The Brexit Thread (topical thread)

[Mathilda]

He's an unelected official in Number 10, he literally has no power.

That's because you do not understand how the power behind the throne works and are taking things at face value. They are normally the brains behind the politician who is effectively their mouthpiece. They hold influence over the main figurehead, who in theory has the power, but in practice is completely lost if they try figuring out what to do themselves. Think Steve Bannon and Trump. This is because strategy and communication are two distinct skill sets and it is very difficult to be the master of both.

The advantage of being a power behind the throne is that you can outlast the figurehead who gets all the flack for your policies. But to do so you need to be able to keep your distance when they do fall. The disadvantage of course is that the politician may get rid of you. But in doing so they will often fall themselves shortly afterwards while you can move on to another politician and boost their career instead. This is why it is advantageous for the power behind the throne to stay invisible to the public for as long as possible.

If you had any real life experience in politics, (I don't but I talk about this a lot with my husband who works in politics), then you would know that politicians are always on the lookout for experts who act in this role because they help them be more effective when they stand up and say their thing. I have for example had my own words read out without credit in the Scottish parliament on the subject of Artificial Intelligence. It was a symbiotic relationship. The politician wanted to tackle his opponents and I wanted to make some points in the debate.

Colleagues often tell my husband that he should consider running for office but he is not interested. He prefers to be the power behind the throne because he knows where the true power lays. If you see power as the ability to effect change in the world around you, then being in a position where you can influence many people to work together for your own means will mean that you are more powerful than if you are one of those people having to be concerned about losing votes and reputation.

How else do you think Dominic Cummings can get away with dressing like this while walking into Number 10?

Show ContentSpoiler:

[Mark]

He's an unelected official in Number 10, he literally has no power.

That's because you do not understand how the power behind the throne works and are taking things at face value.

Show ContentSpoiler:

Taking things at face value and arguing for doing so is what makes apologists so appalling; but the phenomenon obviously affects far more than religion and is rarely helpful if one is more interested in discovering what is true than making the case for something one compulsively believes.

[Aractus]

That's because you do not understand how the power behind the throne works and are taking things at face value.

He's not the "power behind the throne" at all. Saying I don't understand that concept (actually I do) is a poor manoeuvre in an attempt to win the argument: I fundamentally disagree that Cummings is in charge. It's Johnson that's in charge.

There's a reason why there's the perception that Cummings is in charge. He's a fixer, and Johnson (wisely) took drastic action to fix the Brexit mess he inherited.


Before Cummings was the fixer, he was the doctor. He diagnosed the problems. We could list them out - from Cummings diagnosis:

1. Theresa May went into negotiations unprepared without a clear goal in mind in terms of what she wanted to achieve.
   
2. She made contradictory mutually incompatible promises with her red lines.
   
3. She triggered Article 50 when she should have began negotiations first.
   
4. The government was unprepared for no-deal because they hadn't built the required border/customs infrastructure and was forced to extend A50.
   
5. There was too much to be resolved in the transition period, it was unrealistic.
   
6. The government were in minority with remainer MPs.
   
7. They didn't have the support of euroeceptic Conservative MPs
   
8. The opposition parties were blocking both leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal and forcing through perpetual delay, many in an attempt to cancel Brexit.
   
9. Labour were uncooperative (partly the Conservative gov't's fault) in cross-party discussions. Also they were making insane unrealistic demands like a second referendum.
   
10. As I pointed out (I'm sure Cummings knows this for himself), the government allowed the Brexit complainers to re-define leaving on WHO terms as "no deal" as well as to own this narrative of incoming doom and gloom.
    
11. Voters were unhappy with the progress.
    

As a fixer Cummings went about turning as many of those problems into advantages as possible, as well as setting out options for Johnson to follow to fix those problems. When Cummings was hired, Johnson told him the number one priority was to make sure they left on Oct 31 at all costs. They didn't achieve that goal - however they achieved all their other goals, and the Benn Act ironically was an advantage for them and put them into a position to call an early election and easily win a majority. This is how all the above problems were solved:

1. Have a clear plan about what you want to achieve with Brexit.
   
2. Be realistic about things like the NI border, and eventual customs checks.
   
3. Properly prepare to be a third country. This means building the infrastructure and facilities needed to manage trade.
   
4. See point 3.
   
5. Renegotiate the deal so that all that needs to be negotiated in transition period is a straightforward free trade agreement.
   
6. Expel MPs who defy the whip.
   
7. Be more collaborative - include ERG, DUP, and all other government MPs in discussions.
   
8. See point 3. Having prepared to leave, don't delay. Failing that, take advantage of the political situation and hold an early election to win a majority. They actually tried to do this before Johnson got his renegotiated deal, in hindsight they should have waited until that had happened because the new deal gave them extra momentum and political capital going into the early election.
   
