Wes Tender

Do I have to repeat myself yet again? It will become clear on Thursday what we expect our leverage to be. Personally I would be happy if our negotiating leverage was to walk away from the talks and tell the EU that we will reopen them when they had come to their senses and were prepared to listen to what they were told by Frost in his speech last week. I'm entirely happy with WTO myself, so I don't know why you insist on your stuck record questioning.

I mentioned this is the case of Sir Mark Sedwell, the Head of the Civil Service. Is having our own GNSS illegal? Is it right that he should take the decision to ignore government wishes to explore the possibility of having our own system and decide himself whether it is viable or not?

Canada +++ appeared to be a better deal than the straight Canada deal, on the basis that we were a considerably bigger economy with more to offer in terms of security, defence and foreign policy cooperation among other things, so that our expectations for a better deal were naturally higher, as I said. But as you say, until it became clear that what the EU meant by it was not what we thought it to mean, it was a meaningless phrase meaning many things to different people. Despite it being a meaningless phrase, you amusingly go on to argue that it is still currently relevant and that a simple FTA without the +++s is totally inadequate for our purposes. As it was a meaningless phrase, that excuses anybody who was misled by it when May was making a complete horlicks of the negotiations, so please stop harping on about it; it is ancient history. The addition of +++s for improved trade access in return for sovereignty ain't going to happen. As usual, the implied insult is that if anybody disagrees with you, they simply don't understand how international trade works in the 21st century, and yet here we are having left the EU and as a third country facing the possibility that we might subsequently not even have a FTA with the EU. No doubt the same applied to those who voted to leave the EU, they were just too thick to understand the implications of going it alone in the big bad world. Except of course we won't be going it alone, as we will set up FTAs with other enterprising and developing countries around the world, whilst still retaining a large chunk of trade with the EU member states no matter what, as they will want to maintain their huge surplus with us. I'm pleased that you accept that we are no longer prepared to give up some sovereignty in return for improved market access now that May and Robbins have gone. Where did Boris say that he expected more trade access as a result of our strong position? As far as I can see, he has issued red lines stating that we do not accept regulatory alignment with the EU and that we would accept a simple FTA like Canada/Japan/S/Korea. I have to keep telling you, that we are discussing what our trade negotiation stance will be on Tuesday, and announcing it on Thursday. Much as you enjoy speculation and conjecture, please show some patience. All will become clear by then.

Congratulations on accepting that an article based on "reports" just has to be the gospel truth. I'm sure that you also lapped up all the conjecture from so-called experts about what the implications of us "reneging" on our legal obligations over the Irish border would be, and the conspiracy theory about why Geoffrey Cox was replaced by Suella Braverman. There is a great deal of mischief going on within the Civil Service at the moment along similar lines of leaks designed to put a bad gloss on the government. Just within the past few days, there have been stories published in the media that Priti Patel bullies her Civil Servants and that she is not trusted to be given security information by our spymasters. Also that Sir Mark Sedwell, the head of the Civil Service, had taken it upon himself to decide that we could not go for our own Global Navigation Satellite System and he had therefore decided that we should go for latching on to some other cheaper option, probably Galileo. Apparently Boris was very angry, demanding to know why he wasn't informed about this decision, to be told by Sedwell that he had intended to tell him after the meeting. About time that Sedwell and his like were put out to grass and replaced by those who accept that it is the government's place to decide policy and the Civil Servants place to implement it, not the other way around.

Maybe it was deliberately ironic that the author of the thread title incorrectly capitalized every word apart from "and".

As I've pointed out several times, Gavyn, times have moved on and the political landscape is totally changed. As you will see, Canada+++ was so Theresa May, Robbins and Tusk. https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/05/the-eu-offers-an-alternative-brexit-but-what-is-canada-8009257/ On the face of it, if Canada, Japan and S.Korea can achieve a basic FTA with the EU, then it would be logical that we as the much bigger economy, with whom the EU have a massive trade surplus, should be capable of getting a much better deal. Indeed, having it called Canada +++, or Super Canada, inferred that a better deal was what was on offer. After all, we brought to the table other inducements to a better deal in terms of defence, security and foreign policy cooperation among other things. Now that push has come to shove, it becomes clear that what the EU are prepared to offer is less than Canada/Japan/S.Korea. It would certainly be Canada +++ to them, but to us it is Canada---. I note that you're happy to continue quoting government figures suggesting that a Canada style deal has deficiencies for an economy of our size. You ought to realise by now, that we Brexiteers are sceptical about reports from the Civil Service warning about the Armageddon that we face for leaving the EU. We're still laughing at those pre-referendum Treasury forecasts, so please excuse us if we take those sorts of predictions with a pinch of salt. You seem to take them as the gospel truth, so I'm sure that somebody as thorough and clued up as you, must have seen the forecasts provided by the economists to the EU on the impact of them not achieving a trade deal with us. I would imagine that they are pretty dire. What is clear, is that the EU are scared stiff that we will become a major competitor right on their doorstep and that our success will be the impetus needed to have other member states follow us out, this being the reason why the EU is playing silly beggars in their vain attempt to restrict our independence. In retrospect, they must be kicking themselves for not tying down May to the BRINO deal that a remoaner parliament might just have voted through. When it comes to leverage in these negotiations, the EU has cocked it up at every stage since they sent Cameron away empty-handed. In the same way that May, Robbins and Tusk are yesterday's people, so is that other remoaner, Ivan Rogers. Today's man is David Frost who has made our position crystal clear in his recent speech. I presume that you read it? It means a basic zero tariff/zero quota or WTO. You continue to insist that we lack leverage in those negotiations, but the biggest lever in any trade deal is the threat to walk away without a deal and to be seen to mean it. I suggest that you wait to hear what our position will be when the government makes its statement on our position on Thursday. The EU have made a list of demands about what will have to be on the table in order that trade talks can commence. I am expecting to hear Johnson and Frost quickly and without any element of doubt, tell the EU to go and get stuffed until they can take the situation and its implications seriously.

