The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

[Doran754]

Okay... I guess this is the the end of negotiations?
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/16/boris-johnson-tells-uk-prepare-for-a-no-deal-brexit

Better prepare for no deal brexit, because the EU won't budge on issues they've never said to budge. Yyyyeah... Apparently those 'outlines of an agreement' were just pipe dreams.

Also interesting :

A lot of progress has been made on such issues as social security and aviation, nuclear cooperation, and so on,” he [BoJo] said, but “for whatever reason, it’s clear from the [EU] summit that after 45 years of [UK] membership they are not willing, unless there’s some fundamental change of approach, to offer this country the same terms as Canada”.

My first reaction : 'wait... If you just wanted the same deal as Canada... Why the fuck does it take to this point before you tell anyone? It's literally the first time there is an actual stance (I respect the ' no deal brexiteers' more in that : I disagree with them, but at least I know where they stand).
My second reaction : wait... Since when does Canada border the EU?

Well... At least it's clear that there'll be a no deal brexit... On Australian terms?

Meanwhile, the EU is busy being awesome as well...

Von Der Leyen: the EU “continues to work for a deal, but not at any price. As planned, our negotiation team will go to London next week to intensify these negotiations.”

Yeah, baby : intensify those negotiations! INTENSIFYYYYY!
View attachment 229484

Do you remember voting for Von Der Leyen? Me neither. WTO asap.

 

[Taleweaver]

Do you remember voting for Von Der Leyen? Me neither. WTO asap.

The leaders of the member states selected and voted for her in 2019. I voted for someone smarter than me to make that decision. You voted for someone not to participate.

Also... Do you own a car company by any chance? You personally might be happy with tariffs from /into the EU, but e.g.
Nissan's position in the EU directly hinges on a trade deal . So... I just want to know how relevant your individual position really is.

... I guess I should thank Hardline brexiteers for their position. After the influx of rich UK 'Ian's leaving immigrating here, we can welcome some former English industries. It's a strange win - win, but ey... If that's what you want, by all means : WTO rules it is.

 

[Nightwish]

Only if you're allowed to have them, and not just tourist destinations who will suffer from it - good ol' multi-speed europe.
As to the likes of Nissan, that's rich after already closing a factory in the continent within the last few years, when moving a factory and catching up in productivity takes a long time. It's posturing for corporate welfare, and the UK could always offer those highly skilled resources to someone else.

 

[notimp]

Do you remember voting for Von Der Leyen? Me neither. WTO asap.

Not trolling this time, but are you still stuck on the public face of an institution thing? God, I wish I had memorized where her first public speech after she was pronounced candidate was held (some corporate/universitiy gathering...).. You literally had her formulate the words that were expected from her in that position and situation, coming to grips with what her new role now was..

Read this stuff:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/05/18/why-is-the-imf-chief-always-a-european/

Get a notion on what instituations are. Get a notion how they are staffed. Get a notion why this needs more than one legislatural period (by design). Understand, why you actually cant vote in heads of institutions. Understand, why a president in most countries is a representatory figure. Read up on representative democracy again...

You cant just be stuck at 'well I did not have the chance to vote for her' forever..

If you still think, direct democracy rules the day...

edit: Found it - I remembered her speech before the Konrad Adenauer Foundation - here watch this:

edit: Damn it, its in german.

 

[notimp]

Shamzie is basically propagating a lie for the better part of four years now. Learned nothing. Went with the PR message. Brings the same PR message today - although nobody, not even in his own country is promoting it anymore.

The idea, that the UK left because of 'more freedoms for the individual' and for more direct democracy is an absolute lie.

EU is losing importance as an economic factor. US retreated from many of its NATO commitments, holding the basis of the union stable gets more costly. UK saw the EU as a sinking anker, and gladly took the 'would you act as a trouble maker in the region?' offer the US made to hurt the EU economically (US had a trade deficit).

US will demand subordination of the UK in all important global aspects. UK can say - yes please, may I please have another. And thats it.

In exchange - the US is still running the worlds financial ecosystem, so the UK is still dreaming of their importance of offering banking services to the world, and basking in old colional stories - for largely no reason whatsoever.

