Brexit negotiations

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:Brown relaxed the fiscal regulations at the urging of the bankers who then proceeded to almost bankrupt the country with their greed. Taxpayers had to spend billions bailing them out and they weren't even punished. The bankers were culpable, Brown was naive to believe them.

As for Blair what impact has he had on any negotiations with the EU?

Are you unaware that Blair has been advising the EU negotiators that because of the in-fighting with the Tories and Labours' sitting on the fence, that they only had to sit tight and the UK effort would crash in confusion and chaos.
I've seen him tackled on this twice on TV, and each time he admitted it, but of course put a different slant on it.
Letting Brown off by just calling him naive is a bit farcical isn't it? He let them off with far too much, and didn't step in when he should have.

I am not letting Brown off just pointing out that the people who wrecked our economy with their greed were the bankers not Brown.

Do you really think the EU negotiators listen to Blair? Do you have any evidence to support this bizarre idea? With May leading the negotiations what did they have to worry about? She can't even get her own party to support her.

Did you not read the part where I mentioned this? It was on the television when Andrew McNeill and later Andrew Marr raised the subject. Only bizarre in your world XM, a reality in everybody elses. As ever, don't let facts get in your way, (as you often tell us Brexiters) 

Just because Blair claims he said something to EU negotiators doesn't mean they took any notice of him. I asked you to provide evidence that they listened to him. You still haven't provided any evidence that they did or that Blair had any effect whatsoever on the EU negotiations. You haven't even given any details of what was said or when.

Just stick to the facts glos.

Are you for real?  What I saw and heard was a fact. What they asked him was a fact. His inability to deny it was a fact.
How can anyone provide such evidence, but I find it odd that the EU have done exactly as it has been described by those two commentators, to the letter. I've no need to tell lies, and never have.
Lets let this go XM, You haven't got the ability to accept anything that goes against your blinkered view, and I can't be bothered with you seemingly going down the old TROY route of asking for evidence for everything, it's too wearing.

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:My point XM is that their electorate wanted a specific outcome, and they have interpreted that instruction in a way that does not reflect the original request. 

I don't believe for one second that those who voted for Leave "wanted a specific outcome" 

What a stupid comment. The specific outcome was to leave the EU. How can that be anything other than specific? 
We didn't vote for what deal we wanted, we voted to either stay in or come out. Seems pretty specific to me.

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:My point XM is that their electorate wanted a specific outcome, and they have interpreted that instruction in a way that does not reflect the original request. 

I don't believe for one second that those who voted for Leave "wanted a specific outcome" 

What a stupid comment. The specific outcome was to leave the EU. How can that be anything other than specific? 
We didn't vote for what deal we wanted, we voted to either stay in or come out. Seems pretty specific to me.

To leave on what terms?

The terms were never specified which is why the vote is not specific , it is completely vague. Which is why we are in the mess we are in now.

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:Brown relaxed the fiscal regulations at the urging of the bankers who then proceeded to almost bankrupt the country with their greed. Taxpayers had to spend billions bailing them out and they weren't even punished. The bankers were culpable, Brown was naive to believe them.

As for Blair what impact has he had on any negotiations with the EU?

Are you unaware that Blair has been advising the EU negotiators that because of the in-fighting with the Tories and Labours' sitting on the fence, that they only had to sit tight and the UK effort would crash in confusion and chaos.
I've seen him tackled on this twice on TV, and each time he admitted it, but of course put a different slant on it.
Letting Brown off by just calling him naive is a bit farcical isn't it? He let them off with far too much, and didn't step in when he should have.

I am not letting Brown off just pointing out that the people who wrecked our economy with their greed were the bankers not Brown.

Do you really think the EU negotiators listen to Blair? Do you have any evidence to support this bizarre idea? With May leading the negotiations what did they have to worry about? She can't even get her own party to support her.

Did you not read the part where I mentioned this? It was on the television when Andrew McNeill and later Andrew Marr raised the subject. Only bizarre in your world XM, a reality in everybody elses. As ever, don't let facts get in your way, (as you often tell us Brexiters) 

Just because Blair claims he said something to EU negotiators doesn't mean they took any notice of him. I asked you to provide evidence that they listened to him. You still haven't provided any evidence that they did or that Blair had any effect whatsoever on the EU negotiations. You haven't even given any details of what was said or when.

Just stick to the facts glos.

Are you for real?  What I saw and heard was a fact. What they asked him was a fact. His inability to deny it was a fact.
How can anyone provide such evidence, but I find it odd that the EU have done exactly as it has been described by those two commentators, to the letter. I've no need to tell lies, and never have.
Lets let this go XM, You haven't got the ability to accept anything that goes against your blinkered view, and I can't be bothered with you seemingly going down the old TROY route of asking for evidence for everything, it's too wearing.

Just asserting something doesn't make it a fact. There is no evidence that anything Blair said had any impact on the EU negotiations. Frankly does anybody listen to Blair these days?

Haven’t read this back and forth, but noticed my name come up. If you hold a strong opinion on anything and claim to have supporting evidence you should be prepared to present it. Completely unreasonable to get annoyed when asked to do so.

Thats it. I'm stepping back from this as I can feel myself getting more and more angry, and I've more important things to take up my time.  
Lets see what happens over the next couple of weeks or so, and then we can all bemoan what could and should have happened, and how we can move forward. It'll be far more productive than this sniping.

Not sure if i have been asleep but i thought since 2010 we have had a Tory/Liberal then Tory government? yet despite Brexit only appearing in 2016 it would seem that previous Labour leaders are culpable, why would Blair or Brown have any significance.

