"You have changed your argument from time to time, although as in the case of the Spanish claims on Gibraltar it could be that your initial statement was vaguer than you intended."
No I haven't. I've been entirely consistent the whole time.
The problem is that you've repeatedly made false assumptions based on what I've written - without me ever actually writing what you then claim.
Like in the question of Gibraltar where you assumed Spain has expressed a willingness to do things you haven't been able to prove they've actually expressed. And then based on that you assumed further things about the EU and me, based on my reply.
While I never actually wrote any of the things you claimed.
You just assumed my and the EU's position based on your prior belief about Spain's position - which you again haven't actually been able to prove is true either.
Which again is a result of you having an erroneous understanding of the basic facts - or as I have described this - you living in the Brexiter fantasy world and not the real world.
"However the basic issue that your correct on every point regardless of the evidence is the sticking point."
That sentence doesn't make any sense to me - I'm not sure what you're trying to say?
" As long as you insist on that your not only wrong but your also insulting to continually call me a liar because you insist your delusions about me are accurate."
I've never called you a liar - I've consistently said you're misinformed.
A liar knows he's lying - a misinformed person simply says what he believes to be the truth.
I guess you feel it's insulting that I say that you are misinformed about the facts - but as I said before, you simply are.
I've proven several things you've claimed as true to be wrong with sources to back that up, while you haven't been willing or able to back up any of your claims with any sources at all.
I truly believe you believe the things you say - but that doesn't make them any more true, you know.
If you want to prove your claims you have to back them up with reputable sources - that's how a serious debate works.
"Such as the insistence on no cherry picking when the EU has done nothing but that. Their demands that we meet all of their conditions before they will consider anything else to talk about."
Again - these are examples of what happens in negotiations.
Both sides want to set the negotiating agenda to favor their interests of course, and the result will be based on the different sides strengths.
Since Britain stands to lose a whole lot more in Brexit if the negotiations don't finish in time and she's been able to acquire some sort of access to the EU's common market and probably the customs union as well, basically all pressure is on her to strike a deal.
The EU, having a much stronger hand as they have far less to lose if Britain doesn't acquire this new deal, don't have the same pressure to close a deal and consequently don't have to concede to British demands.
This is precisely what EVERYONE not campaigning for Brexit told the British public before the referendum would happen in the negotiations - and now it's happening.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone - except the people who never actually understood the realities, but believed in the fantasy world of Brexiter imagination.
Because in that fantasy - and only in that fantasy - Britain was in fact the stronger party in the negotiations as German car manufacturers would be begging to retain access to the British market on the same terms as before - desperate to sell their cars. Just in the same way as Italian prosecco producers and so on.
But in fact this was of course never going to happen - and now it isn't happening.
The different strengths of the two sides is what decides the outcome of the negotiation, and if the Brexit fantasy had been true and Britain had been the stronger party and could pressure the EU for more favorable terms for herself - you and all other Brexiter's would of course find that perfectly in order.
The only reason you're unhappy with the result in the real world is of course that the Brexit fantasy wasn't true at all and Britain doesn't have the strength to pressure the EU to the concessions the Brexit campaigners promised you Britain would get, to get you to vote for Brexit.
"Their pretense their willing to continue the current open border with Ireland when they continually reject any such border."
I'm not sure what you actually mean by this? Presumably you meant to say that they "reject any such open border"?
Because there will obviously be a national border across Ireland after Brexit, just as there is today.
The question is if that national border will also be an external border for the EU - which it will be, if Britain doesn't secure access to at least the customs union.
As with everything else about Brexit, the EU is always in favor of the status quo - which works just fine now. So they definitely want to retain the open border we have today.
But like everything else regarding Brexit - this isn't up to the EU to decide.
Because Britain has decided to leave - and when she does all the agreement which currently keeps that border open are nullified.
Which means that for the border to remain open, Britain has to decide to seek a deal with the EU to keep it open - in effect at least access to the EU's customs union.
