EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Furunculus]

The problem is shifting of the goal posts.

The majority who voted Brexit did not want a 'no deal' and 'no deal' was actively campaigned against by pro-remain and those who wanted Brexit, especially as they believed they could get a deal. Under Theresa May, No Deal/Hard Brexit became radicalised and the position of those who advocated for Brexit. There have been the witch hunts in certain media outlets and a war against the evil 'remainers', now it even come to the point where those who desired 'Soft Brexit' are being held up as traitors. All the while using the referendum as justification, when what is being shoved down our throats is not what was voted for, especially as a lot of those advocating for Brexit were making suggestions such as Norway-Plus model.

Our politics have been an international joke for the last three years due to Brexit. The country is an embarrassment and everyone should be ashamed of themselves, some more than others.

That's a very one sided account.
my twitter and facebook feeds are endlessly full of whining about stupid and/or racist brexiters.

equally, remain did every bit as much to undercut eea/efta in thinking they had a chance to sink brexit completely, as well as undercutting the government's negotiating stance to achieve the same ends.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mdouganlp...48503851900929
and eea/efta does have fundamental strategic problems with it around regulation of services.

may made three mistakes:
letting parliament get involved in the prerogative power of treaties with external powers.
agreeing to the eu's sequencing of WA before march 31st and fta in the years afterwards
agreeing to the maximalist no hard border interpretation for ireland.

but im starting to think that may had to try and fail at a constructive renegotiation, before a PM would receive the public support necessary to pursue a normal adversarial treaty negotiation process.

[Montmorency]

Thats a very one sided account.
my twitter and facebook feeds are endlessly full of whining about stupid and/or racist brexiters.

equally, remain did every bit as much to undercut eea/efta in thinking they had a chance to sink brexit completely, as well as undercutting the government's negotiating stance to achieve the same ends.
and eea/efta does have fundamental strategic problems with it around regulation of services.

may made three mistakes:
letting parliament get involved in the prerogative power of treaties with external powers.
agreeing to the eu's sequencing of WA before march 31st and fta in the years afterwards
agreeing to the maximalist no hard border interpretation for ireland.

but im starting to think that may had to try and fail at a constructive renegotiation, before a PM would receive the public support necessary to pursue a normal adversarial treaty negotiation process.

Abuser logic: 'I wouldn't have had to hit you so hard if you didn't cover your face with your arm, you stupid bint.' Remainers did not undercut eea/efta by refusing to pre-emptively capitulate to your narrow interests, and they did not undercut negotiations because the course of history shows this was not an available arrangement.

There is no more "adversarial" negotiation to be had, the lines have been clearly drawn for more than a year, you mad lad. Johnson has nothing new to offer.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But Johnson has not yet come back with any ideas for how else to guarantee an open border, E.U. negotiators said.

His Brexit negotiator, David Frost, met with his E.U. counterparts on Wednesday for more than five hours. He proposed stripping away most of the backstop, leaving only a handful of bare-bones provisions, including borderless travel and a single electricity market, E.U. diplomats said.

The two sides met again on Friday at Britain’s request. An E.U. diplomat said discussions focused on a British idea to avoid food safety controls on the Irish border.

E.U. diplomats have gotten the sense that continued talks are probably more for show than for substance.

The lack of engagement by Johnson’s team on the core issues has led to puzzlement about his strategy. Does he genuinely want a deal, but simply does not have realistic ideas about how to get one? Or is it a big bluff, and is he deliberately steering his country toward a Brexit without a safety net?

European policymakers increasingly believe the answer is the latter. They worry about being set up to take the fall.

One diplomat assessed that Johnson needs to pretend negotiations are underway, so he can blame the E.U. for any fallout from a no-deal Brexit. But if Johnson negotiated in earnest, the details — and the compromises — would quickly become public, sapping support from hardcore Brexit advocates who are enthusiastic about leaving without a deal.

“As soon as the details of a deal leak, he’s going to lose the election,” the diplomat said.

[...]

