The Lemon Fool

The oven ready turkey is running round the kitchen, squawking a lot, and shitting everywhere.
It's still a turkey though.

I don't understand why there was ever even a suggestion of a soft Brexit. The hard Brexit is the only acceptable form; the soft "Bregzit" is just sloppy speech.

Julian F. G. W.

jfgw wrote:I don't understand why there was ever even a suggestion of a soft Brexit.

Because they'd never have come remotely near a referendum majority without it. Next question.

TUK020 wrote:The oven ready turkey is running round the kitchen, squawking a lot, and shitting everywhere.
It's still a turkey though.

Looks like it's making its escape to freedom.

jfgw wrote:I don't understand why there was ever even a suggestion of a soft Brexit. The hard Brexit is the only acceptable form; the soft "Bregzit" is just sloppy speech.

Julian F. G. W.

I guess youd have to check with the broad church that voted leave.

I know people that voted to leave the EU but still wanted an agreement for free access and import/export ease etc - their motivations were based on non business reasons etc.

That sounds like a "soft" Brexit to me.

It's the Bulldog that has made a run for it, leaving the headless turkey with very ruffled feathers.

scrumpyjack wrote:It's the Bulldog that has made a run for it, leaving the headless turkey with very ruffled feathers.

In the Times this morning one commentator said that the trouble with the EU is that it still sees one of its members leaving and not a sovereign state seeking a mutual trading agreement. I must say that I was surprised to put it mildly at the rights that European fishing boats have to access our waters. No doubt there are plenty of other examples. They just don't seem to get it.

Dod

Maybe my attempt at wit belongs elsewhere. My opinion of the soft pronunciation belongs on this board, however. There was a time when broadcasters knew how to pronounce things.

Julian F. G. W.

Any more takers? viewtopic.php?f=63&t=26478

Dod101 wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:It's the Bulldog that has made a run for it, leaving the headless turkey with very ruffled feathers.

In the Times this morning one commentator said that the trouble with the EU is that it still sees one of its members leaving and not a sovereign state seeking a mutual trading agreement. I must say that I was surprised to put it mildly at the rights that European fishing boats have to access our waters. No doubt there are plenty of other examples. They just don't seem to get it.

Dod

A lot of European fishing boats have those rights because they bought them in the open market, from British former-fishermen, who then used their millions to give up fishing and set up in a new line of business. Not entirely surprising that their governments should wish to protect their rights.

Suppose the French or Spanish government were to change their law to confiscate all homes owned by Brits in their countries, You'd be happy with that exercise of sovereignty?

Dod101 wrote:In the Times this morning one commentator said that the trouble with the EU is that it still sees one of its members leaving and not a sovereign state seeking a mutual trading agreement.

That sounds very much like the "commentator" trotting out the same old garbage we've been hearing since the Referendum. Recall the proclamations of leading Brexity politicians:

"No one is talking about leaving the single market"

"They need us more than we need them"

"We hold all the cards"

Delusion/garbage/lies, the lot of it.

During any negotiations, more powerful parties get to influence the terms more than the weaker parties do. That "commentator" is simply failing to grasp the basics.

If towards the end of a negotiation you discover you've not got much of what you expected then you've just been schooled in the reality of who really held the stronger hand.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Dod101 wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:It's the Bulldog that has made a run for it, leaving the headless turkey with very ruffled feathers.

In the Times this morning one commentator said that the trouble with the EU is that it still sees one of its members leaving and not a sovereign state seeking a mutual trading agreement. I must say that I was surprised to put it mildly at the rights that European fishing boats have to access our waters. No doubt there are plenty of other examples. They just don't seem to get it.

Dod

A lot of European fishing boats have those rights because they bought them in the open market, from British former-fishermen, who then used their millions to give up fishing and set up in a new line of business. Not entirely surprising that their governments should wish to protect their rights.

Suppose the French or Spanish government were to change their law to confiscate all homes owned by Brits in their countries, You'd be happy with that exercise of sovereignty?

Those are the ones fishing under the Union Jack. What they have done is buy a quota previously allocated to a Brit, certainly not unheard of in that situation. I do not know that we have decided to confiscate these quota rights or that we could. I cannot see how we could even if we wanted to. I suspect that you have picked a weak spot because I imagine that all boats are fishing under a quota system. Quotas are allocated at the outset and if a secondary market evolves then that is an entirely different matter. What we should be arguing about is the right to our own territorial waters and even then we would need some sort of quota system since it cannot be a free for all. Those foreigners who have bought quota will either need to be compensated or left alone.

My comment was on the overall broad fishing rights acquired by different European countries in our waters and not the secondary market which has sprung up as a result.

Dod