Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

cogito

phillw wrote: »

Er no, the leavers thought that. Those who voted remain could see that Cameron had asked for as much as he could and the EU won't ever get into more unreasonable demands.

That's too silly for words and you're trying to rewrite history. Those who voted remain would have done so regardless of any deal.

phillw

cogito wrote: »

That's too silly for words and you're trying to rewrite history. Those who voted remain would have done so regardless of any deal.

You seem to misunderstand history and my post. Your brexit delusion is hilarious.

You said "the entire electorate". You were rewriting history. I was correcting you. I was and am a member of the electorate and I do not share your view of Cameron.

Please don't lump me in with your hate filled magical thinking.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand history and my post. Your brexit delusion is hilarious.

You said "the entire electorate". You were rewriting history. I was correcting you. I was and am a member of the electorate and I do not share your view of Cameron.

Please don't lump me in with your hate filled magical thinking.

OK, so you and a few others thought that Cameron got a great deal and that to ask for more would have been unreasonable. Funny that Macron is now looking for some of the things that the UK were asking for but didn't get and that it was the French who were one of the principal players blocking the UK.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

You don't seem to understand negotiation. People only move from their position if they are offered something better. We're demanding something better and offering something worse.

The word you've omitted is compromise. An essential part of negotiating.

an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

Without which it's akin to talking to a brick wall.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

In terms of infrastructure projects funded by the EU that were given to the countries, it was a gift. You can't ask for it back.

Likewise the UK is under no legal obligation to fund the EU on an ongoing basis. If we do so it will will be a "gift". Using the scenario you've outlined. Cherry picking is the term I'd use.

cogito

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Likewise the UK is under no legal obligation to fund the EU on an ongoing basis. If we do so it will will be a "gift". Using the scenario you've outlined. Cherry picking is the term I'd use.

I have wondered why, when only 8% of UK businesses have trade with the EU, the other 92% should effectively subsidise them. Maybe the businesses that trade with the EU should meet any ongoing payments.

Thrugelmir

cogito wrote: »

I have wondered why, when only 8% of UK businesses have trade with the EU, the other 92% should effectively subsidise them. Maybe the businesses that trade with the EU should meet any ongoing payments.

How many are multinationals. That trade both sides of the fence.

Fella

phillw wrote: »

Brexit was about some rich people taking control of the rest of the country.

Yes, because when rich people do that they always do it by having a democratic referendum & winning with over 17 million votes.

gfplux

From what I read (at the moment) this weeks talks will go nowhere. Perhaps the room they have booked for the press conference later in the week will be too large as there will be nothing to report.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

From what I read (at the moment) this weeks talks will go nowhere. Perhaps the room they have booked for the press conference later in the week will be too large as there will be nothing to report.

Tick tock tick tock.........

Hard Brexit seems to be the way matters are heading. Unless the EU shows any inclination to compromise internally. Simply too many agendas in play from individual countries to make any headway.