Other countries dont have the 'special realationship' the UK has with the US, and therefore havent followed the 'Brexit model'.
--

But I havent voted on X person is absolutely irrelevant. You havent voted on trade deals either, neither have you voted on opening your markets for US goods without an option to regulate them (even safety wise) before they enter your markets. Its just that for that you havent gotten a figurehead whose name you managed to remember and curse out for four years.

Thats the most easy, condensed down breakdown.

If you manage to deregulate you industry, so it can compete in malaysia and india - you win, the longer the US runs the world financial system the longer your economic services may stay relevant. Apart from that, nothing. You have no industry. You have some education hubs. You have no immediate markets. But at least now you dont have to pay to help economically stabilize the EU.


To make that a great victory for direct democracy and freedom, you need you head twisted so much, any owl would be envious..


Pound sterling / EUR exchange rate went from 1.6 to 1.1 since 1999.

 

[Doran754]

US will demand subordination of the UK in all important global aspects. UK can say - yes please, may I please have another. And thats it.

Pound sterling / EUR exchange rate went from 1.6 to 1.1 since 1999.

You mean like the EU demands subordination now?

Do you also forget the £/Euro exchange rate was also 1.13-1.2 over a decade ago. Feel free to look up the history of the exchange rate. Currencies fluctuate. Couldn't care less.

 

[notimp]

You mean like the EU demands subordination now?

I mean the challenges are obvious, and the UK got the hell out there the first chance it saw, it could play complete lackey to interests across the pond. EU membership is based on voluntarily giving up power to allow for coordinated action. More so in coming years (with the US retracting from the international stage, EU is forced to speak much more unilaterally on foreign policy for example). EU structurally is designed to make it hard for members to leave on a whim, this is what integration means. People are looking after you being able to realize benefits, but for that you also have to agree to take on some detriments - as all of this had been very voluntary in the past, EU moved very slowly on matters of process. In some areas (foreign policy, aquisition protection from foreign interests, investment policies outside of short term lobby interests, ...) it cant any longer - because of structural imbalances, and the US retreating in its role.

At the first notion of hey - maybe we'd have to swallow a consensus decision thats against our interests, but with us being compensated in other ways, the UK buckled and cried foul. So on something caused by international pressures the UK chose to go with the interest of the nation causing many of the issues, namely the US. With the idea being, that the UK would always be compensated for shooting itself in the groin, as the little brother of the US - moreso, than as the 'military arm' of the EU having rendered itself pretty much useless otherwise, not being able to prevent frances demands on further fiscal integration anymore - because causing a stalemate in the current configuration wasnt flexible enough for the times to come.

As soon as the UKs role was seen to be anything different, they bailed.

Feeding their population mostly lies on how the EU forced them to let in so many foreigners, when this was a policy decision the UK actively went with an ultra liberal implementation, as always - and frankly payed for it in the end. But the demands of "we want to be able to play neoliberal masterrace, and at the same time be ultra protectionist, when it comes to our market interests" is schizophrenic if you are anything less than a colonizing nation. Now its the same sh*t in separation negotiations as well. We want access to your free market, but be allowed to impose sanctions unilaterally, where we see fit.

F*ck you then. (Not you personally - but your political stance. )

Lets see how fast the US loses interests, when its not invested in actions in that part of the world any longer. (Sphere of attention shifts towards asia.)

Oh and thank you ever so much for importing the US financial crisis, to help share the burden of the US. What a fine job you did there. And werent played at all in the end...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/03/lehman-collapse-us-uk-blame

On exchange rate you are not wrong. Currently you want to pound to be tanking, as you are rallying up new export markets.

 

[Taleweaver]

You mean like the EU demands subordination now?

Okay, sure, I'll borrow your world view for the answer. The least you can say is 'yes'. But really... You probably want to start by send Johnson over in gimp suit just to show that he's not going to pull antics as with the EU, because of you think WE are treating you badly, just wait until you negotiate with someone who has even less incentive to make a deal.

* pretending to your people that the deal will be easy while behind closed doors barely have any outline of a proposal won't make the negotiations ready.
EDIT: debunked (probably?). See posts below.
* reaching three proposals that get shot down by parliament won't show respect to equal partners
* voting internal laws that undermine any preliminary agreements is not something you do to parties you want to agree with
* never take any blame in failed negotiations but always pretend it's the other's fault won't fly with potential partners (1)
* ignoring what individual states need, resulting in unrest in Northern Ireland

I can go on. From what I saw in the brexit circus, the hardliners have always treated EU as their bitch (with persons like May at least trying to find common ground). So don't pretend like the UK is an innocent poor victim of a huge bureaucracy here, wise guy. You're not convincing anyone.