E.U. officials said that if Johnson — or any British leader — asked for an extension beyond the Halloween deadline, he would almost surely receive one, if there were a clear rationale for doing so. Despite some tough talk from Macron and others ahead of previous extensions this year, no E.U. leader wants to be responsible for the chaos likely to be unleashed by a no-deal Brexit, diplomats said.

The British Parliament has legislated to postpone by an additional three months. Johnson, though, said on Thursday he would “rather be dead in a ditch” than request further delay.

Even setting aside the uncertainty about events, there is deep skepticism in Europe that Johnson can be held to his word, and there are concerns about the health of Britain’s democracy.

“A lot of the bridges have been burned. There is a real feeling within the E.U. that Britain cannot be trusted, because the British system cannot be trusted,” said Fabian Zuleeg, the head of the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think tank. “It is difficult to imagine that any commitment that is made by the leadership can be trusted, because we have seen in the last month how quickly that can change.”

The problem, European officials say, is that the British discussion still bears little relationship to the reality of what the E.U. is willing to agree to.

May's singular mistake was triggering Article 50 before trying to negotiate.


Update on alleged Labour antisemitism: Previously when I surveyed UK Jewish polling and did not find them to be considerably more conservative than American Jews, I made the critical error of not comparing their actual voting choices. In fact UK Jews have for decades been overwhelmingly more conservative than American Jews, to the point that Corbyn has barely moved the needle on their electoral choices (21-58 in 2010, 26-63 in 2017. Oops!)
Far more interesting is Labour's collapse among Scottish Catholics, who typically voted Labour by 15-25% more than English Catholics - until 2015, when the margin vanished. Moreover, Catholics in general had historically been heavy Labour voters except for 1979, when they converged, and in 2015 when they converged again; more recently Labour's Catholic vote had been shrinking since the millennium began.

Latest polling on "realistic Brexit outcomes." 100% of No Dealers think leaving with no deal is still possible. 100% of Referenders think a second referendum is still possible.

Brexit

[Furunculus]

Abuser logic: 'I wouldn't have had to hit you so hard if you didn't cover your face with your arm, you stupid bint.' Remainers did not undercut eea/efta by refusing to pre-emptively capitulate to your narrow interests, and they did not undercut negotiations because the course of history shows this was not an available arrangement.

Nonsense.
In the battle for ideas over what might replace EU membership elements of both leave and remain trashed the middle ground.
Remain to overturn the result, Leave to pursue maximum divergence.
You can't have it both ways: that Leavers trashed a compromise, but the delicate petals on Remain only sought to be nice to everyone.

There is no more "adversarial" negotiation to be had, the lines have been clearly drawn for more than a year, you mad lad. Johnson has nothing new to offer.

There has already been movement after Bozza's first visit.
Most notably Macron in breaking ranks with the EU line in saying the WA is not immutable.
There have been plenty of idea, all rejected by the EU.
Not least the common rule book of the chequers proposal, but these ideas always founder on the absolutist interpretation of "no hard border"
A mistake.

May's singular mistake was triggering Article 50 before trying to negotiate.

Again, that was what the EU insisted upon.
And I have already listed it above as the point about about sequencing.
It was the EU that said; "no point trying to talk to us until you trigger Art50"
I would have been happy to wait longer, but May wanted to proceed in a consensual manner so decided to trigger Art50 before the two years ran into the EU elections.
At the EU's request!

[Beskar]

You know Boris should just call a second referendum instead.

"Do we leave the EU without a deal on the 31st?" The hardline Brexiteers then can campaign to their hearts content. Only problem is, when the country will choose 'No'... which every hardliner foresees and will oppose this and every other referendum on this fact alone. So much for liberty or death.

Or we can go with a multiple choice: "Do we agree to 'Theresa May' deal or leave on the 31st with no deal?". Now you at least got a choice, pretty binary here. It is what Theresa May should have done before stepping down, but she has never had a track record for competence.

Or even... "Should we reconsider our position on Brexit with the following options". This is the one everyone else would greatly prefer.
Or you can come up with a concrete version of your own.

