The Positive Brexit Thread

[SwindonCanary 455]

7 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Except that the USA don’t want products to have labels with the country of origin on them as it is a ‘barrier to trade”. You can bet that they know that a lot of people don’t want chlorinated chicken so don’t you think they will do all they can to try and hide what it is they’re selling to us?

Then it would not be allowed over here, it must be clearly marked or not at all.

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

13 minutes ago, Herman said:

The "oven ready deal" that "got brexit done" was not at all ready and turns out to be "unfair". Good at three word slogans, terrible at anything else. Here's a three word slogan "Useless Fat ****".

 

What! You mean the deal the Brextwits told us olny a genuis like Boris Johnson could negotiate?

Well for the life of me I can't understand how it managed to go so wrong. 🙂

[SwindonCanary 455]

David Frost backed by Boris is playing it very well, in these negotiations. Stop panicking, it will all turn out well in the end. 

[kick it off 1,952]

29 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Then it would not be allowed over here, it must be clearly marked or not at all.

That's literally the point that's being made to you. Part of the trade deal with the USA will get rid of that labelling protection so chlorinated chicken won't be marked, country of origin won't be marked etc. If we refuse, then the USA will sail off into the sunset and you can kiss goodbye to that trade deal.... Unfortunately, when you have shredded all your trade deals and have no bargaining power, powerful countries can demand whatever they like as a condition of a trade deal and you have to accept it or walk away.

That's why India, Australia etc demanded increased migration access as a pre-condition to any trade deal.... are you starting to get it yet? You and your ilk have caused this.

Of course, the labelling protection is one of the nasty EU's initiatives anyway so we don't want any of that nonsense do we?

After all, you knew exactly what you wanted, what you were voting for and you voted for it.

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by kick it off

[SwindonCanary 455]

6 minutes ago, kick it off said:

That's literally the point that's being made to you. Part of the trade deal with the USA will get rid of that labelling protection so chlorinated chicken won't be marked, country of origin won't be marked etc. 

Of course, the labelling protection is one of the nasty EU's initiatives anyway so we don't want any of that nonsense do we? After all, you knew exactly what you wanted, what you were voting for and you voted for it.

 

We are in talks with the USA about a new trade deal, it's easy to insist that it needs to be marked clearly, as part of that deal.   Whitehall sources have said that a UK/US trade deal is now moving ahead quickly, putting more pressure on the EU.

Edited June 7, 2020 by SwindonCanary

[kick it off 1,952]

Just now, SwindonCanary said:

We are in talks with the USA about a new trade deal, it's easy to insist that it needs to be marked clearly, as part of that deal.

It would be easy to "insist" if we had any power in the deal. Except much like the EU, the USA hold all of the cards. We need a deal with the USA, we need a deal with the EU. They don't "NEED" a deal with us. Sure, it'd be nice but if it's not on their terms then they won't bother. So whatever we "insist" is largely irrelevant because they have us over a barrel.

How did "insisting" we don't put a border in the Irish Sea turn out? How did "insisting" we have no freedom of movement but stay in the single market turn out?

[SwindonCanary 455]

2 minutes ago, kick it off said:

It would be easy to "insist" if we had any power in the deal. Except much like the EU, the USA hold all of the cards. We need a deal with the USA, we need a deal with the EU. They don't "NEED" a deal with us. Sure, it'd be nice but if it's not on their terms then they won't bother. So whatever we "insist" is largely irrelevant because they have us over a barrel.

How did "insisting" we don't put a border in the Irish Sea turn out? How did "insisting" we have no freedom of movement but stay in the single market turn out?

Trade deal negotiations are about concessions on both sides, It would be one we insist on. It does not matter who holds the all 'the cards'

[Bill 1,788]

21 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

because it will not go to WTO Rules !  Don't refute it, coz' you are no good at predicting ! 

you really haven't the slightest idea about this at all have you ?

that is not intended as an insult - it is the bare facts of it

once the transition period is up, the UK is no longer trading through the 60 odd EU trading deals, and is then on it's own ie WTO

that is no more a prediction than if City are relegated we are no longer in the PL, but are in the Championship

you have been posting lies and nonsense for four years - and yet still have not grasped this truth

 

so tell us all, once outside the EU will the UK be trading under WTO rules

yes or no ?

Edited June 7, 2020 by Bill

[kick it off 1,952]

1 minute ago, SwindonCanary said:

Trade deal negotiations are about concessions on both sides, It would be one we insist on. It does not matter who holds the all 'the cards'

You're beyond redemption. Literally still, somehow unable to grasp this. It's not going to be one we insist on, it's one we have already conceded and that has been widely reported in the media.