But ey... You'll find that out soon enough. Enjoy your ignorance while it lasts.


(1) though I'm morbidly curious how that'll turn out if you're dealing with Trump. I foresee online shouting matches that will leave guys like you unsure on which false idol to follow

 

[Doran754]

I mean the challenges are obvious, and the UK got the hell out there the first chance it saw, it could play complete lackey to interests across the pond. EU membership is based on voluntarily giving up power to allow for coordinated action. More so in coming years (with the US retracting from the international stage, EU is forced to speak much more unilaterally on foreign policy for example). EU structurally is designed to make it hard for members to leave on a whim, this is what integration means. People are looking after you being able to realize benefits, but for that you also have to agree to take on some detriments - as all of this had been very voluntary in the past, EU moved very slowly on matters of process. In some areas (foreign policy, aquisition protection from foreign interests, investment policies outside of short term lobby interests, ...) it cant any longer - because of structural imbalances, and the US retreating in its role.

At the first notion of hey - maybe we'd have to swallow a consensus decision thats against our interests, but with us being compensated in other ways, the UK buckled and cried foul. So on something caused by international pressures the UK chose to go with the interest of the nation causing many of the issues, namely the US. With the idea being, that the UK would always be compensated for shooting itself in the groin, as the little brother of the US - moreso, than as the 'military arm' of the EU having rendered itself pretty much useless otherwise, not being able to prevent frances demands on further fiscal integration anymore - because causing a stalemate in the current configuration wasnt flexible enough for the times to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/03/lehman-collapse-us-uk-blame

On exchange rate you are not wrong. Currently you want to pound to be tanking, as you are rallying up new export markets.

Generally curious on your view on this, do you see nation's who serve a self interest, a "me first approach" to the world as a bad thing. You always quote the US like it's a bad thing, like they're the bad guy. They're the worlds superpower, they're currently employing a me first ideal on the world. Why would it be against the UK's interest to do the same?

Okay, sure, I'll borrow your world view for the answer. The least you can say is 'yes'. But really... You probably want to start by send ingJohnson over in gimp suit just to show that he's not going to pull antics as with the EU.

* pretending to your people that the deal will be easy while behind closed doors barely have any outline of a proposal won't make the negotiations ready.
* reaching three proposals that get shot down by parliament won't show respect to equal partners
* voting internal laws that undermine any preliminary agreements is not something you do to parties you want to agree with
* never take any blame in failed negotiations but always pretend it's the other's fault won't fly with potential partners (1)
* ignoring what individual states need, resulting in unrest in Northern Ireland

I can go on. From what I saw in the brexit circus, the hardliners have always treated EU as their bitch (with persons like May at least trying to find common ground). So don't pretend like the UK is an innocent poor victim of a huge bureaucracy here, wise guy. You're not convincing anyone.

But ey... You'll find that out soon enough. Enjoy your ignorance while it lasts.


(1) though I'm morbidly curious how that'll turn out if you're dealing with Trump. I foresee online shouting matches that will leave guys like you unsure on which false idol to follow

You seem to have some sort of fetish about punishing the UK and seeing us fail, each to their own. Anyway in regards to your point.

1 - Never wanted a deal, not what i voted for.
2 - Which proposals, are you talking about May's surrender deal before BoJo won a massive majority because the country didn't want to get fucked by Treason May?
3 - The internal market bill is a backup plan incase the EU decides to try and blockade ireland and essentially starve one of our countries. It won't be needed if the EU doesn't act scummy, I fail to see the issue with this. It's simple, dont act like cunts and it won't be used.
4 - What are you talking about lol negotiations work both ways, never take any blame? You sound like you're 5. Do you expect our negotiator to be like "yeah it's all our fault" The EU knows the UK red lines, you always talk about having cake and eating it too but that's exactly what the EU wants, you want access to our fisheries. It's not happening, were a sovereign nation, we shall decide who has access not a foreign entity.
5 - It's about the UK as a whole, you're trying to cause division within the union by undermining it. Won't work.