9. See point 8.
   
10. Start owning the narrative and building a simple clear narrative.
    
11. Take advantage of this situation, hold an election see point 8.
    

Of course these may not have been all the options open to Johnson - they're just the ones that he actually went with. Did Cummings come up with all these ideas unilaterally? Perhaps. But more likely he came up with some, and the rest are the result of brainstorming with Johnson and other advisors in No. 10.

They are normally the brains behind the politician who is effectively their mouthpiece. They hold influence over the main figurehead, who in theory has the power, but in practice is completely lost if they try figuring out what to do themselves. Think Steve Bannon and Trump. This is because strategy and communication are two distinct skill sets and it is very difficult to be the master of both.

In case you hadn't noticed, communication is Johnson's weakness not strategy. In fact it's by far his biggest weakness. One of the biggest roles during the election, which Cummings didn't involve himself with mind you that was run by Isaac Levido, for the advisors in No. 10 was to coach Johnson on his communication. Part of his personality is an asset with communication, he naturally speaks like a regular human being and not a politician, however that only gets you so far.

The advantage of being a power behind the throne is that you can outlast the figurehead who gets all the flack for your policies. But to do so you need to be able to keep your distance when they do fall. The disadvantage of course is that the politician may get rid of you. But in doing so they will often fall themselves shortly afterwards while you can move on to another politician and boost their career instead. This is why it is advantageous for the power behind the throne to stay invisible to the public for as long as possible.

If you had any real life experience in politics, (I don't but I talk about this a lot with my husband who works in politics), then you would know that politicians are always on the lookout for experts who act in this role because they help them be more effective when they stand up and say their thing. I have for example had my own words read out without credit in the Scottish parliament on the subject of Artificial Intelligence. It was a symbiotic relationship. The politician wanted to tackle his opponents and I wanted to make some points in the debate.

Colleagues often tell my husband that he should consider running for office but he is not interested. He prefers to be the power behind the throne because he knows where the true power lays. If you see power as the ability to effect change in the world around you, then being in a position where you can influence many people to work together for your own means will mean that you are more powerful than if you are one of those people having to be concerned about losing votes and reputation.

How else do you think Dominic Cummings can get away with dressing like this while walking into Number 10?

Show ContentSpoiler:

There's nothing wrong with how DC dresses. His job now, alongside making sure Brexit happens smoothly, is to go through the Conservative manifesto and turn the policy ideas into reality. That literally means a book is in charge over him.

[Aractus]

The EU has put out this FAKE NEWS slide.



So we're going to use their own data and correct that slide. According to the slide they used the Eurostat figures for 2018. According to Eurostat the EU's top 5 trading partners outside the EU in 2018 were:



But wait they left the two biggest trading partner off their fake news slide plus one of the others in the top-5 (Russia). Why could that be?

We're going to calculate the correct numbers for the countries they've given as well as add on the countries they left off. I won't do Mercosur since that's a trading bloc.

Obviously we can't use the naked Eurostat numbers, we have to calculate the EU27 by subtracting the UK's trading figures. That's easy enough to do, we could use the 2018 trading data from the Pink Book and convert the currency from 2018 GBP to 2018 Euros (conversion rate of 0.88) which would probably be more accurate, but we'll use the EU's own data.

So let's see we have these countries (numbers in billions):

United Kingdom: €516.6 ✔ (this verifies we are using the correct data table).
Canada: €54.7 ✔
Chile: €16.7 ✘ €16.6
China: €529.8
Japan: €117.2 ✘ €117.1
Mexico: €61.2 ✔
Norway: €111.0 ✔
Russia: €243.2
S.Korea: €89.7 ✔
Singapore: €50.6 ✔
Switzerland: €236.3 ✘ €236.4
Turkey: €136.0 ✘ €135.9
USA: €564.5
Ukraine: €39.0 ✘ €38.9

We'll also add some extras while we're at it:

Australia: €39.3
Brazil: €60.6
Egypt: €25.6
Hong Kong: €35.3
India: €77.9
Israel: €31.8
Malaysia: €33.5
Morocco: €37.8
Vietnam: €42.8
South Africa: €38.9
UAE: €38.1

Now you can see above that the EU has made numerous errors using just their own data. Probably because they rounded the data first before doing their calculations. Everything was calculated in Excel using 1 formula, and then rounded. The formula is this:

(EU28 Imports + EU28 Exports - UK Imports - UK Exports)/1,000,000,000 to one decimal place.

And now we're ready to fix their FAKE NEWS propaganda slide.

[Deesse23]

But wait they left the two biggest trading partner off their fake news slide plus one of the others in the top-5 (Russia). Why could that be?

Because the EU has a trade agreement with neither of them*? Just a wild guess.  

And now we're ready to fix fake their FAKE NEWS propaganda slide.

Nice chart you have fabricated there. Would be a shame if was complete bullshit, which it is, demonstrably so**.

The original EU chart was about a trade deal with the UK, and therefore listed all countries the EU has a trade agreement with. Guess with whom the EU does not have trade deals with? Right, US and China.