Here's the rub the Tory party have had a boil to lance over Europe for 40 years, it needed a prick, that prick came in the form of Cameron who played a blinder and passed this crock of shit onto May, who managed to make a bad situation even worse. This is a problem of the Tory party, started by them, and as they are the party in government the present situation is owned by them.

wessy wrote:Not sure if i have been asleep but i thought since 2010 we have had a Tory/Liberal then Tory government? yet despite Brexit only appearing in 2016 it would seem that previous Labour leaders are culpable, why would Blair or Brown have any significance.

Here's the rub the Tory party have had a boil to lance over Europe for 40 years, it needed a prick, that prick came in the form of Cameron who played a blinder and passed this crock of shit onto May, who managed to make a bad situation even worse. This is a problem of the Tory party, started by them, and as they are the party in government the present situation is owned by them.

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:My point XM is that their electorate wanted a specific outcome, and they have interpreted that instruction in a way that does not reflect the original request. 

I don't believe for one second that those who voted for Leave "wanted a specific outcome" 

What a stupid comment. The specific outcome was to leave the EU. How can that be anything other than specific? 
We didn't vote for what deal we wanted, we voted to either stay in or come out. Seems pretty specific to me.

Specific like blokes voting to have a dick that reaches the ground? Happy to vote for it, not so happy when they were booked in for the operation to have their legs amputated.

okocha wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:My point XM is that their electorate wanted a specific outcome, and they have interpreted that instruction in a way that does not reflect the original request. 

I don't believe for one second that those who voted for Leave "wanted a specific outcome" 

What a stupid comment. The specific outcome was to leave the EU. How can that be anything other than specific? 
We didn't vote for what deal we wanted, we voted to either stay in or come out. Seems pretty specific to me.

Specific like blokes voting to have a dick that reaches the ground? Happy to vote for it, not so happy when they were booked in for the operation to have their legs amputated.

I actually burst out laughing at this Wander. A good analogy.
(but you're still wrong) 

wanderlust wrote:Meanwhile the "leave the EU without a deal' petition has nearly reached half a million.
Make of that what you will.

So this pro-leave petition has floundered with less than 8% of those who voted to leave in the referendum reaffirming their desire to still leave.

Obviously government petitions only give a flavour of the feeling of the electorate for a variety of reasons including awareness, access to the internet and diffusion of responsibility. They certainly don't come anywhere near getting the level of participation of an election or referendum.
Which is why the "cancel article 50" petition is so surprising.
It's become the most popular petition to ever have been submitted on the UK Parliament's website - and historians say it is the biggest ever petition to parliament in history.

Ok it's only a petition, but I suspect it has influenced last night's vote. Even Heseltine has said that on the radio this morning that in the light of what's happened, a people's vote is the only way to sort it out.

Left wingers are always more likely to be drawn to this kind of thing. Marches, protests, strikes, petitions.

It really shows nothing apart from millions of people still want to remain.

wanderlust wrote:

Which is why the "cancel article 50" petition is so surprising.
It's become the most popular petition to ever have been submitted on the UK Parliament's website - and historians say it is the biggest ever petition to parliament in history.

Was the referendum not the biggest/most voted for ever?
There have been a lot of firsts in this process, no point picking on what seems to support your own way of thinking, we already know what you want 

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Which is why the "cancel article 50" petition is so surprising.
It's become the most popular petition to ever have been submitted on the UK Parliament's website - and historians say it is the biggest ever petition to parliament in history.

Was the referendum not the biggest/most voted for ever?

No.

It is the biggest petition ever. I was talking about the nature of petitions not elections or referenda which are a completely different process.

The highest electoral turnout was in 1950 when 89.3% of registered voters turned out and Attlee whupped Churchill.

This is the highest ever petition signing.

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Which is why the "cancel article 50" petition is so surprising.
It's become the most popular petition to ever have been submitted on the UK Parliament's website - and historians say it is the biggest ever petition to parliament in history.

Was the referendum not the biggest/most voted for ever?

No.

It is the biggest petition ever. I was talking about the nature of petitions not elections or referenda which are a completely different process.

The highest electoral turnout was in 1950 when 89.3% of registered voters turned out and Attlee whupped Churchill.

This is the highest ever petition signing.

The e-petition (which allowed vastly wider access for people to add their names to a petition than was previously possible), of which this is, as only been going for just over 12 years - so although it sounds good 'biggest ever' it has hardly got a lot to beat to get there.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Which is why the "cancel article 50" petition is so surprising.
It's become the most popular petition to ever have been submitted on the UK Parliament's website - and historians say it is the biggest ever petition to parliament in history.

Was the referendum not the biggest/most voted for ever?

No.

It is the biggest petition ever. I was talking about the nature of petitions not elections or referenda which are a completely different process.

The highest electoral turnout was in 1950 when 89.3% of registered voters turned out and Attlee whupped Churchill.

This is the highest ever petition signing.

The e-petition (which allowed vastly wider access for people to add their names to a petition than was previously possible), of which this is, as only been going for just over 12 years - so although it sounds good 'biggest ever' it has hardly got a lot to beat to get there.

How can you say that? It whupped "Nuts Funniest Poster".

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Which is why the "cancel article 50" petition is so surprising.
It's become the most popular petition to ever have been submitted on the UK Parliament's website - and historians say it is the biggest ever petition to parliament in history.

Was the referendum not the biggest/most voted for ever?

No.

It is the biggest petition ever. I was talking about the nature of petitions not elections or referenda which are a completely different process.

The highest electoral turnout was in 1950 when 89.3% of registered voters turned out and Attlee whupped Churchill.

This is the highest ever petition signing.

The e-petition (which allowed vastly wider access for people to add their names to a petition than was previously possible), of which this is, as only been going for just over 12 years - so although it sounds good 'biggest ever' it has hardly got a lot to beat to get there.

How can you say that? It whupped "Nuts Funniest Poster".

Haven't a clue what you are blabbering about - does anyone else?