If Britain doesn't secure access to the customs union, the EU has no choice but to enforce border controls on what will then become an external border for the EU.
Otherwise Britain would in effect get an unfair advantage compared to all other non-EU nations bordering the EU that aren't either part of the customs union, as good could flow without any control across that border.
That's an untenable situation of course, as unscrupulous businessmen would exploit such a loophole to circumvent paying customs by sending goods to and fro the UK across that border. It would also become a security nightmare as the customs union regulates that the country of origin is responsible for inspecting all cargo before it's sent, so regular security checks aren't necessary at the very border.
But if Britain no longer signs on to the customs union, there are no longer any demands on her to check and seal each lorry before it crosses the border - meaning the EU must, for it's own safety, check them at the border.
And the same of course goes for British customs checking all incoming cargo to Britain.
Which is why experts have also been talking about the utter nightmare that will develop at Dover-Calais, if Britain doesn't secure access to the customs union.
Lorries will probably be stuck in queues for days before they can pass, as they all have to be inspected right at the border.
But yes, the EU very much want to retain the open border on Ireland - but it's all up to Britain and what she decides to do.
"There was Tusk's drinking club analogy"
Again - it's not actually that important what either Tusk or Barnier says, as they are simple employees of the EU and don't decide policy.
But if you still wish to keep bringing this up, the least you could do is provide an actual source for this quote you attach so much importance to.
Because so far you've completely failed to do so - despite me asking for it.
Further more - despite the fact that it's your responsibility to provide sources for the claims you make upon request, I've nonetheless searched for this comment by Tusk myself - but I've come up empty.
I'm not saying he didn't said something along the lines you claim - but I simply can't find it, so if you want to continue citing that quote, you'll at least have to find a source for it.
"However as I say, until your willing to behave in a civil manner rather than insist you know how I think, regardless of the evidence, there is no point in continuing."
I've never actually claimed I know how you think. What I've claimed is that you've made several false claims, which I attribute to the fact that you're misinformed about the facts.
And that it's my belief that you are so because you get your understanding of the world not from the real world, but from the Brexiter fantasy version of it.
You're perfectly welcome to challenge these assumptions of mine by providing proof of the claims you make by citing reputable sources - but so far you've chosen not to.
Instead you keep repeating the same beliefs over and over - but that of course proves nothing.
0
@stevep59
"You have changed your argument from time to time, although as in the case of the Spanish claims on Gibraltar it could be that your initial statement was vaguer than you intended."
No I haven't. I've been entirely consistent the whole time.
The problem is that you've repeatedly made false assumptions based on what I've written - without me ever actually writing what you then claim.
Like in the question of Gibraltar where you assumed Spain has expressed a willingness to do things you haven't been able to prove they've actually expressed. And then based on that you assumed further things about the EU and me, based on my reply.
While I never actually wrote any of the things you claimed.
You just assumed my and the EU's position based on your prior belief about Spain's position - which you again haven't actually been able to prove is true either.
Which again is a result of you having an erroneous understanding of the basic facts - or as I have described this - you living in the Brexiter fantasy world and not the real world.
"However the basic issue that your correct on every point regardless of the evidence is the sticking point."
That sentence doesn't make any sense to me - I'm not sure what you're trying to say?
" As long as you insist on that your not only wrong but your also insulting to continually call me a liar because you insist your delusions about me are accurate."
I've never called you a liar - I've consistently said you're misinformed.
A liar knows he's lying - a misinformed person simply says what he believes to be the truth.
I guess you feel it's insulting that I say that you are misinformed about the facts - but as I said before, you simply are.
I've proven several things you've claimed as true to be wrong with sources to back that up, while you haven't been willing or able to back up any of your claims with any sources at all.
I truly believe you believe the things you say - but that doesn't make them any more true, you know.
If you want to prove your claims you have to back them up with reputable sources - that's how a serious debate works.
"Such as the insistence on no cherry picking when the EU has done nothing but that. Their demands that we meet all of their conditions before they will consider anything else to talk about."