Now, there are two options why you made this up:

#1 You dont understand the difference between "having a deal" and "having no deal" = you are an idiot and have an unhealthy obsession with the EU
#2 You are a propagandist, a spreader of fake news, a liar, dishonest

Which one is it?  

P.S.: Nice try, ill give you 3/10 for effort, but dont you feel the slightest bit of bad    for accusing others of spreading propaganda, while you are the one actually spreading propaganda?  

*Neiher does the EU have trade deals with all the other countries you added, including Vietnam, with which a deal was agreed on in 2018 (text finalized) but needs to be ratified.

**The only factually correct part of your own fabricated fake news chart is the size of the bubbles of China and the US (and Russia). They are indeed the two biggest trading partners of the EU, yet we still dont have trade deals with the US and China (nor Russia).

[Aractus]

Nice chart you have fabricated there. Would be a shame if was complete bullshit, which it is, demonstrably so*.

The original EU chart was about a trade deal with the UK, and therefore listed all countries the EU has a trade agreement with. Guess with whom the EU does not have trade deals with? Right, US and China.

They don't have a FTA with the UK either, yet they put the UK on the slide. They are negotiating FTAs with both China and the US, like they are (or will soon be) with the UK as well - so they're all in the same position.

Here I'll make it the way that you think it should look:



Happy now?

Now, there are two options why you made this up:

#1 You dont understand the difference between "having a deal" and "having no deal" = you are an idiot
#2 You are a propagandist, a spreader of fake news, a liar, dishonest, have an obsession about the EU and an agenda

Bullshit. The EU put out a straight up and down lie of a graph. This is the problem with statistics - they're always used by assholes that want to lie. And as I pointed out they couldn't even get their own numbers right. You're welcome to open up the data here, and here, and check for yourself.

Also you don't need a trade deal to do trade - you're the idiot if you don't understand that.

*The only factually correct part of your own fabricated fake news chart, is the size of the bubbles of China and the US. They are indeed the two biggest trading partners of the EU, yet we still dont have trade deals with the US and China.

Nor Indonesia which I didn't even put on the graph, but which will be the world's 4th largest economy within 20 years. But the point is that the EU is negotiating trade deals with both US and China and neither will come with the "level playing field complete regulatory alignment" bullshit that they're trying to force upon the UK.

The UK has left you, get used to it. They're with us now - their real friends:

[Mathilda]

The UK* has left you, get used to it. They're with us now - their real friends:

*UK in this context means all the UK in the short term, but in the long term only includes England and possibly Wales when Ireland re-unifies and Scotland goes independent. Terms & conditions apply.

[Aractus]

The UK* has left you, get used to it. They're with us now - their real friends:

*UK in this context means all the UK in the short term, but in the long term only includes England and possibly Wales when Ireland re-unifies and Scotland goes independent. Terms & conditions apply.

Nope! You're our precious beloved friends as well. We're going to make sure you're very, very happy with us outside the EU. I will personally fly over to Number 10 Downing Street to give the Prime Minister a golden shower if that's what he would like so long as there's no funny business.

I don't think you appreciate how much your real friends in the world are going to embrace the UK now. It's not just the Commonwealth nations. There's a shitload of nations that do believe in real free trade, real globalism and cooperation, and there's the protectionist EU that is so self-obsessed with their geography that every goddamn time a war breaks out instead of calling it a "European War" they call it a "World War". That's how out of touch with reality Europe is. Yes I know our history books call them world wars as well, but the fact of the matter is that WWI was definitely a European war not a "world war", and WWII was Europe/Asia. So get some perspective.

Don't worry about the EU we have your backs. We'll make sure you do much better! The EU are nothing but a pack of inward looking cunts with protectionist trade policies from the 1960's.

You know one thing I heard the other day was that we have over 100 car brands available in Australia (this was quoted by someone after Holden announced their brand is being nuked). That includes 47 different manufacturers. It's one of the highest in the world. Europe restricting their market? Well fuck them - let in the Great Wall utes and every other brand and manufacturer that you're missing out on! Slap a 9000% of wine too, we're ready to send you crates by the vineyard to service your alcoholic patrons and you'll be much happier getting inebriated off our cheaper better quality wine than that French shit.

Also, as if Ireland is going to re-unite. I thought that was possible for a while, but look they can't even form a government. As if NI wants to join that system. It'd be better for the re-unification to happen the other way around, if not for the threat of terrorist violence. Honestly I now think a 2 State solution is the best answer in NI.

[Deesse23]

Nice chart you have fabricated there. Would be a shame if was complete bullshit, which it is, demonstrably so*.

The original EU chart was about a trade deal with the UK, and therefore listed all countries the EU has a trade agreement with. Guess with whom the EU does not have trade deals with? Right, US and China.