Of course it matters who holds all the cards, negotiations are never equal outcomes, the side with the power will get the better deal making the least concessions and the side without the power will get a worse deal and have to make the vast majority of the concessions. As we have shredded our global trade deals (like you wanted), we are now in a situation where we HAVE to make trade deals and do them fast, or the economy will tank. The USA don't need to make a trade deal with us to save their economy, and they could certainly take as long as they wanted to do it. If it is to be done fast, it literally means we will will concede to almost every term the USA wants to put into the deal. We might water a few of them down, but there is no other way to do a deal like this fast.

If you can't understand this primary level, basic, business economics then you're frankly delusional.

[sonyc 5,518]

Read Rawnsley in the online Guardian today. It isn't looking good. The government will be split over this in the coming weeks, especially as economic figures start to be posted. 

[Herman 9,765]

42 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

What! You mean the deal the Brextwits told us olny a genuis like Boris Johnson could negotiate?

Well for the life of me I can't understand how it managed to go so wrong. 🙂

I feel dirty but I read the article and they are trying, and will probably succeed, to pin it on Theresa May.

"Boris vows to fix May's 'defective' WA"

"A source close to the UK chief negotiator David Frost has said that the deal signed in January has “unfair defects” which Mr Johnson’s government did not have time to remedy but which Britain has now brought back to the table."

For example. Sigh.🤨

[SwindonCanary 455]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

you really haven't the slightest idea about this at all have you ?

that is not intended as an insult - it is the bare facts of it

once the transition period is up, the UK is no longer trading through the 60 odd EU trading deals, and is then on it's own ie WTO

that is no more a prediction than if City are relegated we are no longer in the PL, but are in the Championship

you have been posting lies and nonsense for four years - and yet still have not grasped this truth

 

so tell us all, once outside the EU will the UK be trading under WTO rules

yes or no ?

Another wrong prediction !

[sonyc 5,518]

2 minutes ago, kick it off said:

You're beyond redemption. Literally still, somehow unable to grasp this. It's not going to be one we insist on, it's one we have already conceded and that has been widely reported in the media.

Of course it matters who holds all the cards, negotiations are never equal outcomes, the side with the power will get the better deal making the least concessions and the side without the power will get a worse deal and have to make the vast majority of the concessions. As we have shredded our global trade deals (like you wanted), we are now in a situation where we HAVE to make trade deals and do them fast, or the economy will tank. The USA don't need to make a trade deal with us to save their economy, and they could certainly take as long as they wanted to do it. If it is to be done fast, it literally means we will will concede to almost every term the USA wants to put into the deal. We might water a few of them down, but there is no other way to do a deal like this fast.

If you can't understand this primary level, basic, business economics then you're frankly delusional.

Food shortages are one potential outcome. Let's hope there is no new wave of the virus post January 2021. EU food supply chains won't support us then after the end of year transition period ends.

[SwindonCanary 455]

5 minutes ago, kick it off said:

You're beyond redemption. Literally still, somehow unable to grasp this. It's not going to be one we insist on, it's one we have already conceded and that has been widely reported in the media.

Of course it matters who holds all the cards, negotiations are never equal outcomes, the side with the power will get the better deal making the least concessions and the side without the power will get a worse deal and have to make the vast majority of the concessions. As we have shredded our global trade deals (like you wanted), we are now in a situation where we HAVE to make trade deals and do them fast, or the economy will tank. The USA don't need to make a trade deal with us to save their economy, and they could certainly take as long as they wanted to do it. If it is to be done fast, it literally means we will will concede to almost every term the USA wants to put into the deal. We might water a few of them down, but there is no other way to do a deal like this fast.

If you can't understand this primary level, basic, business economics then you're frankly delusional.

Boris is not daft, he would never allow it !

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Read Rawnsley in the online Guardian today. It isn't looking good. The government will be split over this in the coming weeks, especially as economic figures start to be posted. 

It will simply re-open the old divisions.

Only this time as with Cummings the pressure will be coming via the postbag and emails from very angry constituents. Who have found out (rather late in the day) that what Remainers knew was intended, is now out in the open.

It is no coincidence that many of the leading lights of brexit are paid consultants of US food producers. And they are not being paid to  tutor our US cousins how to drink tea either.

While there will be plenty thick as Swindon to not grasp the meaning of importing unsafe food that is not labelled - there are plenty in 'middle England who will be well away of the hidden dangers this poses to them - and the not so hidden danger it will cause UK food production.