 

[Taleweaver]

You seem to have some sort of fetish about punishing the UK and seeing us fail, each to their own. Anyway in regards to your point.

1 - Never wanted a deal, not what i voted for.
2 - Which proposals, are you talking about May's surrender deal before BoJo won a massive majority because the country didn't want to get fucked by Treason May?
3 - The internal market bill is a backup plan incase the EU decides to try and blockade ireland and essentially starve one of our countries. It won't be needed if the EU doesn't act scummy, I fail to see the issue with this. It's simple, dont act like cunts and it won't be used.
4 - What are you talking about lol negotiations work both ways, never take any blame? You sound like you're 5. Do you expect our negotiator to be like "yeah it's all our fault" The EU knows the UK red lines, you always talk about having cake and eating it too but that's exactly what the EU wants, you want access to our fisheries. It's not happening, were a sovereign nation, we shall decide who has access not a foreign entity.
5 - It's about the UK as a whole, you're trying to cause division within the union by undermining it. Won't work.

And you strike me as someone who wants to shoot the messenger. I didn't create this mess, y'know.

1. I know; you've made that pretty clear. But you certainly don't speak on behalf of a majority. And it's no refutal to my reply.
2. call 'em what you want. I didn't put a bremainder in charge of exit talks. And it's no refutal to my reply.
3. yeah, exactly. Thanks for proving my point.
4. I expect your negotiators to do their homework and negotiate in good faith. Not this four year shenanigans only to find out "the EU doesn't want to change their position on things".
I've got to be honest and say that the only guy I've ever heard use that phrase is Boris Johnson, and I've got no idea to what it's supposed to mean. I honestly don't give a damn about your fishing quotas (meaning: go ahead and fish). But when I read that over half of UK's quotas were already sold to foreigners, then "theft" comes to mind ("hey...wanna buy some of our fishing rights? Yes? Cool...oh, right...but we're changing the laws so you're out of luck").
5. sorry, wrong answer. I gotta admit that at first I thought this'd be a trivial matter as well. But I'm just a dumb foreigner with no stakes in brexit/bremaining and limited knowledge of history. What's your excuse?
Here's the situation: the only way to stop historical tensions between Ireland and Northern Ireland was to ensure the border was as invisible as possible. This put things at ease since 1998 (good friday agreement, if I'm not mistaken). Not trying to brag, but this was only possible because both Ireland and the UK were part of the EU. With the UK leaving(1), this whole agreement is annulated. Not to say that it won't be able to be resolved otherwise, but as long as you deny there's a problem, that's a problem in itself.
Also: bad timing on your reply, dude. The UK's most senior Archbishops just today published an open letter criticizing exactly this(2).

The U.K.’s most senior Anglican bishops warned Monday that the legislation set a “disastrous precedent” and could undermine peace in Northern Ireland.

Are you going to extend your opinion to say the Anglican church wants to divide the UK as well?

If not...no, I'm not trying to cause division. Again: I'm just the messenger. The division was already there. You just relied on the EU to find you a solution(3).

(1): okay "having left". but that's not saying much if in practice, you just keep everything the same during the 'transitional period'
(2): if it makes you feel more comfortable: I didn't knew it when I made my previous post either
(3): no, I don't normally give the EU credit like that (I'm rather neutral on their position). But I'm pretty fed up with brexiteers just throwing everything bad on account of the EU.

 

[Doran754]

And you strike me as someone who wants to shoot the messenger. I didn't create this mess, y'know.

1. I know; you've made that pretty clear. But you certainly don't speak on behalf of a majority. And it's no refutal to my reply.
2. call 'em what you want. I didn't put a bremainder in charge of exit talks. And it's no refutal to my reply.
3. yeah, exactly. Thanks for proving my point.
4. I expect your negotiators to do their homework and negotiate in good faith. Not this four year shenanigans only to find out "the EU doesn't want to change their position on things".
I've got to be honest and say that the only guy I've ever heard use that phrase is Boris Johnson, and I've got no idea to what it's supposed to mean. I honestly don't give a damn about your fishing quotas (meaning: go ahead and fish). But when I read that over half of UK's quotas were already sold to foreigners, then "theft" comes to mind ("hey...wanna buy some of our fishing rights? Yes? Cool...oh, right...but we're changing the laws so you're out of luck").
5. sorry, wrong answer. I gotta admit that at first I thought this'd be a trivial matter as well. But I'm just a dumb foreigner with no stakes in brexit/bremaining and limited knowledge of history. What's your excuse?
Here's the situation: the only way to stop historical tensions between Ireland and Northern Ireland was to ensure the border was as invisible as possible. This put things at ease since 1998 (good friday agreement, if I'm not mistaken). Not trying to brag, but this was only possible because both Ireland and the UK were part of the EU. With the UK leaving(1), this whole agreement is annulated. Not to say that it won't be able to be resolved otherwise, but as long as you deny there's a problem, that's a problem in itself.
Also: bad timing on your reply, dude. The UK's most senior Archbishops just today published an open letter criticizing exactly this(2).