I think that it's about time that you brought yourself up to date with how events have unfolded since the early days of May and Robbins, when claims were made on the basis of circumstances prevailing at that time, and with that incompetent duo of remoaners in charge of the negotiations, ready to accept anything that the EU offered us. It is not only pointless raking over old coals now, it is futile, as the political landscape has altered beyond recognition since May's departure and the arrival of Boris as PM. The penny is slowly dropping in the EU that Boris is not May and that Frost is not Robbins. It is no longer a case of constant delays to article 50 to allow time for article 50 to be revoked. We are out. The Implementation Period will not be extended, so it is a clear choice between a FTA or WTO. If there is no FTA by 31st December, then it is WTO. Despite the remoaner bluster about how blase German industry or French agriculture is about which outcome comes to pass at the end of the year, cracks are starting to appear in EU unity. The EU 27 cannot agree about their next period budget, which will be severely depleted without our contribution. The French fishermen are making hysterical demands to include access to our coastal waters in the trade deal. The Irish under Varadkar allowed the EU to weaponise the Irish border, but he is now gone and the Irish are sh*tting themselves at the increased budgetary payments they will need to make for a smaller return of EU grants, as well as the increased plundering of their fish stocks, once the EU's incursion into our waters will be curtailed. Be in no doubt that the German car makers will grow increasingly shrill in their demands towards their government to give us a decent deal, the closer that the deadline becomes. Of course a FTA is in the interests of both us and the EU, but the desire in the EU to cut off their nose to spite their face so that other countries don't follow us out of the door is strong, and will probably lead to no deal and WTO. If the EU want a deal, then they had better hurry up and be realistic about what will be acceptable to us both. They need to begin making offers instead of issuing demands, and soon. In the meantime, noises are being made here within the past few days about some beneficial changes on the horizon that we might make. One is that we should invest in our own satellite system, now that the EU have done the dirty to us on the Galileo project. The other proposal is to regenerate depressed industrial areas with the development of several free ports. These types of initiatives combined with the lowering of Corporation Tax and the increased trade around the globe will see us thrive outside of the EU. They on the other hand will struggle to thrive without us and I foresee the whole EU project falling apart within a decade.

Sunday Telegraph:- We have heard the sabre-rattling from the EU, believing that they hold the whip hand and can make demands of us before they are willing to begin serious trade talks with us. I trust that on Thursday we will read the Government's response, which ought to be to tell them they can go and get lost and that talks will not begin until the EU are prepared to stop fooling about with their stupid suggestions that we should accept a lesser trade deal than they offered to Canada/Japan/S.Korea. Also it should be made clear that we will not accept regulatory equivalence, that they cannot have the same access to our coastal waters as before and Gibraltar is not on the table. Up to them if they are prepared to allow the clock to run down to 31st December without negotiations taking place before we leave on WTO terms.

QUOTE=striker;2804674]Critical win and deserved, but we sure don't make it easy. Feel gutted for Adams, what does he need to do to score. Well, there was one occasion when his total lack of commitment was obvious. Obafemi had won the ball deep on the right and was running behind the Villa defence at pace. The Villa defenders were trying to get back to defend the box, but Adams was the obvious Saints striker to square the ball across to. Had he decided to put in the effort to get into the box, he might have stood a decent chance of scoring his first goal. But he didn't seem to feel any sense of urgency at all for some reason.

It's a good thing that you are getting your ego massaging dose of hubris done early in the day, Gavyn, along with the usual accompanying insults. You can now go through the rest of the day with a smug, self-satisfied smile on your face. It's telling that you continuance remoaners are having to fight battles from 2018 and thereabouts. It's time you moved on. History and events have overtaken you. What we wanted then and what is likely to be the outcome now are entirely different scenarios. You might as well try and argue about May's Lancaster House speech, Brexit means Brexit, the merits of Norway or Switzerland type arrangements. All those options are toast, although one stance from back then, "No deal is better than a bad deal" still has validity currently. If the EU continue to believe that as we get close to 31st December without a deal we will fold, then that is where we will be.

I'm sure that you will be happy to post his comments which back up what you say. Be certain to post something that says "the same" in connection with the Norway benefits and also "no obligations". When you say he is still promising this, you must mean very recently.