As a special treat, you tie into the Referendum that the result has to be accepted, no matter what. By-passing parliament all together, enforce the will of the people.
In short, the people decide. Or we can continue this game of charades as British Parliamentary Democracy lies in ruins all around us.

[Montmorency]

Nonsense.
In the battle for ideas over what might replace EU membership elements of both leave and remain trashed the middle ground.
Remain to overturn the result, Leave to pursue maximum divergence.
You can't have it both ways: that Leavers trashed a compromise, but the delicate petals on Remain only sought to be nice to everyone.

No, you're the nonsense. Your "compromise" is to thrash Britain soundly rather than thrash Britain severely, yet you place the onus on Labour and LibDems to interpret that as harm reduction rather than as intolerable (and of course disunity within the Conservative Party itself is disregarded entirely in the narrative).

The Remainers' point has not been that Leavers are mean and Remainers are nice but that Leavers have no idea what they've gotten Britain into. There was no available compromise with the professional Leavers because they were foundationally opposed to any compromise that either the EU or the Remainers could tolerate. That's not the Remainers' responsibility.

A second referendum wouldn't heal Britain's divides in the short-term, but it's actually fairly straightforward to design a decisive and democratic one that can settle the issue of compromises:

"Revoke Article 50"
OR
"May's Deal"
OR
"No Deal"
OR
"Norway Plus"
OR
...

Just make the Leave options ranked choice within each other, so that either Leave or Remain must get a majority in the end. And certify it to be binding, unlike the 2016 referendum - Britain's most expensive opinion poll.

There has already been movement after Bozza's first visit.
Most notably Macron in breaking ranks with the EU line in saying the WA is not immutable.
There have been plenty of idea, all rejected by the EU.
Not least the common rule book of the chequers proposal, but these ideas always founder on the absolutist interpretation of "no hard border"
A mistake.

What is the evidence of movement? I'd like a link on Macron "breaking ranks", because to my knowledge he's been one of the harder-line national figures in the saga, and has remained so.

I have never seen indication why the EU's (and Ireland's) interpretation of EU and Irish interests and red lines is unreasonable. Johnson can't throw a bunch of rehashed BS at the EU and call it progress in negotiations.

Again, that was what the EU insisted upon.
And I have already listed it above as the point about about sequencing.
It was the EU that said; "no point trying to talk to us until you trigger Art50"
I would have been happy to wait longer, but May wanted to proceed in a consensual manner so decided to trigger Art50 before the two years ran into the EU elections.
At the EU's request!

What a strange position to take, that if only the Remainers would fall into line the UK could negotiate anything it pleases, but pressuring the EU to prenegotiate even a framework before Article 50 was an insurmountable lift. Everyone who knew something told May not to invoke Article 50 from scratch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just going to randomly throw evil pro-remain propaganda out there.

Dear God, this AGAIN?

These laws came in in January - they're on the books - most of them have been on the books for years.

The British Oversees Territories (except Gibraltar) are self-governing and not bound by EU law and never have been, despite which the EU is using economic coercion to get them to change their tax laws - something that will not stop with Brexit.

These is worse than Stephen Fry's "how do you tell if something is moral" video and that was a piece of philosophically incoherent hogwash.

[Furunculus]

On the otherside of the coin, I will post a speech by the AtD co-leader on the impact of Brexit to Germany.

Great speech.
She's right.
For me - all that was required beyond what cameron achieved was the option to avoid ever-closer-union for all, not just britain.
With that - we had a hope of a blocking coalition to stop eurozone caucusing, without it... we leave.
Shame.

[Furunculus]

....stuff...

This is whining.
That does not in any meaningful way address that which i said.
Don't be that guy.

What is the evidence of movement? I'd like a link on Macron "breaking ranks", because to my knowledge he's been one of the harder-line national figures in the saga, and has remained so.

"We will not find a new withdrawal agreement within 30 days that will be very different from the existing one"
I don't know if we've all forgotten that Q1 this year was spent bashing our heads against the immutability of Barnier's WA:
"But if the choice is still to leave the EU in an orderly manner, this treaty is the only option. This is all that our legal constraints allow.”