They don't have a FTA with the UK either, yet they put the UK on the slide. They are negotiating FTAs with both China and the US, like they are (or will soon be) with the UK as well - so they're all in the same position.

Here I'll make it the way that you think it should look:

No, its not my opinion, its just correct, as the EU originally posted, and you know it, fucking liar. You also just have put up another lie: That the EU is negotiationg with the US. Negotiations are "paused since 2016 until further notice".
We both (and everybody else) know that its correct that you are an idiot with an unhealthy obsession with the EU. I am shocked however to see that you rather picture yourself as a liar and propagandist. I guess the obsession goes deep.

*holds up an anatomically correct doll*
Now, Aractus, please show us on this doll, where exactly has the EU touched you?

Bullshit. The EU put out a straight up and down lie of a graph.

Nope, its 100% perfect. The EU graph was about countries it has trade deals with, and it was 100% correct. I used the sources you gave in order to verify.

Also you don't need a trade deal to do trade - you're the idiot if you don't understand that.

Why didnt you alter the title of the chart then? Was it too big?  
Are you finished moving goalposts?  

*The only factually correct part of your own fabricated fake news chart, is the size of the bubbles of China and the US. They are indeed the two biggest trading partners of the EU, yet we still dont have trade deals with the US and China.

But the point is that the EU is negotiating trade deals with both US and China and neither will come with the "level playing field complete regulatory alignment" bullshit that they're trying to force upon the UK.

Which part of me (and the EU) saying "we do not have trade deals with ..." are you pretending to not understand?
So i was right and you were wrong, thx.  I take this as "yes, i am a an idiot with an unhealthy obsession with the EU, and if necessary i will be a fucking liar"  

The UK has left you, get used to it. They're with us now - their real friends:

@Mathilda : Is it too much to ask to get this troll banned at least from this thread, since he demonstrably has no interest in having a dicussion in good faith? Else i see him only drowning this thread with his own propaganda and dishonesty, as he is already doing for some time. If he wants to keep spreading lies he can (ab)use his own blog.

[Aractus]

No, its not my opinion, its just correct, as the EU originally posted, and you know it, fucking liar.
We both (and everybody else) know that #1 is correct, you are an idiot with an unhealthy obsession with the EU. I am shocked however to see that you rather picture yourself as a liar and propagandist. I guess the obsession goes deep.

*holds up an anatomically correct doll*
Now, Aractus, please show us on this doll, where exactly has the EU touched you?

Holy fucking shit. I changed the graph, to reflect the way you felt it should be presented, which I thought was actually perfectly reasonable. Now you've come back and doubled-down on your slanderous accusations! Okay then explain to me how this is in any way inaccurate:



And I don't mean the exact per pixel positioning of the circles, I mean in what it actually presents.

Why didnt you alter the title of the chart then? Was it too big?  
Are you finished moving goalposts?  

Because there's no need, I've made it clear the grey circles don't have FTA's.

@Mathilda : Is it too much to ask to get this troll banned at least from this thread, since he demonstrably has no interest in having a dicussion in good faith? Else i see him only drowning this thread with his own porpaganda and dishonesty, as he is already doing for some time. If he wants to keep spreading lies he can (ab)use his own blog.

You're claiming that I'm spewing propaganda only because you've been listening to an EU-centric narrative for almost 4 years. Don't for a second think your claim is based in reality. My goal is to cut through the biased bullshit narrative that has been spun in the UK, and to some extent Western Europe over Brexit. There's absolutely no need to be so disrespectful. You're from a country that is ~70-80% against Brexit, whereas I'm from a country that (for people with an opinion) is at least 70-80% in favour of Brexit. I've told numerous people the propaganda that comes out of Germany, France and the UK and you'd be fucking shocked how many times they roll their eyes. FTA is the biggest one: I've told I'd say 6 or 7 people, all of whom are Labor voters ( ) and every single one of them rolled their eyes or had some equivalent response of disbelief when I told them the EU claims it can't strike a FTA with the UK in 11 months. I have British next door neighbours, they bought the house last year, they're thrilled about it - partly because they're going through our points-based immigration system and think it'll be brilliant back in the UK. Yet if you read what's online from the Guardian, BBC, and other biased sources "it's impossible". Yeah well let's see shall we? It may not be a comprehensive FTA but I'm 99% certain there will be one between EU and UK by the end of the year.

[Aractus]

Nope, its 100% perfect. The EU graph was about countries it has trade deals with, and it was 100% correct. I used the sources you gave in order to verify.

Really? "100% perfect" you say?

I apologise for deleting this from the previous post but I realised my own graphic was wrong, so I'll update it again. Quick edit to say I've changed the graph in the previous post to this one, and to remind you that the EU's official slide is here. And change the background so we know where we're at.



Okay this time I've put in the corrected numbers. I did it earlier, but my PDF app crashed and I hadn't realised it wasn't done, I do apologise. In any case I did outline the corrected numbers. Now I shall prove it. The data sets are here and here. You don't need to take my word for it, you can check them for yourself.

