Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

^ <sigh> The EU is NOT punishing the UK for deciding to leave. Stop thinking it is. It has a set of rules that need to be adhered to. The UK had difficulty with these rules when it tried to join and now it's having difficulty with them when it's trying to leave.

Pah!

Next you'll be telling us that they didn't try to straighten our bananas.

Originally Posted by Troy

Please can you FUCK OFF with this CRAP. You're worse than the fucking press!

Might piss you off, but like it or not the EU gods have condemned their own realm, playground, whatever!

Christ, not that crap again.

Originally Posted by Switch

No Troy, even you must see the malice with which the EU is chasing for a hard Brexit with punishments to deter others from trying.
Why else would the EU team make it so ponderous and awkward?

Some can't or won't see it, that the alleged "missing 5%" at least for public consumption is the NI border. Juncker, representing the EU says the EU will not impose one; Irish PM says there will be no border; May says no border; EU's own study says forget a border it ain't gonna work. Now that everyone involve's agreed, how is the border crucial to filling that 5%?

Instead of stooping to SA and dragoon levels, how about a coherent response?

Originally Posted by Troy

^ <sigh> The EU is NOT punishing the UK for deciding to leave. Stop thinking it is. It has a set of rules that need to be adhered to. The UK had difficulty with these rules when it tried to join and now it's having difficulty with them when it's trying to leave.

Ah yes, the rules. Which rules do you prefer, those that must be applied, or those that must be enforced when convenient?



Go on, invest 9 minutes to learn about rulez, or attack Mogg for being a racist toff and we can leave it at that!

Originally Posted by jabir

Some can't or won't see it, that the alleged "missing 5%" at least for public consumption is the NI border. Juncker, representing the EU says the EU will not impose one; Irish PM says there will be no border; May says no border; EU's own study says forget a border it ain't gonna work. Now that everyone involve's agreed, how is the border crucial to filling that 5%?

Instead of stooping to SA and dragoon levels, how about a coherent response?

quite.

Originally Posted by jabir

Some can't or won't see it, that the alleged "missing 5%" at least for public consumption is the NI border. Juncker, representing the EU says the EU will not impose one; Irish PM says there will be no border; May says no border; EU's own study says forget a border it ain't gonna work. Now that everyone involve's agreed, how is the border crucial to filling that 5%?

Instead of stooping to SA and dragoon levels, how about a coherent response?

No-one wants a hard border between NI and Eire. However, the EU and the UK have different solutions and these haven't been agreed. How difficult is that for you to understand?

Furthermore, in December 2017, in order to continue with Brexit negotiations, the UK did agree on the EU solution but this was revoked a couple of months later because the DUP didn't agree with the solution.

To recap, the EU want NI to remain in the Customs Union and to remain regulatory aligned with the EU in order to ensure there is no hard border. The UK don't want this as it would mean a border would effectively exist between Ireland as a whole and GB.

The EU has existed in one form or another since 1945, some might argue even half a century before that(eg see UK's involvement in WWI on Euro soil), so highly unlikely it will fail anytime soon, especially now the Union has solidified and consolidated in modern times with the highly competent German's at the helm.

If anything is going to crash or implode it will be the UK in a post-colonial/post-brexit landscape of crippling debt, falling pound, high import to export ratio and no plan other than to borrow more money .....and now no EU to lean on if things go really pear shaped for the UK economy, which is becoming increasingly likely.

Thankfully its looking like it will be a Brexit in name only and the UK will be firmly tied to the EU except on worse terms than before, which is best case scenario beyond erasing the referendum result altogether and withdrawing article 50.

Looks like Frau is leaving early, need a new puppeteer to push no deal further toward unlikely.

Originally Posted by Switch

No Troy, even you must see the malice with which the EU is chasing for a hard Brexit with punishments to deter others from trying.
Why else would the EU team make it so ponderous and awkward?

Why doesn't the UK just leave?

The UK voted to leave so leave, why are Brexiteers so tied to the EU apron strings?

Because they are scared shitless of being left alone in a shitty world that doesn't give a flying fuck about what happens to them and one in which they know deep down in their stunted little hearts they're going to fuck up big time. The deal from the EU is their wee insurance policy, a safety net and a security blanket when Uncle Sam and all the coons, slopes, dinks, and wogs decline to buy anything other than what they can get from a fucking Harrods' sale.

Originally Posted by foobar

Why doesn't the UK just leave?

The UK voted to leave so leave, why are Brexiteers so tied to the EU apron strings?

The UK can just leave if that is what she wants - not now though - must wait for 29 March

Originally Posted by jabir

Ah yes, the rules. Which rules do you prefer, those that must be applied, or those that must be enforced when convenient?

I believe, in this case, it is not EU rules but WTO rules that have to be met. Under the WTO, a country cannot discriminate between trading partners. If the UK has open trade with Eire, then it must have the same open trade with the rest of the world. Clearly this is not in the national interest.

It would be in the national interest for Jacob Rees-Mogg to get his facts right.

Originally Posted by Troy

I believe, in this case, it is not EU rules but WTO rules that have to be met. Under the WTO, a country cannot discriminate between trading partners. If the UK has open trade with Eire, then it must have the same open trade with the rest of the world. Clearly this is not in the national interest.

It would be in the national interest for Jacob Rees-Mogg to get his facts right.

I think Jabir was referring to the pick and mix EU rules.
The Irish border being a case in point.
The only people who give a toss about a hard border there is the EU. Ignoring a little local political and economic agreement between the parties actually concerned.

It could, and should be left as it is, but the EU see another opportunity to make something of it and try to haggle over it.

The depths of your stupidity are fathomless.

Originally Posted by melvin

The UK can just leave if that is what she wants - not now though - must wait for 29 March

what year ?

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The depths of your stupidity are fathomless.

don't blame Chass, like him and his fascists friends, they are too fucking stupid to care since at that age all you care about is what's for diner and what's on TV

meanwhile in Wankers world, Maybot claims she is working on finishing a deal with the EU

that's not what I am hearing on the other side

Buttfly are you and Gent tee'd up with Vinkensport later?

why you ask ?

Originally Posted by Troy

I believe, in this case, it is not EU rules but WTO rules that have to be met. Under the WTO, a country cannot discriminate between trading partners. If the UK has open trade with Eire, then it must have the same open trade with the rest of the world. Clearly this is not in the national interest.

It would be in the national interest for Jacob Rees-Mogg to get his facts right.

You probably know more about it than Verhofstadt. To be fair he managed to mumble something about 'regulatory alignment', which means continuing to follow at least some (negotiable?) rules of the EU's single market, which cannot happen without a border between the EU and it's neighbours, which won't happen in the case or Ireland, and which every party agrees there are no circumstances under which it could happen, including the EU and separately its leaders. But the rule book says it must, since the holy grail of 'regulatory alignment' cannot otherwise be achieved.

All this while shifting uncomfortably, as though he didn't wish to go down your road. Can't imagine why; could it be that under the very rules you cite the EU explicitly discriminates between trading partners in the 3rd World?

Or perhaps truth is stranger than fiction and some rules are indeed rigid, others flexible, and the rest exist as proof that someone took the time to make them up.

Originally Posted by jabir

could it be that under the very rules you cite the EU explicitly discriminates between trading partners in the 3rd World?

I take it you will be substantiating such a claim with specific examples and linking to trustworthy evidence.

Originally Posted by Troy

I take it you will be substantiating such a claim with specific examples and linking to trustworthy evidence.

Sigh.

there are none so blind .....

^ .....

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The depths of your stupidity are fathomless.