The U.K.’s most senior Anglican bishops warned Monday that the legislation set a “disastrous precedent” and could undermine peace in Northern Ireland.

Are you going to extend your opinion to say the Anglican church wants to divide the UK as well?

If not...no, I'm not trying to cause division. Again: I'm just the messenger. The division was already there. You just relied on the EU to find you a solution(3).

(1): okay "having left". but that's not saying much if in practice, you just keep everything the same during the 'transitional period'
(2): if it makes you feel more comfortable: I didn't knew it when I made my previous post either
(3): no, I don't normally give the EU credit like that (I'm rather neutral on their position). But I'm pretty fed up with brexiteers just throwing everything bad on account of the EU.

Considering before the vote, talk of a deal was never mentioned. I feel like I do speak for the majority, we voted to leave, not leave in 4 years, not leave with a deal, WE VOTED TO LEAVE. It's that simple, you can throw up all the blockades you want. So yeah I firmly believe I do speak for the majority.

I'm not going over the rest of it, it'd old trodden ground. Like I care what the arch bishop thinks LOL he needs to get a proper job instead of stealing a living. You act like his opinion is more important because he holds some sort of bullshit religious position. (pro tip, it's not more important)

The division was there, that's why we held a vote. Now there's no division, the country has a clear path forward. That's how democracy works, we hold votes and move forward. The corrupt EU ever had it's books audited? Wake up.

 

[notimp]

Generally curious on your view on this, do you see nation's who serve a self interest, a "me first approach" to the world as a bad thing.

I'm much more interested to point out, that thats not whats happening. Again - trade deals with india are established, future trading partners of the UK look like this:

Five eyes mixed with a hodgepodge of a dream of neocolonialism.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-ben...he-united-kingdom.505315/page-15#post-8547805

Also, this is not 'everybody fending for their own', this is old boys networks and a PR dream of them good old days, being fostered by the following interest groups:

On the morning of 24 June (2016), the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985.[15] The drop over the day was 8% – the biggest one-day fall in the pound since the introduction of floating exchange rates following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971.[16] The pound remained low, and on 8 July became the worst performing major currency of the year,[17] although the pound's trade-weighted index is only back at levels seen in the period 2008–2013.[18][19][20] It was expected that the weaker pound would also benefit aerospace and defence firms, pharmaceutical companies, and professional services companies; the share prices of these companies were boosted after the EU referendum.[21]

After the referendum the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report funded by the Economic and Social Research Councilwhich warned that Britain would lose up to £70 billion in reduced economic growth if it didn't retain Single Market membership with new trade deals unable to make up the difference.[22] One of these areas is financial services, which are helped by EU-wide "passporting" for financial products, which the Financial Times estimates indirectly accounts for up to 71,000 jobs and 10 billion pounds of tax annually[23] and there are concerns that banks may relocate outside the UK.[24]

On 5 January 2017, Andy Haldane, the Chief Economist and the Executive Director of Monetary Analysis and Statistics at the Bank of England, admitted that forecasts predicting an economic downturn due to the referendum were inaccurate and noted strong market performance after the referendum,[25][26][27] although some have pointed to prices rising faster than wages.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After..._Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

And only then after all that, and after me insisting, that you just call out names of EU politicians to denounce them as mainly nefarious instead of bringing one single reasons o far, how the UK has been better off because of brexit. Oh, and ignoring where in the world you are situated geographically (forget the EU mythos - just the economics of freightshipping in your food from south africa.. ).