What a strange position to take, that if only the Remainers would fall into line the UK could negotiate anything it pleases, but pressuring the EU to prenegotiate even a framework before Article 50 was an insurmountable lift. Everyone who knew something told May not to invoke Article 50 from scratch.

That is an absurd parody of the text you quote - that bears no relation to anything i said.
Remember, when you whining about how bad I am - i supported May's bill on the second and third reading, and i'd do so again.

[Furunculus]

...

[Montmorency]

This is whining.
That does not in any meaningful way address that which i said.
Don't be that guy.

It did so fully. Let's try a parallelism:

Corbyn becomes PM in general election, with a narrow Sinn Fein-backed majority. He pronounces this a mandate to socialize the economy. After a few years he produces a convoluted plan to transfer 51% of all privately-held real estate, stock, and other capital into municipal or public ownership. He says this is the only legislative option, or else he will order the seizure and redistribution of 100% of privately-held capital.

Socializing 51% of all private capital is not a compromise position. Questioning the legitimacy and wisdom of the government's conduct is not extremism on par with the total liquidation of private capital.

"We will not find a new withdrawal agreement within 30 days that will be very different from the existing one"
I don't know if we've all forgotten that Q1 this year was spent bashing our heads against the immutability of Barnier's WA:
"But if the choice is still to leave the EU in an orderly manner, this treaty is the only option. This is all that our legal constraints allow.”

So - their position has not changed. ???

Any new proposals to deal with the issue of the Northern Ireland border should fit into the existing framework withdrawal agreement already negotiated, Macron said.

That is an absurd parody of the text you quote - that bears no relation to anything i said.

You emphasized that the EU had expressed a desire to negotiate after the invocation of Article 50.

I questioned that it's reasonable to hold this up as a firm boundary while simulteneously discounting (by now) years-old red lines on the Irish border.

Remember, when you whining about how bad I am - i supported May's bill on the second and third reading, and i'd do so again.

You may not be as "bad" as a No Dealer, but you're not much less disingenuous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the quality of the posts in this forum don't start improving soon I'm going to lobby to be made moderator.

[Furunculus]

Corbyn becomes PM in general election, with a narrow Sinn Fein-backed majority. He pronounces this a mandate to socialize the economy. After a few years he produces a convoluted plan to transfer 51% of all privately-held real estate, stock, and other capital into municipal or public ownership. He says this is the only legislative option, or else he will order the seizure and redistribution of 100% of privately-held capital.
Socializing 51% of all private capital is not a compromise position. Questioning the legitimacy and wisdom of the government's conduct is not extremism on par with the total liquidation of private capital.

So - their position has not changed. ???

You emphasized that the EU had expressed a desire to negotiate after the invocation of Article 50.
I questioned that it's reasonable to hold this up as a firm boundary while simulteneously discounting (by now) years-old red lines on the Irish border.

had this plan to socialise the economy been won on the back of:
a) an election where 85% of MPs stood on a manifesto to implement the plan
b) a referendum asking people if they might want this done
c) an election where a manifesto choice is offered to ask this question
d) a decade plus of debate where 40-50% consistently want to implement the plan, and 50-60% consistently want to be asked in a referendum

Position has changed from "WA is immutable" to "WA can be changed". May tried twice to effect change to WA after MV1 was voted down, rebuffed each time.
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/stat...01891824373760

both sides had red lines that form the basis of their negotiating position. can we start talking around them or not?
negotiating parties never have it within their gift to ensure a negotiated outcome... outside of capitulation.
this is why it is accepted that one must always have the option to walk away from a negotiated solution.

[Beskar]

If the quality of the posts in this forum don't start improving soon I'm going to lobby to be made moderator.

Then you have a green name, pointy hat and still unable to do anything about it.

