The Brexit aftermath thread

[Fuiking]

They expect the EU to pay, of course. What did you think? It's the UK, nothing but complete submission to the British Empire would satisfy the likes of Dribs.

Dribs is just massively deluded to the fact the great and grand British Empire is no longer. Abit like how Hollanders think they still rule a colonial empire.

[Mayhem]

The government were quite clear that leaving the EU would mean leaving the SM and CU. You'd be right to say that this was dismissed by many as project fear but the information, that leaving meant leaving all of EU, both prior to and after the referendum was out there for all to see.

Here is Call me Dave explaining just that;

-snip-

That's the same Dave that said this, right?

“If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

Uhm where was the outrage by the people that article 50 wasn't triggered right away? I mean, it's what they expected from the referendum.

[Slant]

Dribs is just massively deluded to the fact the great and grand British Empire is no longer. Abit like how Hollanders think they still rule a colonial empire.

I've heard many things about and from the dutch, but that they're colonial is very, very low on that list.

[Deleted]

That's the same Dave that said this, right?

“If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

Uhm where was the outrage by the people that article 50 wasn't triggered right away? I mean, it's what they expected from the referendum.

We were kinda dealing with Dave doing a runner at that point.

Only the most retarded ever thought we'd trigger Article 50 the day of the results.

[Slant]

We were kinda dealing with Dave doing a runner at that point.

Only the most retarded ever thought we'd trigger Article 50 the day of the results.

If you read the article, it is implied that you prepare for Brexit before you trigger it. The intent was never to trigger it and then scramble, because you realised afterwards that you not only have no negotiation plan, you don't even know if you really want to trigger Art. 50.

So, to trigger it on the day of the result, yeah that would have been madness under the best of circumstances. But once you do trigger it, please be prepared. Alas, that problem is already water under the bridge... let's just hope the EU manages to somehow finish this in a somewhat civilised manner, despite the UK's best efforts to kick this thing into utter chaos.

[Mayhem]

We were kinda dealing with Dave doing a runner at that point.

Only the most retarded ever thought we'd trigger Article 50 the day of the results.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

[dribbles]

No payment means the UK won't get to buy their own debt for a minor sum (the so called "brexit bill"), they will have to pay the normal way which will certainly cost them more.

- - - Updated - - -



How about you post a picture of what is left of the UK's routes if both the EU and Ireland blockade them? ^^

- - - Updated - - -



No, the EU offered the UK to sell them their (the UKs') debt for a minor sum so that they (the EU) could be rid of the annoyance that is dealing with the UK.
If the UK does not want to take that deal then the debt will still be there and will have to be paid--by the UK.

Look eurochums, I know you must have woken up this morning feeling a little poorer but your leaders have misled you. The £39bn offered by the UK is not for past EU services rendered but for those in the future ongoing. It is not a debt as such, in fact none exists without a deal after March next year. If there is no debt that the UK acknowledges under what terms shall it be paid? What deal without a deal has been broken?

So if you want a small regular weekly stipend from the UK in April 2019, all you have to do is behave and be good little boys and girls to us, however spite the hand that feeds and you get nothing and payments stop with immediate effect. I hope your EU leaders understand this a little better than you seem to do here.

Would it help to see it once again. from a different source, in black and white to help you come to terms with it?

"Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has become the latest member of Theresa May's government to threaten to withhold the £39 billion ($51 billion) divorce bill from the EU unless the UK gets its way in negotiations. You can’t have one side fulfilling its side of the bargain and the other side not, or going slow, or failing to commit on its side. So I think we do need to make sure that there’s some conditionality between the two."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/domini...de-deal-2018-7

This very generous time limited offer by the UK won't last forever and is kind of a take it or leave it deal, will the EU see sense or choose to crash off the financial cliff with nothing and a no deal next year?

You mention once again the border/proposed blockade by the Irish member of the EU27 and the pretty little map as a result I posted, well the EU can't have have their cake and eat it. Do they want us to impose borders and a blockade or not?

It is not just the skies the EU should be concerned with, 90% of EU goods from and to Eire use British roads to trade through. If the EU denies use of EU skies and the UK reciprocates the EU can't have the cake and free, if any, use of UK roads.

So deal or no deal, blockade or not, the choice for a very short time is yours. Tick tock.