Chile: €16.7 ✘ €16.6
Japan: €117.2 ✘ €117.1
Switzerland: €236.3 ✘ €236.4
Turkey: €136.0 ✘ €135.9
Ukraine: €39.0 ✘ €38.9

Let's see which of us is right shall we? Me or the EU using their own data. Formula is EU28 Imports plus EU28 Exports minus UK Imports minus UK exports.

Chile: 8,416,025,006 + 9,971,382,848 - 1,054,626,641 - 653,497,744 = 16,679,283,469
Japan: 69,923,179,064 + 64,778,270,570 - 10,492,292,187 - 7,055,547,693 = 117,153,609,754
Switzerland: 108,985,664,116 + 156,261,005,843 - 7,312,775,693 - 21,592,943,007 = 236,340,951,259
Turkey: 76,137,986,849 + 77,080,344,520 - 9,305,687,110 - 7,959,524,808 = 135,953,119,451
Ukraine: 18,013,037,264 + 22,134,171,432 - 588,407,775 - 582,711,621 = 38,976,089,300

And you claim their graph is "perfect". Call me a fucking liar? Explain that↑.

[Deesse23]

No, its not my opinion, its just correct, as the EU originally posted, and you know it, fucking liar.
We both (and everybody else) know that #1 is correct, you are an idiot with an unhealthy obsession with the EU. I am shocked however to see that you rather picture yourself as a liar and propagandist. I guess the obsession goes deep.

*holds up an anatomically correct doll*
Now, Aractus, please show us on this doll, where exactly has the EU touched you?

Holy fucking shit. I changed the graph, to reflect the way you felt it should be presented,

I feel nothing....but maybe the disgust that you are tripling and quadrupling down on your lies.
The original chart of the EU matches exactly the description/title it was given, and you are trying to drown us all here in your bullshit

I am asking the moderators again to consider to take action.

Okay then explain to me how this is in any way inaccurate:

In other words: Look, a squirrel!

[Aractus]

I feel nothing....but maybe the disgust that you are tripling and quadrupling down on your lies.
The original chart of the EU matches exactly the description/title it was given, and you are trying to drown us all here in your bullshit

Explain what is wrong with this?



You claim I'm lying. Why not produce your own chart then?

I am asking the moderators again to consider to take action.

That's fine. You're the one hurling personal insults at me and providing no information or data to this topic not the other way around.

Also let me just say I resent the claim that I'm "spamming". I'm not giving a running commentary on how the trade talks are going, nor do I care to. If something significant happens I'll post, but most of it is filibuster right now. You want to say that I'm lying then prove it. Because I 100% stand behind my assessment of this as FAKE NEWS:



Prove otherwise.

[Aractus]

Okay so we're at the point where formal trade negotiations between EU and the UK should begin very shortly. Usually trade negotiations are done quietly. This is to limit the backlash from potentially adversely affected interests/industries in the public. Well the UK have put out their red lines publicly, and I must say they're all very reasonable really. This unusual step strongly indicates that they intend to keep to their interests. The EU has also made a number of public statements on their positions. Both sides have also now published their policy documents for the future EU-UK trading relationship.

Frankly the EU are completely deluded.

Now everyone will say I'm just "anti-EU biased" all the time, so let me offer this evidence as a prime example of their capacity for self-delusion from their own document (edit: apologies I had initially linked to the draft document):

"167. Any agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom negotiated on the basis of these negotiating directives will not include Gibraltar."

Really, so the EU Member States think that Gibraltar is a part of Spain and therefore is inside the EU do they? Or is there one rouge member state that has that opinion? I'd say it's pretty unambitiously obvious that it's the latter - I'd be shocked if anyone here disagrees. So here we have a clear example of where the EU has put into their own policy document the delusions of one single rogue member state.

The UK government has published their policy document as well. Paragraph 9 under the heading "Timing and pace of the negotiations" says this:

"The Government will not extend the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. This leaves a limited, but sufficient, time for the UK and the EU to reach agreement. The UK is committed to working in a speedy and determined fashion to do so, with an appropriate number of negotiating rounds between now and the June high-level meeting foreseen in the Political Declaration. The Government would hope that, by that point, the broad outline of an agreement would be clear and be capable of being rapidly finalised by September. If that does not seem to be the case at the June meeting, the Government will need to decide whether the UK’s attention should move away from negotiations and focus solely on continuing domestic preparations to exit the transition period in an orderly fashion. In so doing, it will be necessary to take into account in particular whether good progress has been possible on the least controversial areas of the negotiations, and whether the various autonomous processes on both sides are proceeding on a technical basis according to agreed deadlines."

