• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Brexit negotiations thread

Also appointed to the cabinet.
  • Amber Rudd, who resigned as home secretary in April, will be returning to the cabinet as the Work and Pensions Secretary.
  • Stephen Hammond MP to be a Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care.
  • John Penrose MP to be a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office
  • Kwasi Kwarteng MP to be a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Exiting the European Union.
 
Also appointed to the cabinet.
  • Amber Rudd, who resigned as home secretary in April, will be returning to the cabinet as the Work and Pensions Secretary.
  • Stephen Hammond MP to be a Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care.
  • John Penrose MP to be a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office
  • Kwasi Kwarteng MP to be a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Exiting the European Union.
See they're rearranging those deckchairs on the Titanic again. :Winking:
 
I don’t think it’s his policies.

You must concede that his party is incredibly polarising, at the very least.

We’ve got one of the worst Tory leaderships in recent memory, who should have been trounced in the last general election, yet managed to cling on, due to the lack of faith & trust in the opposition.

And it’s not just Corbyn who people don’t trust. It’s the total package, which includes the likes of Abbott & Thornberry. Having those two in any real power, is genuinely worrying.
Politics should really be about policy.

Polarising? Of course. The country is split down the middle Tory / Labour and Leave / Remain. By pretending its not you get wishy washy policies that no one really believes in but will put up with.

The worst Tory leadership - absolutely, but before a Brexit deal was announced most people wouldn't feel the need to switch parties. And a lot of people are forgetting that when May called the election she was talking the talk and hadn't yet had the time to be found out. Now - yes it's accepted that she is a shambles, but not when she called the election - the Tories were up to 20 points ahead in the polls and ended 2 points ahead.

Thornberry is scary? Currently you have:
May who pushes ahead with a Brexit policy rejected by her own Cabinet, rejected by the party who she paid £1bn to back her and she knows will be rejected by Parliament - yet pushes on.
Johnson - liar, racist, quit as Foreign Secretary.
Davis - worked less than someone on zero hours contract and then quit the most influential role other than PM.
Hunt - when to war on the majority of our doctors and responded to a nursing recruitment crisis by ending nurses bursaries.

To be honest this is inefficient - what is quicker - can you name 5 prominent Tory MPs for whom we shouldn't worry about them being in power?
 
Who's going to be first to say he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about?

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 201
 
Who's going to be first to say he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about?

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 201

You clearly fail to appreciate that the UK is a member of the EU.Oz isn't.
 
And you clearly fail to appreciate that it makes little difference if we decided to actually grow a pair of balls. Exactly what the ex Aus PM is indicating. Once again your myopic political views make it impossible to see or indeed understand anything that doesn't fit in with those views. Trying to debate rationally and in an adult way with the likes of you is both pointless and futile.
 
This deal will never get through parliament anyway. It leaves us half in and half out of the EU. It leaves us in the customs union. We could only leave the customs union if the EU allowed it, unlikely. It lets the EU set our tariffs. Setting our own was meant to be one of the biggest reasons to leave. It means we renege on the promises TM gave to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland situation would then give fire to Scotland trying to break up the United Kingdom. There's also the little matter of the 49 Billion sweetner payment, with nothing in return. Theresa May surrounded herself with remainers in negotiating with the EU, and that deal shows it.
No wonder the letters are going in. What a mess.
 
Who's going to be first to say he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about?

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 201
Easy to say from reading this simplistic, blustering nonsense why Abbott is the EX prime minister of Australia.
 
Whether he is right or wrong, is there any point wasting time discussing the views of a hasbeen Australian politician? In this volatile situation I suppose anything can happen but it would appear that, with the clock clicking down, there are certain things that seem clear.
May, though still in denial, has virtually no chance of getting the negotiated deal through parliament. People can also discuss, till the cows come home, the benefits of a hard unfettered Brexit ...........................................it ain't going to happen in the present situation. There would be FAR less support for that in parliament than for the deal May has brought back.
As for a General Election, well, of course the Labour Party would LOVE it but that's nothing to do with solving the present quagmire in which we find ourselves, it's just, as they see it, an opportunity to grab power. The chances are it would be a divisive, nasty campaign which would deviate our attention from the main problem facing us and in the end could well leave us in a similar muddled mess. Anyway from what I've heard the opposition is divided as well and the closest I've heard to a Labour policy sounds very much like BINO (Brexit in name only), which would please neither the leavers nor the remainers.
As for renegotiating the deal..................forget it! Empathise a little with the EU. Having gone through months and months of negotiating, which has consumed huge amounts of money and time...........would you want to reopen negotiations??? Especially when any new deal (in the unlikely event there would be one) could be turned down by another faction back in the UK.
The facts are...........and for once I agree with Theresa May........we have three choices, her deal, no deal or no Brexit. I've explained above why there is no chance of the first two happening. Maybe the majority will finally come around to the idea of another referendum as the only way to get out of this impasse. This would not be a rerun of the first where there was no clarity concerning what exactly was being voted on. The question and choice would be clear 1) May's deal 2) No deal 3) Remain. I'm not a lover of referendums but it does appear to be the only way of getting us out of the mess in which we find ourselves.
 
Who's going to be first to say he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about?

