The best things come in threes so they say and the BBC must agree as it lectures us on what we can say and think.
We’ve had Nihal educating stupid white people who think mass immigration has been bad for the housing market.
We’ve had Nicky Campbell telling us we can’t compare the EU to the Soviet era….that’s just hysterical nonsense.
And now we’ve had Norman Smith telling us we can’t have a ‘No Deal’ even if it’s better than a bad deal.
Which is a shame as he has decided that a ‘No deal’ is the most likely outcome of Brexit negotiations. And you know whose fault it is? Ours. Well, the British government’s due to its inability to tell the EU clearly what it wants, and this is due to a lack of unity and clarity in the Cabinet. [Hmmm…if there is any lack of unity it would be due to Remainers like Hammond and Rudd trying to stop Brexit..sack ’em May!] How is it that the intransigent, bullying and dictatorial EU is never to blame?
Remainders, he tells us, will think this outcome a ‘Horror’ due to the dreadful ramifications for the economy…however hardline Brexiteers will welcome it regardless.
But, Norman tells us, a No Deal is a route that is not to be considered…it’s just too terrible to contemplate. Nice of Norman to save May the trouble of formulating any policy herself…she can just give him a ring at the BBC anytime she has particularly thorny problem regarding Brexit.
Looking at the comments it seems I’m not the only one to have heard Norman’s wisdom….
Absolute rubbish from Norman Smith on WATO, just now, proclaiming that the reason why ‘no deal’ seems to be looming is because the Cabinet is so divided that the UK is unable to tell the EU what sort of deal it is that Britain wants.
This, of course, is simply the BBC peddling the EU’s lies for it. The truth is that the EU is deliberately obfuscating and prevaricating in the hope that the massed voices of Quislings like the BBC will somehow magically convince the UK to change its decision.
This really is disgraceful behaviour from the BBC and there needs to be a reckoning.
I am starting to think that it is not a case of no deal being better than a bad deal, but that it will be no deal because even a bad deal will not be on offer. The EU is offering us nothing.
They insist on concluding talks on the Irish border, status of EU citizens and the “divorce bill” before trade is even discussed. We will be leaving the EU in March 2019, and trade talks do not happen overnight. The EU is just dragging its feet on this. Without agreeing trade terms, how can the Irish border even be discussed?
I cannot help but think that the EU feel that, faced with their intransigence, Britain will blink and withdraw our Article 50 notification. This was how they treated Greece, which eventually capitulated to the EU’s will, and is now an economic colony. Yannis Varoufakis has written about this: he thought he was having honest discussions with fair minded colleagues; he did not realise that the EU was quite prepared to crush Greece to save their demented Project. Nothing can be allowed to threaten the Project.
I think the EU fears that if members can leave with good trade terms, membership of the EU, with all that entails for national sovereignty, will begin to seem less attractive. So they have no incentive or desire to offer the UK decent terms. Added to this, we pay them £10 billion a year, and they will miss that money. They want to keep us on the inside to bleed us dry financially.
So from the EU point of view, they have no reason to negotiate a fair free trade agreement with Britain. They will keep dragging their feet until, they think, Britain will panic and decide to stay in after all. It is very hard for them to conceive of a member state leaving, because then the whole ethos of “ever closer union” is falsified.
Mrs May must face up to this reality. She tried to show the hand of friendship in Florence, and was snubbed. She must lay down the law at the next meeting of the European Council: either trade talks begin by the end of this year, or we must conclude that there is no prospect of trade talks being completed by March 2019, and accordingly we will begin to plan for a hard Brexit with no deal. I think that is what the EU leadership want, to punish Britain for leaving. Unless fellow heads of government stand up to the EU Commission at the EU Council, then we must accept we are leaving with no deal. The sooner we start planning for this, the better.
And please tell me what all this ‘planning’ involves, both in terms of facilities required, and the cost thereof.
Part of the planning is to withdraw from NATO and our troops in the eastern bloc , giving the wink to Putin that he can take them . Why should we defend countries that are unfriendly ?
Secondly to deport loads of EU nationals to their own countries and dole queues .
Harsh ? Well we have offered good terms , but the others have been harsh . So it’s the EU’ s fault , not ours .
Perhaps those Polish , Romanian , Lithuanian etc nationals would like to trash the EU institutions in Brussels as they pass through to the unemployment lines in their own countries .
And please tell me what all this ‘planning’ involves, both in terms of facilities required, and the cost thereof.
Whatever the cost, it’s worth it to a) preserve our democracy b) free us to trade and connect with the world on our own terms and c) free up £18 billion p.a. to spend as WE see fit.
Sounds like you might be a Remainer, in which case can you enlighten us on the plans for remaining in the EU? Join the Euro? Full political integration? As Johnson Senior observed, the EU project isn’t a ship that we can help steer, it’s a train with just one destination.
Time to get off while we still can.
“We will be leaving the EU in March 2019,…..” Don’t bet on it, Rob. To me. all this obfuscation is intended to wear the British people down…….
All a transition period will do is give those companies who don’t want Brexit to go ahead, more time to relocate. The only sensible option and one which the vast majority of companies will adapt to is to leave the EU as soon as possible, deal or no deal.
What are the implications of becoming a ‘third country’ ?
Rough at first , becoming settled with great prospects later .
How on earth will HM Government get a “deal” which to be accepted by the EU, requires there to be consensus among: the European Commission; the European Parliament and the individual Member States of the European Union?
If the Irish Government had any sense, particularly in the light of how the EU has treated their country, they should hold their own referendum on continuing EU membership but recommend that the Irish vote for getting out; the opportunities that would present for us and them would be immense.
Agreed, but it will never happen. They want to keep the teat of the EU.
Ireland has now become a net contributor to the EU. We shall see how popular the EU is there when they actually have to pay for the damned thing.
If I wanted to hear the left wing pro remain views of Norman Smith, masquerading as reporting, I’d pay for a lefty news channel , something like GuardianOnAir maybe . Oh I forgot , I already do, it’s called the BBC.
“Norman Smith ”
Ah, that chap! I tell ya, when that guy rants on against the Tories he “Almost persuadest me to be a [remainer]” Acts 26:28