Only after that can we get into plainly obvious deliberations of the 'not everyone can sell out to their big brother US easily', corporations are getting bigger and have to be transnational at this point to matter - and none of that being possible for lets say a macedonia or albania to tackle on their own - we get back to, that britain just has been sold this dream, of just 'naturally dominating' again over - Idk, but not many nations left independant and outside of unions.. (Economy wise - dont care about national politics myths here.)

In May 2017, it was reported by the Irish Times that £425,622 had potentially been donated by sources in Saudi Arabia to the "vote leave" supporting Democratic Unionist Party for spending during the referendum.[286]

Oh I can taste the independance, I can taste it...


Further more - usually useful idiots in the public, especially of the progressive kind, arent of any need anymore, once new conservative power structures are established. So people that actually cared about Brexit changing their lives for the positive, should be starting to get disillusioned right about now..

 

[Nightwish]

Further more - usually useful idiots in the public, especially of the progressive kind, arent of any need anymore, once new conservative power structures are established.

It's almost as if they don't care whether the master is british, german, dutch or american, but they prefer one they can replace, after the ever-diminishing forecast of doom.
Nah. Just keep pretending we're at the end of history and that monetarist based predictions have any value, as their assumptions get abandoned by central banks, and that individual trade deals make a significant difference to trade, despite not being true for a couple of decades.
Anyway, does the Euro recovery program exist yet, and when do we start cutting wages for it?

 

[FAST6191]

Shit flinging is boring. While I remain unconvinced that WTO was always the aim or item to be voted on the lack of a public plan/goals afterwards does make things tricky to point at and say "that". Still it is not an unreasonable presumption to think the UK and EU might want to not have to be completely stand offish (similar cultures, shared languages in some ways, similar standards for things both in general and at present, while worldwide shipping is pretty cheap it is still cheaper to do shorter distances (to say nothing of being more viable for other classes of goods) and so forth, there is also the nice demonstrable "it works") and not pull the proverbial rip cord/fire the ejector seat.

Anyway I am getting off topic and was only on the second sentence.

How about instead we ponder what might be salvaged here as it stands today. How can places come together and both get something resembling what they want?

 

[notimp]

House of Lords no likey UK breaking international law.
https://www.cityam.com/house-of-lords-votes-down-johnsons-controversial-brexit-bill/

(Has not impact on legislation.)

How about instead we ponder what might be salvaged here as it stands today. How can places come together and both get something resembling what they want?

How can the UK be part of the EU market, being allowed to impose tariffs unilateraly, paying nothing for it in return? Yeah - eh, they cant.

How can economies come closer together after - Brexit - well, what a funny question..

But indeed some form of compromise still is likely. Just looking at all the damage the UK caused for no apparent reason, and that it then still reacts with bullying ('we'll break international law then') and pressure game, while being in a worse position to argue all along - seems 10 fold idiotic and only a result of pressure groups paying off politicians to do just that - to the point where it actually hinders compromise.

So from a moral stance - f*ck off. But thats not whats driving economic talks...

 

[FAST6191]

How can the UK be part of the EU market, being allowed to impose tariffs unilateraly, paying nothing for it in return? Yeah - eh, they cant.

How can economies come closer together after - Brexit - well, what a funny question..

But indeed some form of compromise still is likely. Just looking at all the damage the UK caused for no apparent reason, and that it then still reacts with bullying ('we'll break international law then') and pressure game, while being in a worse position to argue all along - seems 10 fold idiotic and only a result of pressure groups paying off politicians to do just that - to the point where it actually hinders compromise.

So from a moral stance - f*ck off. But thats not whats driving economic talks...

Does the UK have to part of the EU market in such a manner?

What damage to entities other than the UK was caused?

Can you really not think of any reasons? Does not have to be a particularly rational and long term view reason (we have both presumably been following politics and the like for long enough to have seen "next election is the only thing that matters" mindsets). There could also be more to life than money.

 

[Taleweaver]

Considering before the vote, talk of a deal was never mentioned. I feel like I do speak for the majority, we voted to leave, not leave in 4 years, not leave with a deal, WE VOTED TO LEAVE. It's that simple, you can throw up all the blockades you want. So yeah I firmly believe I do speak for the majority.