[dribbles]

I thought you were drooling over a no deal Dribbles. And here you are, yet again, begging that we give you one. Sad.

As I said we are offering a conditional £1 a week to the EU for the next 39 billion weeks and you call that begging? CTD123 I believe is so upset he has offered to pay it on our behalf :P

[Pann]

That's the same Dave that said this, right?

“If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

Uhm where was the outrage by the people that article 50 wasn't triggered right away? I mean, it's what they expected from the referendum.

I am going to have to say yes in answer to your rhetorical and not so subtle leading question.

I suspect I know where you're going with the second but just how do you think this is in anyway related to the point I made? And couldn't you just use Google (other search engines are available) for this kind of thing? It would be a lot quicker.

[Mayhem]

I am going to have to say yes in answer to your rhetorical and not so subtle leading question.

I suspect I know where you're going with the second but just how do you think this is in anyway related to the point I made?

Whatever was said prior to the referendum, was not set in stone in any way shape or form, so don't argue it was.

[Pann]

Whatever was said prior to the referendum, was not set in stone in any way shape or form, so don't argue it was.

Oh dear. But okay, let's go with this one. Just how do Cameron's comments tie in with the leaving the EU?

[Gibblewink]

In all likelihood the various threats to withhold the "divorce settlement" are just going through the motions in order to appease the voters who believe Farage and his ilk. See how much flak they've caught in the recent days over not playing hard-ball with the EU. "See now we've been tough so please go yell at someone else like maybe Corbyn".

[Mayhem]

Oh dear. But okay, let's go with this one. Just how do Cameron's comments tie in with the leaving the EU?

What? I don't know what you're asking here.

[Pann]

In all likelihood the various threats to withhold the "divorce settlement" are just going through the motions in order to appease the voters who believe Farage and his ilk. See how much flak they've caught in the recent days over not playing hard-ball with the EU. "See now we've been tough so please go yell at someone else like maybe Corbyn".

This is my take on it as well.

[Pann]

What? I don't know what you're asking here.

Why not? It is a simple question. You've brought up Cameron's comments about triggering A50 and drawn some sort of connection what leaving the EU entails. I want to know how you think his comments are related.

[Mayhem]

Why not? It is a simple question. You've brought up Cameron's comments about triggering A50 and drawn some sort of connection what leaving the EU entails. I want to know how you think his comments are related.

That wasn't the point. You've brought up Cameron to highlight that people knew what they were voting for and that they wouldn't be pleased with getting something different than was promised, but they already got something different than was promised by the very same guy.

[Pann]

That wasn't the point. You've brought up Cameron to highlight that people knew what they were voting for and that they wouldn't be pleased with getting something different than was promised, but they already got something different than was promised by the very same guy.

I'm not sure you've thought this one through. Ignoring the factual inaccuracies of your argument do you really believe that breaking one promise is a reason to break another?

Cameron as well many other politicians (Gove, Johnson, Osbourne, Clegg, Leadsom, etc) explained that leaving the EU would mean leaving the SM and CU, the leaflet that the government sent to every home prior to the referendum explained that we could not have access to the SM and CU without following the EU's rules.

If someone did not know that voting to leave entailed leaving the SM and CU (although strangely it always seems to be remain supports that have the biggest issue with the apparent misleading nature of the SM/CU and leaving the EU) it is not evidence that the issue was not explained to them but evidence that they were not paying attention.

The issue appears to be that certain people are unhappy that a number of politicians told them the truth but they chose not to believe them.

[Pann]

Wait what? Did you forget a negative there?

I did indeed. Corrected now, thanks.

[dribbles]

Hehe, because you know, otherwise it would have been hilarious
Nice that they did send leaflets.

Imagine if Vote Leave had £10 million of public funds to use for their side. No one would have voted to remain.

[Pann]

Hehe, because you know, otherwise it would have been hilarious
Nice that they did send leaflets.

To be honest I think in many cases the leaflets did more harm than good. Whilst they did spell out many of the facts of leaving the EU they were pro-remain and as result many people saw this as the government abusing its power. Which is borne out in a report by The Independent Commission on Referendums (not sure why we need one of these as I don't think after this one anyone in the UK will be a hurry to hold another ) that finds that the remain campaign gained an unfair advantage from these leaflets.