, and observing EU rules indefinitely - without any mechanism to leave if the EU don't allow us to.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

She did. By attempting to push through a 'deal' that was even worse than full-blown remain:

By attempting to leave??!?

it would have us unable to negotiate independent trade deals, and observing EU rules indefinitely - without any mechanism to leave if the EU don't allow us to.

No it wouldn't have. Unless of course you think the border problem couldn't be solved? But it was the Leavers who kept telling us it was simple!

 

[ceptimus]

The so-called 'backstop' had no exit mechanism unless the EU agreed - and prevented us from negotiating independent trade deals. So just as bad as remaining full members of the EU, but without even any say in the running of the EU. On top of that we had to pay them €39 billion for the privilege of entering into such control.

 

[Andy_Ross]

She did. By attempting to push through a 'deal' that was even worse than full-blown remain: it would have us unable to negotiate independent trade deals, and observing EU rules indefinitely - without any mechanism to leave if the EU don't allow us to.

Only if you think the UK govt was incapable of ever negotiating any kind of trade deal with the EU.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The so-called 'backstop' had no exit mechanism unless the EU agreed - and prevented us from negotiating independent trade deals. So just as bad as remaining full members of the EU, but without even any say in the running of the EU. On top of that we had to pay them €39 billion for the privilege of entering into such control.

Back Stop would go when we negotiated a trade deal with the EU.
You are admitting the leaver's are incapable of negotiating any kind of deal.
If we can't get one with the EU what chance do we have with any other country or trade block?

 

[Aber]

Back Stop would go when we negotiated a trade deal with the EU.

Only if it was a deal where Northern Ireland remained in effect in the Single Market and Customs Union.

 

[ceptimus]

Only if you think the UK govt was incapable of ever negotiating any kind of trade deal with the EU.

No. It takes two sides to negotiate. The EU would have had us under their control and would have kept us there forever. It was in their interests to keep us in the backstop, where we could not compete with them on a level playing field.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No. It takes two sides to negotiate. The EU would have had us under their control and would have kept us there forever. It was in their interests to keep us in the backstop, where we could not compete with them on a level playing field.

What is your evidence for this claim?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The so-called 'backstop' had no exit mechanism unless the EU agreed - and prevented us from negotiating independent trade deals. So just as bad as remaining full members of the EU, but without even any say in the running of the EU. On top of that we had to pay them €39 billion for the privilege of entering into such control.

The backstop was there because there was no solution to the border issue. The leavers kept saying they had one but refused to tell anyone what it was.

The deal negotiated with the EU was exactly the deal anyone else would have gotten because it's what the EU were able to offer.

Everyone knows it was worse than staying the EU because every version of leaving is worse than staying in, but idiots voted to leave and that was what the chief idiot May was trying to do.

It was the Leavers in the DUP and ERG that thwarted her efforts to do it because they couldn't accept leaving on anything other than their impossible terms.

 

[lomiller]

She did. By attempting to push through a 'deal' that was even worse than full-blown remain

Every viable Brexit deal is worse than a full out remain.

it would have us unable to negotiate independent trade deals, and observing EU rules indefinitely

Well duh. The EU is going to insist that any imports meet EU standards. There is no possible deal that allows the UK lower those standards or be used as a staging point for products with lower standards. Agreeing on these standards and agreeing on how to enforce them for every possible product is a big part of the reason it takes more than a decade to finalize new trade deals.

 

[ceptimus]

Every viable Brexit deal is worse than a full out remain.




Well duh. The EU is going to insist that any imports meet EU standards. There is no possible deal that allows the UK lower those standards or be used as a staging point for products with lower standards. Agreeing on these standards and agreeing on how to enforce them for every possible product is a big part of the reason it takes more than a decade to finalize new trade deals.

The EU negotiated trade deals with Canada, and other countries, without requiring them to join the EU customs union.