To feel so angry at the prospect of a no deal Brexit

[toastmeahotcrossbun]

The clock is ticking now and this looks like the most likely scenario. It's not fair on the almost half the population who voted remain, and it's not fair even on those who voted leave because it's so different from what they were promised. And, to inflict this on the country in the middle of the pandemic is the last thing we need.

This. It's over. We've gone. It's just a case now of how to make the best of the situation.

If negotiations are failing perhaps that is down to the eu trying to block our reasonable demands

And btw I was a remainer

Of course you were .

I don't know that we're in a position to be making any sort of 'demands'. We (not me personally, but collectively as a country) wanted to leave. Why on earth would the EU deem it legitimate for the UK to have any of the membership rights when we don't want to be members anymore?

Why on earth would the EU deem it legitimate for the UK to have any of the membership rights when we don't want to be members anymore?

But that cuts both ways, why should we deem it legitimate to retain existing EU rules on, for example, state aid and fisheries, if we are no longer members?

But that cuts both ways, why should we deem it legitimate to retain existing EU rules on, for example, state aid and fisheries, if we are no longer members?

We don't have to - that was the point of leaving. If the UK has left, it doesn't have to aligne with any eu regulations. It can say fuck you to the lot of them.

Unless, we want some of the benefits we had before we left. Then the EU can ask something of the UK in return for the privileges of a club it is not a member of it.

@StormzyinaTCup

Why on earth would the EU deem it legitimate for the UK to have any of the membership rights when we don't want to be members anymore?

But that cuts both ways, why should we deem it legitimate to retain existing EU rules on, for example, state aid and fisheries, if we are no longer members?

State aid is a WTO issue too though. We don't just get to throw money at things once we leave the EU. Look at the long running row between the EU and the USA over support the EU/France gave Airbus.

We don't have to - that was the point of leaving. If the UK has left, it doesn't have to aligne with any eu regulations. It can say fuck you to the lot of them.

And this is exactly what so many of us are angry about. Those regulations are not just some big bully ganging up against us. They are our employment protections and environmental protections. Exactly what do leavers think will be put in their place?

(For a clue: look at what's happening to the food standards with the US trade deal. After our august and wise politicians swore that they would never be watered down.)

Stormy, fine, but then the EU can make it a condition of maintaining the lots bits of the Eu we want to keep.

Popping back on to repeat "Fuck 'em . This is what they wanted".

I still expect a last minute cave in by the government, with some minor concession being billed as a great victory over the EU.

Let's hope so llangollen28 At the moment that does look like our best hope

@diplodocusinermine

Stormy, fine, but then the EU can make it a condition of maintaining the lots bits of the Eu we want to keep.

I fully expect that we will have to pay to keep some of the bits we want, that is part of negotiation.

What rankles is the lack of being able to compete as an individual country whilst within (them being the rules we suck that one up) however, it’s not ok for the EU to then dictate that U.K. as a now non-member, continue to abide by their rules on state aid, tying us up indefinitely to any subsequent changes they deem fit to make over the next few years (and with no input)

I always thought to them we were just a small and insignificant country and we wouldn’t be missed (apart from our annual financial input of course) but it would appear maybe they feel their nearest neighbour might prove problematic in undercutting/offering more competitive terms and at a lot quicker pace too.

I’d prefer a deal but not on those above terms.

Which rules are you not happy with?

And surely we can compete?

We trade with countries outside the EU, they are not stopping us are they?

We trade with countries outside the EU,
Yes, we do, but as part of the EU, with terms negotiated by the EU. When we leave, those deals become invalid and we fall back to WTO terms.

What rankles is the lack of being able to compete as an individual country whilst within (them being the rules we suck that one up) however, it’s not ok for the EU to then dictate that U.K. as a now non-member, continue to abide by their rules on state aid, tying us up indefinitely to any subsequent changes they deem fit to make over the next few years (and with no input)

Hang on, its not just a question of paying for the bits we want, say Erasmus but we want complete free access to the Single Market ... so the ability to sell into the worlds largest SM without being tied to any of its rules!
You wonder why they have said no?

Cake an eat it all over again.

I’ve still to hear a single positive reason why anyone voted leave. I mean specific reason that is not a ridiculous and false assertion about being full or bendy bananas.
What specifically do people think are, say, three advantages of leaving?

CherryPavlova you'll never get an answer to that because it doesn't exist. And people get angry if you ask. If there were good reasons, those would have been set out and people wouldn't get angry to be asked.

toastmeahotcrossbun Indeed but I’m an optimist and wait hopefully (if in vain!)

it’s not ok for the EU to then dictate that U.K. as a now non-member, continue to abide by their rules on state aid, tying us up indefinitely to any subsequent changes they deem fit to make over the next few years (and with no input)

I always thought to them we were just a small and insignificant country and we wouldn’t be missed (apart from our annual financial input of course) but it would appear maybe they feel their nearest neighbour might prove problematic in undercutting/offering more competitive terms and at a lot quicker pace too.

If the UK wants a trade deal with the EU that gives it preferential access to the benefits of being in the EU, then the EU is perfectly entitled to state the conditions. It is by far the larger party and holds all the cards.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. The UK would be problematic if “undercutting” from within an EFTA style agreement, becasue it would be destabilising. If there’s no deal the UK “undercutting” would not be a significant problem to the EU becasue it would not destabilise the EU’s internal markets.

The EU’s consistent intransigence on this tells you that the UK is in a very poor negotiationg position. See marvellous setting fire to your car analogy above.

"it’s not ok for the EU to then dictate that U.K. as a now non-member, continue to abide by their rules on state aid, tying us up indefinitely to any subsequent changes they deem fit to make over the next few years (and with no input)"

Have you seen the US demands for trade deals? We're not in the United States, either!

What specifically do people think are, say, three advantages of leaving?

1. Save 5p on a box of tampons.
2. ... err..

Well that's one reason anyway. An absolute, concrete benefit to leaving the EU that we couldn't have done as a member.