The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 matt_himself  Matataland 07 May 17 5.29am |
  |
|---|---|
|
"Brexit bill is legally unenforceable" - according to EU lawyers: The EU is rattled. Making up the divorce bill to cover their future budget problems is not the act of a mature organisation. Shame on them. It is heartening that the government won't stand for this type of 'politics'. Edited by matt_himself (07 May 2017 8.44am)
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| davenotamonkey 07 May 17 10.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Labour being unable to tackle the subject of the Brexit and avoiding it at all costs is what's making her strong and her position stable. You have Labour never mentioning Brexit. Their remainer MPs can't back or talk positively about it and Corbyn can't or more likely hasn't tried to get them to. This is their best chance of challenge but won't. Tories on the other hand mention nothing else, which is annoying me, and I doubt it'll change to anythng like the Labour balance of Brexit/manifesto once the Tory manifesto is published. But that is what is what people are responding to, so it's like the student vs the industry professionals. Talking Brexit is Labour's only chance, but the remoaner MPs won't so they're as to blame as Corbyn. The next nail in their coffin will be when Corbyn tries to change labour leadership election rules to get a smarter looking and sounding socialist leader which will extend May's premiership to 2027 and beyond with no credible opposition for a decade+. Edited by Rudi Hedman (06 May 2017 9.13am) The attached pretty much encapsulates Labour's problem.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | davenotamonkey 07 May 17 10.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
"Brexit bill is legally unenforceable" - according to EU lawyers: The EU is rattled. Making up the divorce bill to cover their future budget problems is not the act of a mature organisation. Shame on them. It is heartening that the government won't stand for this type of 'politics'. Edited by matt_himself (07 May 2017 8.44am) I'm glad the lawyers on both sides now agree that these EU's punishment payment can't be enforced. Perhaps these legal experts are also "unrealistically" "living in another galaxy" Juncker, Merkel? Any payment we make will be based on goodwill. Given the complete lack of goodwill from their side (including a refusal to resolve the reciprocal residency issue three times now), I am of the opinion we tell them to fcuk themselves and give them not a penny. As the monetary punishment beating has now been €20bn, €60bn and €100bn, the only certainty is that the unsubstantiated figures Juncker will pluck out of his arse will only get larger. More encouraging in that article (full article free here: [Link] are UK attempts to draft in a neutral mediator. This should have been a fundamental prerequisite for negotiations (and indeed stipulated within A50).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 07 May 17 11.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
I'm glad the lawyers on both sides now agree that these EU's punishment payment can't be enforced. Perhaps these legal experts are also "unrealistically" "living in another galaxy" Juncker, Merkel? Any payment we make will be based on goodwill. Given the complete lack of goodwill from their side (including a refusal to resolve the reciprocal residency issue three times now), I am of the opinion we tell them to fcuk themselves and give them not a penny. As the monetary punishment beating has now been €20bn, €60bn and €100bn, the only certainty is that the unsubstantiated figures Juncker will pluck out of his arse will only get larger. More encouraging in that article (full article free here: [Link] are UK attempts to draft in a neutral mediator. This should have been a fundamental prerequisite for negotiations (and indeed stipulated within A50).
Pretty amusing that the quotes from said negotiator advocate not being so reflexively reactive, yet the "source" shrills about "pressing the nuclear button". If I had to guess, the source is Keir Starmer, as Labour do indeed love their hyperbolic Brexit rhetoric without providing any policy or response of their own.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 May 17 11.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Pretty amusing that the quotes from said negotiator advocate not being so reflexively reactive, yet the "source" shrills about "pressing the nuclear button". If I had to guess, the source is Keir Starmer, as Labour do indeed love their hyperbolic Brexit rhetoric without providing any policy or response of their own. Why did Ivan Rogers quit as lead negotiator? [Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 07 May 17 12.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Why did Ivan Rogers quit as lead negotiator? [Link] Because you don't want a Brexit-hostile EU-cuck leading your negotiations, whilst briefing against your own side whilst (allegedly) advocating a position that uses EU migrants as bargaining chips. Because you don't want a negotiator that dismally failed to gain any concessions from the EU when Cameron attempted to demonstrate the EU's willingness to reform and deal, prior to the referendum. Because he has a history of threatening to throw his toys out of the pram, threatening to resign when he doesn't get his way. Because if a negotiator's disposition is such that you send out a round-robin 1400-word email berating the position you were meant to be defending when you don't get your way, perhaps you're not much of a negotiator. Because, if you thought Juncker's leaks were damaging to the process, imagine having this quisling actively working to undermine us. Instead, you push him out from his cosy little Brussels enclave and get someone in who will actually serve the UK, and not the EU Commission.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 07 May 17 1.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Because you don't want a Brexit-hostile EU-cuck leading your negotiations, whilst briefing against your own side whilst (allegedly) advocating a position that uses EU migrants as bargaining chips. Because you don't want a negotiator that dismally failed to gain any concessions from the EU when Cameron attempted to demonstrate the EU's willingness to reform and deal, prior to the referendum. Because he has a history of threatening to throw his toys out of the pram, threatening to resign when he doesn't get his way. Because if a negotiator's disposition is such that you send out a round-robin 1400-word email berating the position you were meant to be defending when you don't get your way, perhaps you're not much of a negotiator. Because, if you thought Juncker's leaks were damaging to the process, imagine having this quisling actively working to undermine us. Instead, you push him out from his cosy little Brussels enclave and get someone in who will actually serve the UK, and not the EU Commission. Ha ha..bet he's sorry he asked now
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 May 17 1.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
Ha ha..bet he's sorry he asked now Not really. I thought he thought it was such a shambles he didn't want to be a part of it. There was much furore because he had his finger on the pulse by all accounts.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 07 May 17 2.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Why did Ivan Rogers quit as lead negotiator? [Link] Why did umpteen Laobour MPs refuse to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 May 17 2.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Why did umpteen Laobour MPs refuse to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet? Why don't you pose the question on the Corbyn thread instead of trying to divert this one?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 07 May 17 2.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Not really. I thought he thought it was such a shambles he didn't want to be a part of it. There was much furore because he had his finger on the pulse by all accounts. And the fact that article was dated January....hardly breaking news.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 May 17 3.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
And the fact that article was dated January....hardly breaking news. Still pertinent that our best negotiator quit though surely.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.