Expect this to be one of the battles this autumn, if not before.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

22 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Trade deal negotiations are about concessions on both sides, It would be one we insist on. It does not matter who holds the all 'the cards'

😂🤣😂🤣 I don't imagine you've had much success at playing poker, or any other card game for that matter 😂🤣😂🤣

You might not understand what 'holds all the cards mean' or its significance in trade negotiations but the EU and the US have some of the best and most experienced trade negotiators in the world and they know exactly what it means and how to make best use of it for the benefit of their own country(s) - that is what they're paid to do after all.

By contrast the UK has extremely limited current experience of trade negotiations, and we have a team lead by total incompetents - we will roll over again and take whatever is offered (or nothing at all), exactly as Theresa May did over her withdrawal agreement and then Johnson did after unbelievably and stupidly managing to make TM's bad deal even worse.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Creative Midfielder

[Bill 1,788]

10 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Another wrong prediction !

another lie by you

So why not prove me wrong and explain what the UK will be trading under if it leaves the EU -

the highway code ?

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Bill

[Herman 9,765]

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Food shortages are one potential outcome. Let's hope there is no new wave of the virus post January 2021. EU food supply chains won't support us then after the end of year transition period ends.

Due to years of different government policies we produce little of the essentials we need. As we found out earlier this year, essential items quickly run out and lead to stockpiling and panic buying. Simple things like toilet roll will cause all sorts of problems.

This from last year.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-toilet-paper-shortage

[Herman 9,765]

9 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Boris is not daft, he would never allow it !

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[sonyc 5,518]

11 minutes ago, Herman said:

Due to years of different government policies we produce little of the essentials we need. As we found out earlier this year, essential items quickly run out and lead to stockpiling and panic buying. Simple things like toilet roll will cause all sorts of problems.

This from last year.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-toilet-paper-shortage

That article has kind of ruined my extended breakfast!

[Bill 1,788]

33 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Trade deal negotiations are about concessions on both sides, It would be one we insist on. It does not matter who holds the all 'the cards'

But did you not once tell us that

"they need us more than we need them''

which would suggest that if such an imbalance (we hold all the cards) existed,

then one side (us)would get the better of any deal

given that once completely out of the EU we will have no trade deals with our major trading partners which side will we be ?

 

"they need us more than we need them''

 

[kick it off 1,952]

15 minutes ago, Herman said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣

He has to be trolling. Nobody is actually that thick. My 3 year old could grasp this better than Swindo. Maybe he should ask his instagram model girlfriend to try and help him.

[SwindonCanary 455]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

But did you not once tell us that

"they need us more than we need them''

which would suggest that if such an imbalance (we hold all the cards) existed,

then one side (us)would get the better of any deal

given that once completely out of the EU we will have no trade deals with our major trading partners which side will we be ?

 

"they need us more than we need them''

 

Do try to follow this thread,  I was writing in reply to the USA deal. 

[SwindonCanary 455]

4 minutes ago, kick it off said:

He has to be trolling. Nobody is actually that thick. My 3 year old could grasp this better than Swindo. Maybe he should ask his girlfriend to try and help him.

Blimey ! You've got off spring ! 

Edited June 7, 2020 by SwindonCanary

[kick it off 1,952]

Just now, SwindonCanary said:

Blimey ! You've got off spring ! 

Yeah, some of us choose to have real relationships with people rather than Instagram fantasies.

[kick it off 1,952]

2 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Do try to follow this thread,  I was writing in reply to the USA deal. 

Do try to follow the logic, the same principles apply in both deals and that post is actually referring to both deals.

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, SwindonCanary said:

Do try to follow this thread,  I was writing in reply to the USA deal. 

oh dear, he really is that thick

it is rather like seeing an elephant for the first time and thinking it must be 'deformed' or something - they cannot all have ears like that

just as reading Swindo's post and thinking all his posts could not have been that stupid

guess what

 

ps my previous post was about the UK seeking trade deals with ALL countries as it will not have any with it;s major trading partners when it leaves the EU - hence WTO

[SwindonCanary 455]

1 minute ago, kick it off said:

Yeah, some of us choose to have real relationships with people rather than Instagram fantasies.

It will finally get through your thick head there is no Instagram fantasies

[SwindonCanary 455]

Just now, Bill said:

oh dear, he really is that thick

it is rather like seeing an elephant for the first time and thinking it must be 'deformed' or something - they cannot all have ears like that

just as reading Swindo's post and thinking all his posts could not have been that stupid

guess what

 

ps my previous post was about the UK seeking trade deals with ALL countries as it will not have any with it;s major trading partners when it leaves the EU - hence WTO

YOU MADE A MISTAKE !

[kick it off 1,952]

4 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

YOU MADE A MISTAKE !

No, he didn't, you just apparently lacked the literacy skills to comprehend his post. I understood it perfectly and tried to help you out. Most people reading it will understand it perfectly.