[Montmorency]

had this plan to socialise the economy been won on the back of:
a) an election where 85% of MPs stood on a manifesto to implement the plan
b) a referendum asking people if they might want this done
c) an election where a manifesto choice is offered to ask this question
d) a decade plus of debate where 40-50% consistently want to implement the plan, and 50-60% consistently want to be asked in a referendum

Right, so here is an example of what leads me to call you disingenuous.

Your conditions a-d apply bear no resemblance to the connection between historic anti-EU sentiment + the Brexit campaign and the actual process since 2016 culminating in a dichotomy between May's Deal and No Deal. No one before 2016 predicted or wanted the events of 2016-2019, much less staked out their politics on the basis of such.

Position has changed from "WA is immutable" to "WA can be changed".

I'm sure I could find statements about the possibility of something "in principle" at any point in the last 3 years. So in practice, no movement. Johnson's European trips and the responses of Macron and EU negotiators have made as much clear.

both sides had red lines that form the basis of their negotiating position. can we start talking around them or not?
negotiating parties never have it within their gift to ensure a negotiated outcome... outside of capitulation.
this is why it is accepted that one must always have the option to walk away from a negotiated solution.

I also have to reject your understanding of the political economy of negotiations. Having reflected on normal human sociality, it seems to me that - especially in the context of the progress of Brexit negotiations - an attempt by one negotiating party to double-down on bluff and bluster in a bad-faith adversarial turn would only incentivize the other party AGAINST making concessions. You allude to the improbability that one party can bring another to capitulation here, so what is a paper power play supposed to accomplish other than aggravate everyone's pain?

[InsaneApache]

I see that the Squeeker 'poison dwarf' Bercow has thrown in the towel. Good riddance to a disgusting man.

[Pannonian]

I see that the Squeeker 'poison dwarf' Bercow has thrown in the towel. Good riddance to a disgusting man.

And yet you profess admiration for the likes of Nigel Farage. Were you always a supporter of the far right? Were you a BNP supporter back in the day? Since that's the audience he aims for.

[Pannonian]

Has anyone looked at the list of medications that are already affected or may be affected by Brexit? I saw four of my parents' prescriptions in the list. The blood pressure medication is in the list of already affected, don't know if the other ones are also in that list.

[Furunculus]

Your conditions a-d apply bear no resemblance to the connection between historic anti-EU sentiment + the Brexit campaign and the actual process since 2016 culminating in a dichotomy between May's Deal and No Deal. No one before 2016 predicted or wanted the events of 2016-2019, much less staked out their politics on the basis of such.

I'm not sure why what you say means I am lieing when I point out that present a weak parallel between the history of brexit and the history a corbyn who declares a mandate to socialise the country after a narrow win achieved on the back of a coalition.
I also don't see why the "unwanted the events of 2016-2019" have any bearing on the matter. The vote was to leave or to remain, not leave only if the jilted party gives us a sweatheart deal.

I'm sure I could find statements about the possibility of something "in principle" at any point in the last 3 years. So in practice, no movement. Johnson's European trips and the responses of Macron and EU negotiators have made as much clear.

I did provide you a direct quote of macron's words from a fortnight ago, confirmed by a tweet from a noted journalist.
What more do we want in the midst of a fraught negotiation?

I also have to reject your understanding of the political economy of negotiations. Having reflected on normal human sociality, it seems to me that - especially in the context of the progress of Brexit negotiations - an attempt by one negotiating party to double-down on bluff and bluster in a bad-faith adversarial turn would only incentivize the other party AGAINST making concessions. You allude to the improbability that one party can bring another to capitulation here, so what is a paper power play supposed to accomplish other than aggravate everyone's pain?

Everyones understanding of negotiation are that you are in it to maximise your advantage, that the only real leverage anyone really has is to walk away.
Understanding the above, the weaker party being the UK has to be careful not to lose sight of this fact, and its one real card here is that its greater political cohesiveness will make it more tolerant of the greater immediate pain of walking away.
There is no way the EU does not play to maximise its leverage, because it wants control of the financial services industry through which 75% of EU FDI is sourced and 75% of its risk-hedging derivatives are managed, especially when it's coping with negatives interest rates and 7.5% eurozone unemployment at the peak of the cycle, and its sat on £750b in NPL's.
The city of london is a risk it would like to control, very much, hence the enthusiasm for keeping the UK within the EEA.