Paragraphs 6-7 reads: "The parameters for that future relationship are set out in the UK / EU Political Declaration of 17 October. As that Declaration makes clear, a Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) should be at its core. This Agreement should be on the lines of the FTAs already agreed by the EU in recent years with Canada and with other friendly countries, and this paper sets out the structure and the policy content of such a CFTA in some detail. The CFTA should be supplemented by a range of other international agreements covering, principally, fisheries, law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, transport, and energy, and once again this paper sets out the content of such agreements in detail. All these agreements should have their own appropriate and precedented governance arrangements, with no role for the Court of Justice.

"The Government will work hard to agree arrangements on these lines. However, if it is not possible to negotiate a satisfactory outcome, then the trading relationship with the EU will rest on the 2019 Withdrawal Agreement and will look similar to Australia's."

So there you have the UK Government's position as clear as it can possibly be. The high-level meeting in June is the UK government's deadline to determine whether a free trade deal can be finalised by September. If there has been insufficient progress towards negotiating a deal the UK government will cease negotiations and focus solely on preparing for the required customs checks at their borders and will trade on WTO terms. The UK is binding the EU to the Political Declaration which clearly states that it is the ambition of both sides to negotiate in good faith to conclude a trade deal this year ready to be enacted from Jan 1 2021 something I've now pointed out repeatedly. This clearly reflects upon what David Lidington said about Theresa May's deal, which is that the EU made them put in certain provisions into the Political Declaration however it was their intent not to take certain options laid out in it. That was one of the sticking points he said with Labour supporting it - they wanted certain bits taken out of the PD. Which also means that the EU and the UK had very different things in mind when they agreed to the text of the PD, and here I will show you what the PD says about the high-level June meeting:

"141. Following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, the Parties will convene to take stock of progress with the aim of agreeing actions to move forward in negotiations on the future relationship. In particular, the Parties will convene at a high level in June 2020 for this purpose."

There's also this context:



The EU probably had in mind that this was the meeting where they could argue for an extension to the transition period, since that is the deadline set out in the Withdrawal Agreement for when an extension to it can be decided upon:



However nothing in either document says as much, and the UK government is well within their rights to interpret it the way they have done so. The UK's document also says clearly there will be no role for the European Court of Justice, and doesn't once make reference to the "level playing field".

Here's a great video with Iain Duncan Smith:

[Deesse23]

I feel nothing....but maybe the disgust that you are tripling and quadrupling down on your lies.
The original chart of the EU matches exactly the description/title it was given, and you are trying to drown us all here in your bullshit

Explain what is wrong with this?



You claim I'm lying. Why not produce your own chart then?

Look at the EU chart, it shows exactly what the EU claimed it shows.
Whats wrong with your chart? The title reads "Trade agreements" and you included countries the EU does NOT have trade agreements with. What part of that is hard to grasp?
Are you really that dense? No you arent, you are lying your ass off, since in your last reply you silently admited by saying

Also you don't need a trade deal to do trade - you're the idiot if you don't understand that.

Ergo, you knew VERY WELL about the mistake you made.

That's fine. You're the one hurling personal insults at me and providing no information or data to this topic not the other way around.

You are the one who made a simple mistake and rather want to be viewed as a liar than an idiot. The facts are on the AD table and everyone can see how you chose not to accept my correction to your mistake, which makes you a liar. No personal insult, just stating facts: You are lying.

You want to say that I'm lying then prove it.

It has already been proven, its all in this thread.
EU posted a chart about countries IT HAS A TRADE DEAL WITH
You *corrected* that chart by adding countries that the EU does NOT have a trade deal with (but has trade with, which is irrelevant)
I pointed out your mistake.
At ths point you had two choices: Accept and own you rmistke, or double down and become liar, since from this point on you knew that you were wrong and what your mitake was.

Its really simple. Your ego (and/or probably your zeal for your case "EU = antichrist") was in the way of admitting to a mistake. Why you KEEP rubbing salt into your own wound....that is really beyond me.

Because I 100% stand behind my assessment of this as FAKE NEWS:

Prove otherwise.

Me? Disproving your assertion? The one that has already been corrected?  
The EU chart is correct. Content matches the title (unlike you rown made up one). Prove its wrong, liar. You cant, since i have already explained why. How often do you want me to rub your nose in your own feces (lies). Do you have no self respect at all?  


You are now spamming the forum again with your desinformation campaign, trying to drown it with you rbullshit. I am asking moderators again, to ban you from this thread.

[Aractus]

Me? Disproving your assertion? The one that has already been corrected?  
The EU chart is correct. Content matches the title (unlike you rown made up one). Prove its wrong, liar. You cant, since i have already explained why. How often do you want me to rub your nose in your own feces (lies). Do you have no self respect at all?  


You are now spamming the forum again with your desinformation campaign, trying to drown it with you rbullshit. I am asking moderators again, to ban you from this thread.

Look I'm not going to argue with you - you can have a respectful conversation as your convenience. You can stop calling me a liar for a start.