Norway was just you faced with several potential outcomes, making your best guess as to which would come about, and getting it spectacularly wrong. Norway was the remoaners' softest Brexit, or what was known as Brino. It was never going to be acceptable to the Brexit side in the House or in the Country. Boris isn't going to make a U turn that will ever deliver a Norway option, so it's about time you accepted that with good grace. If you believed for one second that any of the Brexiteers on here would lap it up if he did, you make yourself look even more stupid.

A very good summary of the forthcoming position we hold in the trade negotiations for the benefit of all you remoaners. I know that you are going to love to hear Nigel Farage's take on this, and look forward to hearing your constructive arguments on where you believe he is wrong, and why.

Much as it was bleeding obvious that you can't have a single currency when everybody's economies in it are operating to different levels, eh? Didn't Gavyn want us to be a part of that?

And as an aside, they're going to be even less happy when we have taken back control of our coastal waters and the Western EU Atlantic coast fishermen decide that if our territorial waters are closed to them, they had better fish more off Ireland instead.

I'm a pragmatist, Gavyn. I've always accepted that there will naturally be some short term disruption caused by our leaving the EU, but I am confident that in the medium to long term, the prospects for the UK are better served by being independent of it. I realise that as a economist, you assessed our future prospects purely on economic grounds, like the treasury and most of the remoaner establishment. I weighed those economic concerns against the other factors involved, our ability as an independent sovereign nation to chart out own course, set our own laws, allow immigration by our rules, negotiate our own trade deals around the world and to cease payments into the EU coffers. Far be it for me to wish to rake over old coals, Brexit having been won, but sh*t was fed into the debate from both sides, and the side wanting to have their cake and eat, it is now very much the EU.

If we were to get our country back, then we must either have lost it, or given it away, mustn't we? I'll decline your advice to take a break from the forum, thanks, although naturally I'm touched by your concern. I'm afraid that if I were to give up posting on this thread, I'd be depriving myself of the pleasure of yanking your chain.

Show me where I said that there there will be no trade frictions and indeed where I mentioned services. I've always taken the view that after a few bumps in the road whilst we adjusted to our new circumstances, we would forge ahead outside of the EU. I see no reason to change my mind.

Equally without a mutually beneficial FTA with us, the EU will also suffer a loss in jobs in agriculture and motor manufacturing, not to mention the loss of our contributions towards their kitty. I'd say that there was plenty of incentive for us both the agree a deal. The EU also attempted to arrange a trade deal with the USA. Why would we be more prone to them shafting us than the EU would be? Our workers and environmental protections are often better than the EU's. Perhaps we should insist that they brought their standards up to our level. Next.

Who said we had lost our country? I don't recall anybody saying that, apart from you just now. What we get back is summarised in a simple but effective campaign slogan. We get back control of our money, laws, borders and trade. You must have heard it said more than a few times. Didn't you understand what it meant?

Let's recap on progress so far. Referendum forced onto Cameron. Referendum won, despite the best efforts of the establishment to prevent it via project fear. Brexit seriously under threat through the serially incompetent negotiating of the WA by May and Robbins, a majority remoaner Parliament and a rogue speaker, all doing their utmost to either revoke article 50, or overturn it via a second/third referendum. May replaced by Boris, who wins a stonking majority in the Brexit General Election, imposing the biggest ever electoral defeat on Labour. The remoaner majority in the House is no more and all of those instrumental in trying to overturn article 50, including the rogue speaker, are all gone. We have now left the EU and enter negotiations on the future trading arrangements with the EU, the government having a strong mandate behind them for the first time. At last we are negotiating sensibly from a position of playing those cards that give us an advantage. We have backed the EU into a corner by setting the deadline date by with we must agree a deal acceptable to both parties, or we have made it clear that we will leave with no deal. We have also made it clear that we will not accept regulatory alignment, that we are leaving the SM and CU and everything that those imply. We are already setting out the parameters of our future immigration policy now that freedom of movement is to end, and gearing up to arrange our own free trade deals around the world. The EU believe mistakenly that we are bothered by their assertions that trade talks cannot begin until we accept that they can continue their current fisheries access to our coastal waters, that we cant have this or that deal unless we accept their conditions that impose a level playing field of rules and regulations that suits them and hampers our progress now that we are free of their chains that bound us. I'd say that the situation looked pretty damned good from a Brexiteer perspective. Having come so close to getting the whole thing derailed just a short few months ago, the Remoaners on here are trying but failing to put a brave face on it.

Either go to sleep, or burst out laughing. As I say, make your mind up. I accept the position of those remainers who for their own reasons voted to stay in the EU, it was their choice. I have nothing but contempt for those remoaners who can't accept the democratic referendum vote to leave and who constantly bleat like spoilt children about how unfair it all is and how they hope that the UK fares badly in our negotiations so that they can say that they told us so. Does passion for a cause have to be accompanied with humour? I never knew. If it is serious, i.e. lacking in humour, is it then amusing? You contradict yourself in every other sentence. As I say, you're confused.

On the one hand my posts are too long and send you to sleep. On the other hand you find them amusing. Make your mind up. You seem confused.