But just because the EU wants to achieve this thing does not mean we have to agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Seriously - can we get some moderation in here?

About 50% of the replies on this page are attacks against posters, not their arguments, and we've progressed from accusing each other of dishonesty to accusing each other of being Neo-Nazis.

[edyzmedieval]

We are here and watching, no worries about that Philippus.

I will give you that the whole Brexit charade is making people very inflamed, sometimes rightly so, because the entire process has been absolutely farcical and tempers do flare up easily in this case.

[Montmorency]

I'm not sure why what you say means I am lieing when I point out that present a weak parallel between the history of brexit and the history a corbyn who declares a mandate to socialise the country after a narrow win achieved on the back of a coalition.
I also don't see why the "unwanted the events of 2016-2019" have any bearing on the matter. The vote was to leave or to remain, not leave only if the jilted party gives us a sweatheart deal

Of course the expectations of the deliberaters matter in a deliberative process. Nowhere in my scenario did I provide that Corbyn threatened the elimination of private property before his narrow election.

Here I tried to be accommodating of your sensibilities and impute to Corbyn a generic intent to "socialize" the economy. If your premise is genuinely that even the vaguest electoral program permits anything in that direction, so that even a purely-conservative status quo counts as extremism and anything between that and the most radical conceivable actions counts as a compromise, then your treatment of the comparison between my Corbyn scenario and Brexit unfolding would not be disingenuous.

I just don't believe you really believe that, because it sounds like the sneering expedient of a basher or mafioso in any other context. If a man comes to your place of business and tells you he will break your legs if you don't pay him protection money, it may be said in a trivial sense that the victim shares causal responsibility with the enforcer in their legs getting broken. If they had just paid they would have come to no harm! But everyone other than the criminal naturally recognizes that only the attacker bears any culpability for cause and effect. Hobson's choices like that between keeping the money and keeping the legs are inherently not choices between extremes because only one "choice" is in fact the extreme.

I did provide you a direct quote of macron's words from a fortnight ago, confirmed by a tweet from a noted journalist.
What more do we want in the midst of a fraught negotiation?

So did I, and he seemed to be saying the same things he and negotiators have been saying the whole year.

Understanding the above, the weaker party being the UK has to be careful not to lose sight of this fact, and its one real card here is that its greater political cohesiveness will make it more tolerant of the greater immediate pain of walking away.

It's looking to be exactly the opposite, as British play at hardball toughens EU resolve while further dividing the UK against itself. Ultimately if the UK walks away it may just turn out to be the best political outcome the EU could hope for - all harms trace to one actor's decision. We could call it almost the contrapositive of PVC's notion that a benefit of Brexit is the UK no longer having the EU as a scapegoat (though in truth geographic, political, and economic proximity can always allow for scapegoating). By now I expect that's just what the EU is aiming at, allowing the UK to hang itself with its own rope.

The city of london is a risk it would like to control, very much, hence the enthusiasm for keeping the UK within the EEA.

The UK financial industry grew up during integration, so in your narrative Brexit should suit the EU counterparts.

because it wants control of the financial services industry through which 75% of EU FDI is sourced

I don't understand what you mean when you say that foreign investment is sourced through the European financial services industry. The closest thing I can find is that financial services is one of the sectors in the EU with the highest share of foreign ownership of total assets.

Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Sir, we shall perdure for the duration of the emergency.

About 50% of the replies on this page are attacks against posters, not their arguments

There can be both.

we've progressed from accusing each other of dishonesty to accusing each other of being Neo-Nazis.

When was that?


EDIT: Just some things, for no particular reason, that struck me about Singapore are that state-owned enterprises generate more than a quarter of GDP (as of 2014) and more than 80% of the population live in social housing (which blows Vienna out of the water, where hardly even 2/3 live in social housing).