How is posting the two trade talk policy documents that were *just released* over the past couple of days "spamming"? You just wait because there's a lot more self-delusion in the EU document I haven't even talked about yet - but the claim that Gibraltar is not a territory of the UK was just so over the top I thought it alone spoke volumes. They've put in a paragraph at the request of a single rogue member state, one wonders what else have they put in at the request of just 1 member state against the wishes of the rest?

There's no disinformation - the UK government's position is that they want to negotiate a free trade agreement with no regulatory alignment and no ECJ oversight, and if that's not possible they will trade on WTO terms and rely on the WA.

(quick edit) My job here is not to, as you seem to claim, "spam". It is to cut through the clear media bias and give you the facts - and yes of course coloured by my opinion. If you disagree that's fine, you can make the case that the UK is foolhardy and walking headlong into disaster if that's what you believe. I don't know exactly how the EU media is responding because, as you probably know, I can only read English. So though I do try to get across it when I can it's very limited exposure to what's going on in Germany and France and so on. I can assure you that despite whatever media exposure you have there, there is not one serious political commentator in Australia that I can think of arguing that Brexit is bad. Not one. That should tell you something...

[Deesse23]

Look I'm not going to argue with you - you can have a respectful conversation as your convenience. You can stop calling me a liar for a start.

Its pretty simple:
Either you do not understand the difference between "having a trade deal with" and "having NO trade deal with"
or
you are lying (aka deliberately faking a perfectly ok chart released by the EU)


You already demonstrated that you understood the difference, which rules out #1.

Also you don't need a trade deal to do trade - you're the idiot if you don't understand that.

This is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact. The only disrespect  see is lying, which is from your side, not only once. Just in your last post you doubled down on your lie again and called the EU chart "fake news". Its time you either own your mistakes or your lies. I am involved in neiter.

[Aractus]

Let's move on. Let me present you with an example of Brexit coverage in Australia from our public broadcaster the ABC. Where's all the doom-and-gloom negativity you see in the biased UK media - in the Guardian, BBC, the Independent, etc? There isn't any. All the claims that "the world looked on in dismay" that were repeated about the UK's decision to leave were a deluded lie. None of us did that. We looked on and cheered, and we're here and ready to embrace our great friend and mother country.

The Brexit complainer narrative was completely made up propaganda.

You want to talk "facts" that's one of the biggest one's that you're going to have to come to terms with. The UK has left your Union, and they're determined to open their borders to global trade just like we do in Australia. I couldn't be prouder. We used to follow the UK as an example - they're now following our example. They don't want to follow your example in Germany or in the EU. It's a complete straightforward rejection of the EU's protectionist economic and political model - and yes I believe that will be fantastic for the UK long-term.

[OakTree500]

I see this thread is still the "Aractus hates Europe and you're wrong if you disagree" topic then? amazing.

Long and short - Aractus is troll city, and I really do wish you'd just pipe down a touch. Like really - if you're right, then you're right. If you're wrong, then you are......but it's not about winning or losing arguements because brexit is happening, and more and more people here are [albeit very slowly] waking up to the fact it's a bit shite for them, unless you're a billionaire who could give two flying fucks about the regular people.

[Aractus]

I see this thread is still the "Aractus hates Europe and you're wrong if you disagree" topic then? amazing.

Long and short - Aractus is troll city, and I really do wish you'd just pipe down a touch. Like really - if you're right, then you're right. If you're wrong, then you are......but it's not about winning or losing arguements because brexit is happening, and more and more people here are [albeit very slowly] waking up to the fact it's a bit shite for them, unless you're a billionaire who could give two flying fucks about the regular people.

And I wish that others would contribute more to this thread - we don't all get what we with for.

Brexit tore down two British prime minsters. It forced two early general elections. It's a seismic event.

How many people here agree with the path the UK government is taking? put up your hands? 1? Just me. I can see and appreciate the value in their goals - sure perhaps I haven't always expressed it correctly, but to everyone that thinks they're going about it wrong: you'd be in the minority, not the majority, in the UK government. So do let that sink in.

I'd appreciate you not labelling me a troll, and in return I will be civil to you and treat you with the respect you deserve.

[Cavebear]

I see this thread is still the "Aractus hates Europe and you're wrong if you disagree" topic then? amazing.

Long and short - Aractus is troll city, and I really do wish you'd just pipe down a touch. Like really - if you're right, then you're right. If you're wrong, then you are......but it's not about winning or losing arguements because brexit is happening, and more and more people here are [albeit very slowly] waking up to the fact it's a bit shite for them, unless you're a billionaire who could give two flying fucks about the regular people.

And I wish that others would contribute more to this thread - we don't all get what we with for.

Brexit tore down two British prime minsters. It forced two early general elections. It's a seismic event.

How many people here agree with the path the UK government is taking? put up your hands? 1? Just me. I can see and appreciate the value in their goals - sure perhaps I haven't always expressed it correctly, but to everyone that thinks they're going about it wrong: you'd be in the minority, not the majority, in the UK government. So do let that sink in.