This is actually a very interesting point you make. Granted, I initially went "no way!"...but the more I googled, the more I'm inclined to believe you. Oh, there were certainly broken promises and wild exagerations, but "we'll be in a better bargaining position after we've left the EU" is about as close as I could find to backup my claim. So indeed: negotiations on exit deals were never told to brexiteers, let alone ones that took this long.

Okay...let's not pretend that it wasn't inevitable (to bring back the industry: the promise to them that there'd be a quick and easy leave deal with the EU was made), but I really have to concede my earlier point that brexiteers wanted a deal in the first place.

I disagree on your other points, though. And Theresa May isn't a EU blockade. Not our fault you decide to put somone in charge who wanted a deal, got blocked some times because parliament wanted a better deal, then changed the prime minister who ALSO pursued a deal in the first place. Your government has a really strange way to get something not done, y'know.

 

[Taleweaver]

How about instead we ponder what might be salvaged here as it stands today. How can places come together and both get something resembling what they want?

I've given this some thought as well. Unfortunately, it's not really looking bright. Let's see...

* since there's no way around it, WTO trade rules is what it'll be. For the moment, I feel that every slightest ounce of a deal will someday lead to a future UK government laying blame on the EU.
* I'm all for a sovereign UK. Never was against it and am not going to start with it now. It's just that when you want to trade something outside the border, you adhere to the standard laws of that foreign country (as a classic example: you can create and/or import all the chlorinated chicken you want...just don't attempt to trade it with the EU).
* since we can't agree on standards, we'll have to assume they'll become different. As such, custom checks become the norm (both in and out).
* I'm aware that neither Ireland nor Northern Ireland wants custom checks. The previous leads to a simple "too bad". Good friday agreement? Not the EU's business. If the nation's as united as @shamzie claims it is, everyone just goes along with it.
* I'm not sure how tariffs and taxes work, but there again: no deal is just follow whatever the WTO describes. Sucks if you're an industry that wants to trade with the other country, but, again: "too bad".
* that bill breaking the withdrawal treaty should be shoved up Johnson's ass. I would prefer officially, as a sign that the UK has any credibility left when it comes to making deals. Should they stick to it, I think it's only fair that the EU puts "annexation of Northern Ireland" on the agenda in case of unrest, perhaps Gibraltar as well (depending on how the border situation there goes) as well as openly inviting Scotland to join the EU. I'm no fan of lowering the EU to UK's level of "negotiations", but since Britons are already disgruntled(1) with the EU, they might as well have a valid reason for it.
* okay...more positive things. Let's see...We'll fully allow the UK sovereignty when it comes to their safety to kippers.
* fishing quota's? I'm all for the UK government buying back the quota's they sold to foreign fishing companies.
* while we're at it: I'm all for funding the NHS with what you paid to the EU instead. By all means: DO SO, ya sovereign sovereigners!


(1): for the record: if you read back in this thread, my initial replies were more a defense of the 48% bremainders. With all the promises falling and politicians blundering, this whole "we HAVE to do it!!!" thing was kind of moot. But then Johnson got elected as prime minister. So...I guess it sucks if you wanted to remain in the EU, but you had two chances to let yourself heard but you didn't. Hence: despite all what's happened, the majority still wants out. With everything that comes with it.

 

[Taleweaver]

More interesting news. And one genuine brexit advantage, no less! Not to sound cynical, but I feel like this is a first in this thread called 'benefits of brexit'.

The news : a trade agreement with Japan! :-D

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-54654814

Critics will be critics, but still : 15 billion pounds is more than I usually make. So...it's a start. :-)

However, in worse news, it seems like the food industry didn't get that 'we're one nation' note Shamzie was touting : with current conditions (or rather : the lack of technical details about them) they 're going to refuse supplying northern Ireland...

https://www.businessinsider.com/bre...ders-warn-boris-johnson-2020-10?amp&r=US&IR=T

 

[KingVamp]

Well, considering there wasn't another vote, we don't know what the majority thinks after all this mess.

More interesting news. And one genuine brexit advantage, no less! Not to sound cynical, but I feel like this is a first in this thread called 'benefits of brexit'.

The news : a trade agreement with Japan! :-D

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-54654814

Critics will be critics, but still : 15 billion pounds is more than I usually make. So...it's a start. :-)

Interesting. Would this deal still be possible, without exiting the EU?

If there wasn't an anime and manga trade deal out of this, well, that would have been a missed opportunity. /jk