Tzelemel wrote:They won't report on anything until they're doubly sure it's true...

From the Prime Minister, however, rather than noise, we get clichés. "I am very clear", she says, "that I want to ensure we get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom that works for everyone across the United Kingdom and all parts of the UK when we enter these negotiation".

"I have set out my objectives", she declares: "These include getting a good free trade deal. They include putting issues like continuing working together on issues like security at the core of what we are doing. We are going to be out there, negotiating hard, delivering on what the British people voted for".

What we don't get is any sense of how she intends to achieve this, up against Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, who has a message for us. "Britain's example", he says, "will make everyone else realise that it's not worth leaving".

This has the tabloid media spitting with indignation at Juncker's "boast", but a more sanguine assessment might be that the President, unlike the Prime Minister, has weighed up the odds of the UK walking away with a successful deal, and has concluded that they are not favourable.

If we are to believe the odious Guido the "Ultras" themselves are not rating our chances very highly, while a "government source" puts the likelihood of the UK having to adopt the WTO option at 50-50.

If that is the case, the Government ministers have no-one to blame but themselves. It would take very little skill and even less research to cut through the rhetoric and acknowledge that concluding a "good free trade deal" inside the 18 months being set aside for the talks - on top of all the other issues that have to be settled – is extremely unlikely.

All one can do is watch the Government define its own nemesis as it lurches forward into an impossible position from which there is no escape.

Sadly, though, it appears we are going to be none the wiser in just over a week when the Prime Minister sends her Article 50 notification to Brussels. We are told to expect (contrary to the advice of Ivan Rogers) only a short letter, possibly extending to two pages at most, doing nothing more than reiterating the Government's general objectives.

If that is the case, it will be a mistake, handing the initiative to the "colleagues", who will then have no constraints in crafting their response. And if, as expected, the they couch it as a series of demands, leading with the presentation of a substantial claim for financial compensation, then we can pretty much assume that we're in for a rough ride.

Mrs May has seriously dropped the ball on this, having failed to manage public expectations in a battle she cannot win. Come what may, the UK is going to have to pay a substantial sum to the EU, and make ongoing financial commitments, if it is to stay in the game. Yet, she has allowed the assumption that she will be standing firm, setting herself up for a fall.

Some theorise that, in the expectation of failure, Mrs May is looking more to the process of blame deflection than she is a successful outcome to the negotiations, in which case an unwavering stance from the "colleagues" will play into her hands, allowing the "unreasonable" EU to be cast a the villain.

Juncker is already halfway there, according to (Bild am Sonntag via Reuters), having said that Juncker said Britain would need to get used to being treated as a non-member. "Half memberships and cherry-picking aren't possible", he says: "In Europe you eat what's on the table or you don't sit at the table".

That latter phrase is being taken as an indication that the EU will be immovable on the financial issue, in which case we are already heading for the WTO option and economic catastrophe.

Would-be chief negotiator Michael Barnier certainly seems to be preparing for the worst, instructing the EU-27 that they have to start preparing now for future customs controls.

The EU will take Britain to the International Court of Justice if it tries to walk away without paying an estimated £50bn ‘divorce bill’, a leak of its negotiating strategy says.

The draft plan – obtained by a Dutch newspaper – threatens a long legal battle at The Hague to grab back what the EU regards as the UK’s liabilities for its 43-year membership.

“In that case it is: see you in The Hague!” it quotes an EU official – in response to Theresa May’s threat to leave with “no deal” if the Brexit talks cut up rough.

....

Significantly, he [Mr Tusk] vowed to make "the process of divorce the least painful for the EU" - without mentioning what pain may lie ahead for Britain.

Mrs May has seriously dropped the ball on this, having failed to manage public expectations in a battle she cannot win.

VazScep wrote:Just want to double check: North is the climate denying fuckwit who doubles down when he refers to recipients of foreign aid as "jungle bunnies?"

Not that he can't be right about Brexit. I'm just saying "fuck him."

ronmcd wrote:

Tzelemel wrote:They won't report on anything until they're doubly sure it's true...

fisherman wrote:I think this is the most pessimistic assessment of UK's Brexit I've read from North yet. http://eureferendum.com/ [...]

4. The housing market is paralysed

Internally, inflation kills the housing and retail market and poverty levels spike out of control - without the ability to provide welfare.

Inflation begins to spiral as additional costs are passed on, increasing as the field of supply narrows and costs must be recouped wherever possible. The retail market is reduced to one or two large chains with empty shelves and limited stocks of household goods in the wake of constant panic buying.

The housing market stalls, with no one seeking to sell or buy and further revenue is lost. Mortgage rates begin to spike as banks panic. Job losses combined with inflation send over half the population into breadline living or below.

With no budgetary room and restrictions on welfare applications, the welfare system collapses, leaving millions in poverty.

Tzelemel wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tzelemel wrote:They won't report on anything until they're doubly sure it's true...

Okay, I may be being naive, or hyperbolic, but what are you trying to say here? I can't read that picture.

Did my comment give you cancer; are you checking your chest for lumps?

Tzelemel wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tzelemel wrote:They won't report on anything until they're doubly sure it's true...

Okay, I may be being naive, or hyperbolic, but what are you trying to say here? I can't read that picture.

Did my comment give you cancer; are you checking your chest for lumps?

Byron wrote:It gets worse. Much worse. Someone option the movie rights, fast.

Corneel wrote:

Tzelemel wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tzelemel wrote:They won't report on anything until they're doubly sure it's true...

Okay, I may be being naive, or hyperbolic, but what are you trying to say here? I can't read that picture.

Did my comment give you cancer; are you checking your chest for lumps?

I think the good sir ronmcd is expressing a mild case of disbelief at what you said (what you said being the bit he quoted above the picture of Sir Patrick Stewart that in a way mimics the disbelief the good sir ronmcd seems to feel at said quote). For the sake of brevity you could replace the picture with the acronym WTF followed by an interrogation mark.

It seems that the good sir ronmcd is somewhat skeptical about your assertion that the good people of the BBC would take as much care about the truthfulness of their statements as you seem to believe, especially as it pertains to any matters of a Scottish nature.

mcgruff wrote:

Byron wrote:It gets worse. Much worse. Someone option the movie rights, fast.

Like I keep telling anyone who'll listen, independent Scotland will have to build a wall to keep out the roving bands of post-Brexit cannibals.