I'd appreciate you not labelling me a troll, and in return I will be civil to you and treat you with the respect you deserve.

Oh you are a troll alright, but in specific subjects you care about.

Climate change denial is one. Brexit is another. You generally bore me by espousing unfactualness.

[OakTree500]

And I wish that others would contribute more to this thread - we don't all get what we with for.

Brexit tore down two British prime minsters. It forced two early general elections. It's a seismic event.

How many people here agree with the path the UK government is taking? put up your hands? 1? Just me. I can see and appreciate the value in their goals - sure perhaps I haven't always expressed it correctly, but to everyone that thinks they're going about it wrong: you'd be in the minority, not the majority, in the UK government. So do let that sink in.

I'd appreciate you not labeling me a troll, and in return I will be civil to you and treat you with the respect you deserve.

It's not the first time I've called you a troll, and I probably won't stop until you end acting like the saviour of this thread and the be-all-end-all when it comes to knowledge on brexit. 

You have opinions, as do we, but we're not posting reams and reams of just garbage at times. We're very well aware how shite the situation is, and I'm sure you can understand that we don't need page after page of just whatever this thread has become now.

I really wouldn't mind, but on more that one occasion you're delved into "fake news" of your own [proven by the above on, ironically enough, some 'Fake News' you found] and lowered yourself to the whole like "LOL REMOANERS, AM I RIGHT?", which if anything is just a dick move. And why is it a Dick Move? Because some of us actually live/work here and are seeing things just get spunked up the wall all because people want what they already fucking had. Am I pissed, of course, but I'd rather just let the shit show get on whith itself rather than have people like you just act like total know it all arseholes, who then try and take the moral high ground when it's pointed out how shite they are being as a person.  

I'll be expecting more ramblings in response, (and you missing the whole point of anything we say in response as well), but that's become expected of you at this point.

[Aractus]

I really wouldn't mind, but on more that one occasion you're delved into "fake news" of your own [proven by the above on, ironically enough, some 'Fake News' you found] and lowered yourself to the whole like "LOL REMOANERS, AM I RIGHT?", which if anything is just a dick move.

Right but I literally asked about the terminology and got no constructive feedback. From now on I'm not saying remoaner I'm saying Brexit complainers. My point was never to belittle those that voted remain, it was to point out the false narrative being put forward by those vocally complaining and arguing to revoke Article 50. I think you're right that the term was unfortunately being felt by remain-voters who weren't complaining - the terminology surrounding Brexit evolved very quickly it was difficult to keep up.

[Cavebear]

I really wouldn't mind, but on more that one occasion you're delved into "fake news" of your own [proven by the above on, ironically enough, some 'Fake News' you found] and lowered yourself to the whole like "LOL REMOANERS, AM I RIGHT?", which if anything is just a dick move.

Right but I literally asked about the terminology and got no constructive feedback. From now on I'm not saying remoaner I'm saying Brexit complainers. My point was never to belittle those that voted remain, it was to point out the false narrative being put forward by those vocally complaining and arguing to revoke Article 50. I think you're right that the term was unfortunately being felt by remain-voters who weren't complaining - the terminology surrounding Brexit evolved very quickly it was difficult to keep up.

You don't often get positive feedback because you are not really very rational and are non-scientific about climate change. Did you expect "hey you are an annoying idiot, but we love you"?

[OakTree500]

My point was never to belittle those that voted remain, it was to point out the false narrative being put forward by those vocally complaining and arguing to revoke Article 50. 

Well now we can't revoke article 50, so hows about just dropping it altogether? I don't really want to get into semantics with you over this, but maybe if you stop talking to people like we're all thick idiots, maybe we'll read you're articles and stuff? Like "brexit complainers" and "remoaners" are the same thing, really, aren't they? I'm not here all like "Bloody LEAVETARDS" or whatever [which come to think of it, I've not actually seen a 'slur' that is aimed at those that voted leave. Maybe that's just me, or maybe it's says something about those who feel like they need a buzz word for people that did vote to remain?] because it's just a prick thing to do.

I really don't mind some of your stuff, honestly I don't, but I mean re-read some of your posts because they come across as bit "holier than thou" / "I know everything" / "here's information that nobody asked for" type deals. I believe this thread was for like headlines/discussion, and not to be your personal blog.......which I actually believe you HAVE a personal blog, so why not post the longer scroll-worthy things there and keep this civil? 

I mean the number one rule [In fact it's rule 0!] of this board is "Don't be a dick" which you're teetering on the edge of being a total dick throughout this entire thread - I, and many other, just want a civil discussion not "HAVE YOU SEEN, FAKE NEWS" etc and so forth, because right now we are leaving and we'll take it as it comes. We're not in power to make decisions, and the next few years of the governments own decisions will set them up for praise or for the fall, and we all have to just live through it to see which one it is.