Macron's behaviour is despicable

[Snowymountainsalways]

I am a moderate remainer, I say that because I do feel we should respect the vote. I am not a remainer who think a second ref will help. A second ref won't help regardless of the outcome, because the other side will simply demand another one, and another and so it would go on indefinitely and it is utterly futile and pointless.

I had come to the conclusion that a good deal would be the best outcome in the end. However I am just appalled at the behaviour and language coming out of the EU, and particularly Macron.

I am now even thinking what is the point? What is the point in continuing with any 'deal'? They are clearly not remotely interested.

May (for all her faults, and she has many) should gather her dignity and call it a day. We were there in good faith, the chequers plan is not perfect but it was a starting point. I had hoped it would work. It would have offered a solution of sorts.

I have cancelled our holiday next year to France. I don't want to go anywhere so openly hostile, despite the fact we have been holidaying there for my entire living life. I can't support Macron's comments that were both needlessly humiliating and rude to our prime minister.

Thoughts?

Loving that my autocorrect still changes Farage to Garage

@IdahoJones, my theory is either to justify a second vote ("this is the only deal on the table so we think it only fair to go back to the electorate" - also read as "we've made such an arse up we're handing it over so there's someone else to blame"), or that she doesn't give a damn what deal we get because her ilk will do well out of it no matter what ("that's your lot, I'm off to the Caymans ...").

My family are much the same as yours. I was the only remain voter, now three of the other four would also vote remain.

We can't stay under EEA as it would still mean free movement, and that was one of the reasons lots of people voted leave.

She could sell the idea all she liked, it would not fly even in her own party.

Great speech? She almost got to the end before wavering, but the last minute or so looked as if she was going to burst into tears. I think she strode off before she fell off.

As for the content - nonsense from start to finish.

Immigration - she knows that it could be controlled if she wanted to. She was Home Sec. for longer than anyone else in the last 100 years. She knows that 2/3 of immigration comes from non-EU countries. She knows that EU immigrants fill vital gaps in the UK job market, contribute more than they take out of the system (and contribute more per head than UK citizens) - and that EU immigration could be controlled if the UK wanted to. Almost uniquely amongst the EU countries, there is no registration of EU citizens in the UK. She has a bee in her bonnet about immigration that blinds her to any reasonable discussion on the topic.

The rest was just tub-thumping for the benefit of the Conservative faithful at next week's conference. She thought that she was coming home from Salzburg with some kind of endorsement from the EU. Instead she got the cold shoulder from Tusk, Juncker and Merkel and kick up the ass from Macron and Vadakar, so she needed to do something to re-establish some sort of credibility.

It's gone 3pm in Europe on a Friday afternoon. Everyone will have gone home for the weekend, so there will be no reaction from there. Barnier will say something diplomatic at some point. The rest have other things to do.

Not what I have heard in Germany and Italy or Greece

You wouldn’t think so. Given that there are some EU countries where opposition to the EU is higher than here and even all the others have sizeable anti-EU minorities, you would think quite a few people wouldn’t be finding it funny at all.

No deal = desperate trade deals = handing over control to other countries = bye bye protective legislation. That's the reality of it because there couldn't be any other way. Still, Fox, Johnson, Redwood. JRM will be OK so that's a consolation.

So does a no deal scenario activate on the 29th of March next year?

I am pleased she has at least guaranteed the rights of EU citizens here.

One thing is certain, the rich will get richer.

Unless you can prove that it was one of the reasons over 50% of those who voted voted leave, you cannot claim to know that there is any kind of majority (however bizarrely you define majority) in favour of ending free movement.

EEA would mean all the same access without any influence. I can't think it will work or be credible.

linkylink - oh yes.

Either that or major rebellion from Tory moderates (and unambiguous support from Labour for a people's vote) and a vote of no confidence against may. It would mean Tories bringing down the Tories. Unlikely.

the rich will get richer

How?

I meant either no deal

Surely no deal means a hard border in Ireland anyway. So it's not any sort of solution.
It might trigger a Border Poll though...reunified Ireland anyone???

Can someone tell me when the no deal scenario would work?
Will it happen on the 29th of March?

We could easily stay under EEA if May and Cameron had simply pointed out that we had the means to control EU immigration all along. People think it's uncontrolled - it absolutely is not. You have to show that you have a job that can support you and your family, or the necessary funds, for at least three months. If you have no job after six months you can be deported. Belgium makes use of these mechanisms when they want to, and we could have as well, except that we chose never to put the necessary systems in place. And who was Home Secretary for six years before the referendum? It's the same for the NHS - when I lived in Ireland and brought my kids over to visit family in the UK, they were always having small accidents or illnesses. Every single time I took them to a doctor I produced their EHICs and our insurance details. Every single time I was told not to worry as they didn't have the systems to deal with the paperwork. In Italy when I broke my leg I got fantastic treatment, but only after I'd produced the EHIC so that Italy could claim the money back. It was never the EU's fault that we couldn't be arsed to set the necessary systems up.

So now it’s all Macron’s fault that we’re going into a hard Brexit? Rather convenient scapegoat. I agree with him that Farage et al are liars, and proven liars at that.

The U.K. government has given itself too great a task. Article 50 was triggered too soon. I sent a question to the DExEU, it took them a year to reply with a “we don’t know answer”. Davis had a total of 4 hours of f2f negotiations before he resigned, how could we be headed for anything other than a hard Brexit? Add dangerous buffoons such as Johnson and Rees Mogg bullying, undermining and manipulating at every opportunity with no thought other than their own personal gain and you have disaster for the U.K, Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent, the EU.

This is our Pyhricc Victory.

Havanananana Gone home by 3, But I thought all EU citizens worked really hard and long hours, that makes the U.K. workers look like workaholics

So does a no deal scenario activate on the 29th of March next year?

Unless a stay of execution is agreed, yes.

@linkylink has summed it up perfectly. The people that will be most severely affected by no deal will be those most vulnerable, least financially able. When food prices rise it will be a bit of a moan for the wealthy, but the difference between eating and heating for those already living below the breadline.

snowy
Depends what kind of brexit we get- the left or right version.
With a Tory no deal they can finally deregulate everything and that will only benefit people with huge financial resources. With a radical left brexit it's nationalisation of industry and infrastructure, power back to unions and very high taxes.
It would be a much more extreme country.

Akerman - absolutely but why spoil a good narrative about free movement?

EEA would have been a bloody difficult sales job, i agree with you there. But if she had ever once put country before party, it's a sales job that she could have gone for. She needed to risk UKIP reducing the Tory majority (I'm talking about before the 2017 election when she did actually have a majority to play with). She needed to throw down the gauntlet to labour and to push them into being the hard brexit party, which might have split them properly instead of halfheartedly like they are now. She needed to put fewer major cabinet roles in the hands of Brexiters. Everything she did was for the Tories. But the Tories live here too.