[Pannonian]

Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Seriously - can we get some moderation in here?

About 50% of the replies on this page are attacks against posters, not their arguments, and we've progressed from accusing each other of dishonesty to accusing each other of being Neo-Nazis.

How would you describe Nigel Farage? How would you describe admirers of Nigel Farage?

BTW, have you looked at the list of affected medications? My parents were on my mind when I voted. I saw a vote to leave as an expression of ingratitude to the carers who helped look after them. One did indeed leave after feeling unwelcome from the vote
It turns out it was worse than that, that they would be lacking medications as a result as well. And you rage that I don't like admirers of Farage.

Do you disagree with my description of Farage as far right, do you disagree with my statement that IA supports him, or do you think that even if such things are true, I shouldn't mention them? What do you think of his reference to Remoaners and how he'll enjoy their squealing come no deal? Was that ok, but what I said was not?

[rory_20_uk]

How would you describe Nigel Farage? How would you describe admirers of Nigel Farage?

BTW, have you looked at the list of affected medications? My parents were on my mind when I voted. I saw a vote to leave as an expression of ingratitude to the carers who helped look after them. One did indeed leave after feeling unwelcome from the vote
It turns out it was worse than that, that they would be lacking medications as a result as well. And you rage that I don't like admirers of Farage.

Do you disagree with my description of Farage as far right, do you disagree with my statement that IA supports him, or do you think that even if such things are true, I shouldn't mention them? What do you think of his reference to Remoaners and how he'll enjoy their squealing come no deal? Was that ok, but what I said was not?

The geriatric version of "please think of the children!!!"

FYI - you can purchase medications abroad and get it sent to you for personal use. From anywhere in the world. The pills generally have a shelf life of 3 years or so - so you can add them to your bomb shelter.

[Beskar]

Thread is tired - needs to be taken out and shot.

Seriously - can we get some moderation in here?

We can do a referendum on it. If the majority of those who reply here "Thanks" my post. I will lock the thread.

As an advocate for the Lockiteers, would you be willing to negotiation an opening of a new thread if there are any major changes in the ongoing saga of status quo? A Soft-Lockit option as it were.

Otherwise the Thread Remoaners can continue to have their say.

[InsaneApache]

And yet you profess admiration for the likes of Nigel Farage. Were you always a supporter of the far right? Were you a BNP supporter back in the day? Since that's the audience he aims for.

Usual shite from a lefty. Shout fascist at folks they don't agree with. Grow up.

[Pannonian]

Usual shite from a lefty. Shout fascist at folks they don't agree with. Grow up.

See, IA has high regard for Nigel Farage. Now is Farage far right?

[Pannonian]

Promised by Leave:



Delivered by Leave:

The geriatric version of "please think of the children!!!"

FYI - you can purchase medications abroad and get it sent to you for personal use. From anywhere in the world. The pills generally have a shelf life of 3 years or so - so you can add them to your bomb shelter.

Am I allowed to point out the discrepancy between promises and reality, or is this deemed a personal attack?

[InsaneApache]

You have a weird idea of far right. Then I s'pose anyone to the right of Mao is far right.

BTW fascist are of the left.

[rory_20_uk]

Promised by Leave:



Delivered by Leave:



Am I allowed to point out the discrepancy between promises and reality, or is this deemed a personal attack?

It is redundantly pointing out politicians are liars. You've don it several times and I am not sure what point you're making... If there are shortages whilst we remain in the EU this too is Brexit just before its happened?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We can do a referendum on it. If the majority of those who reply here "Thanks" my post. I will lock the thread.

As an advocate for the Lockiteers, would you be willing to negotiation an opening of a new thread if there are any major changes in the ongoing saga of status quo? A Soft-Lockit option as it were.

Otherwise the Thread Remoaners can continue to have their say.

Whilst I appreciate the attempt at humour the point is that this thread has strayed wildly off topic. As defined by the OP this thread is about the EXIT NEGOTIATIONS but most of the posts for the last few pages have been about Parliament and/or attacking the credibility of the Leave/Remain position.