At last someone talking sense about what could happen if we left the EU with no deal, shame very few of our politicians do not lay it out like this, it is worth repeating and reading.

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

"It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent.

Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it."

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46243745

Back in the real world this is what's happening.No chance of changing the deal guy and girls.Sorry the EU says no.

Where’s that Little EU ‘computer says no’ meme when you need it. If ever there was a way to distil the reasons for leaving into the smallest possible explanation, it is the EU’s favourite word: No. Its all they ever say and the sooner they have no influence at all over us the better.
 
Where’s that Little EU ‘computer says no’ meme when you need it. If ever there was a way to distil the reasons for leaving into the smallest possible explanation, it is the EU’s favourite word: No. Its all they ever say and the sooner they have no influence at all over us the better.

I suppose you might get your wish from the end of March 2019 but as they say "Be careful of what you wish for." :Winking:
 
I suppose you might get your wish from the end of March 2019 but as they say "Be careful of what you wish for." :Winking:

That’s not my wish. I happen to believe that some form of transition period is an absolute necessity since the pig-headed EU said ‘no’ to discussing the future relationship in any meaningful way (a political choice, not the 11th commandment).
 
The worst Tory leadership - absolutely, but before a Brexit deal was announced most people wouldn't feel the need to switch parties.

I’d suggest that support for May had already dwindled prior to the deal being announced.

She still had a handful of strong supporters, but by-and-large my perception was that she was on borrowed time & only a super Brexit deal could have restored her favour.

It was the perfect time for a strong opposition to counter attack.

And a lot of people are forgetting that when May called the election she was talking the talk and hadn't yet had the time to be found out. Now - yes it's accepted that she is a shambles, but not when she called the election - the Tories were up to 20 points ahead in the polls and ended 2 points ahead.
In fairness that’s credit to Corbyn. It wasn’t that May was drastically bad, it was because he was very good. He unveiled some excellent sounding (albeit pub-talk) policies and temporarily dropped the walking disaster that is Abbott from any position of power. He clawed himself back into the race, but ultimately still fell short.

The reason? He personally couldn’t convince enough disenfranchised voters, that he was the way forward. Which is incredible, when you consider that that pool of voters, was probably the biggest it’s been, in my lifetime at least.

Thornberry is scary?

Emily “I’m offended” Thornberry. Hell yes she’s scary. The women is the epitome of todays offended culture. Blatantly trivialising genuine hate crimes to suit her own political agenda. She’s a disgrace.

You have to understand, that I am one of those disenfranchised voters, who’s vote is open & available. Corbyn has his own problems, I don’t trust him, and I don’t respect him. But there will be plenty of of people willing to give him a shot, and cast their vote on him. BUT, I assure you, having anchors like Thornberry and Abbott weighing him down, will not do him any favours. Despite how loved they may be within the Labour Party/left wing circles.

Currently you have:
May who pushes ahead with a Brexit policy rejected by her own Cabinet, rejected by the party who she paid £1bn to back her and she knows will be rejected by Parliament - yet pushes on.
Johnson - liar, racist, quit as Foreign Secretary.
Davis - worked less than someone on zero hours contract and then quit the most influential role other than PM.
Hunt - when to war on the majority of our doctors and responded to a nursing recruitment crisis by ending nurses bursaries.

To be honest this is inefficient - what is quicker - can you name 5 prominent Tory MPs for whom we shouldn't worry about them being in power?

Mate, I’m not sure if you’re missing my original point, In no way, shape or form am I going to bat for the Tory’s. They’re beyond useless. They’re full-on dangerous to the future of this country IMO. They’re all in it for themselves, and more worryingly, they’d rather the ship sank altogether, than allowing it to fall into red hands (although you could argue that it’s the same thing)

My take on it, is we’re never going to get the Brexit we thought we were going to get. Not now & possibly never. If we stride forward with May’s current plan, it’ll end in tears. Right now, id rather see the whole thing stopped - at least temporarily - so we, the public, can assess the situation & decide from there.

The question is, who do we turn to?
 
The **** has happened to the quote function on this site?

You’s get it from the pound shop or something?
 
That’s not my wish. I happen to believe that some form of transition period is an absolute necessity since the pig-headed EU said ‘no’ to discussing the future relationship in any meaningful way (a political choice, not the 11th commandment).

It was of course the UK that notified the EU that they wanted to leave after over 40 years membership.Why you (and others) think the EU should have just rolled over for the UK I've no idea.There will be plenty of time to discuss a future relationship once the divorce settlement is finalised.
 
It was of course the UK that notified the EU that they wanted to leave after over 40 years membership.Why you (and others) think the EU should have just rolled over for the UK I've no idea.There will be plenty of time to discuss a future relationship once the divorce settlement is finalised.

You’re quite right, we did vote to leave but there should be no reason to need to ‘ask’ for anything. If the EU were grown ups, who were not obsessed with being the Hotel California, they could quite easily have expressed surprise and disappointment but then negotiated a proper transition and future trading relationship. That’s in everyone’s interest and if the EU respected democracy they would understand that we voted to leave.

You may say there is no reason for them to do that - I’d say there is no good reason for them NOT to do it. The rules about leaving, everyone accepts, were to make it hard to leave (you can never leave, as the song goes). Those were political choices and it is within everyone’s capability to make other ones.
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top