Again - these are examples of what happens in negotiations.
Both sides want to set the negotiating agenda to favor their interests of course, and the result will be based on the different sides strengths.
Since Britain stands to lose a whole lot more in Brexit if the negotiations don't finish in time and she's been able to acquire some sort of access to the EU's common market and probably the customs union as well, basically all pressure is on her to strike a deal.
The EU, having a much stronger hand as they have far less to lose if Britain doesn't acquire this new deal, don't have the same pressure to close a deal and consequently don't have to concede to British demands.
This is precisely what EVERYONE not campaigning for Brexit told the British public before the referendum would happen in the negotiations - and now it's happening.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone - except the people who never actually understood the realities, but believed in the fantasy world of Brexiter imagination.
Because in that fantasy - and only in that fantasy - Britain was in fact the stronger party in the negotiations as German car manufacturers would be begging to retain access to the British market on the same terms as before - desperate to sell their cars. Just in the same way as Italian prosecco producers and so on.
But in fact this was of course never going to happen - and now it isn't happening.
The different strengths of the two sides is what decides the outcome of the negotiation, and if the Brexit fantasy had been true and Britain had been the stronger party and could pressure the EU for more favorable terms for herself - you and all other Brexiter's would of course find that perfectly in order.
The only reason you're unhappy with the result in the real world is of course that the Brexit fantasy wasn't true at all and Britain doesn't have the strength to pressure the EU to the concessions the Brexit campaigners promised you Britain would get, to get you to vote for Brexit.
"Their pretense their willing to continue the current open border with Ireland when they continually reject any such border."
I'm not sure what you actually mean by this? Presumably you meant to say that they "reject any such open border"?
Because there will obviously be a national border across Ireland after Brexit, just as there is today.
The question is if that national border will also be an external border for the EU - which it will be, if Britain doesn't secure access to at least the customs union.
As with everything else about Brexit, the EU is always in favor of the status quo - which works just fine now. So they definitely want to retain the open border we have today.
But like everything else regarding Brexit - this isn't up to the EU to decide.
Because Britain has decided to leave - and when she does all the agreement which currently keeps that border open are nullified.
Which means that for the border to remain open, Britain has to decide to seek a deal with the EU to keep it open - in effect at least access to the EU's customs union.
If Britain doesn't secure access to the customs union, the EU has no choice but to enforce border controls on what will then become an external border for the EU.
Otherwise Britain would in effect get an unfair advantage compared to all other non-EU nations bordering the EU that aren't either part of the customs union, as good could flow without any control across that border.
That's an untenable situation of course, as unscrupulous businessmen would exploit such a loophole to circumvent paying customs by sending goods to and fro the UK across that border. It would also become a security nightmare as the customs union regulates that the country of origin is responsible for inspecting all cargo before it's sent, so regular security checks aren't necessary at the very border.
But if Britain no longer signs on to the customs union, there are no longer any demands on her to check and seal each lorry before it crosses the border - meaning the EU must, for it's own safety, check them at the border.
And the same of course goes for British customs checking all incoming cargo to Britain.
Which is why experts have also been talking about the utter nightmare that will develop at Dover-Calais, if Britain doesn't secure access to the customs union.
Lorries will probably be stuck in queues for days before they can pass, as they all have to be inspected right at the border.
But yes, the EU very much want to retain the open border on Ireland - but it's all up to Britain and what she decides to do.
"There was Tusk's drinking club analogy"
Again - it's not actually that important what either Tusk or Barnier says, as they are simple employees of the EU and don't decide policy.
But if you still wish to keep bringing this up, the least you could do is provide an actual source for this quote you attach so much importance to.
Because so far you've completely failed to do so - despite me asking for it.
Further more - despite the fact that it's your responsibility to provide sources for the claims you make upon request, I've nonetheless searched for this comment by Tusk myself - but I've come up empty.
I'm not saying he didn't said something along the lines you claim - but I simply can't find it, so if you want to continue citing that quote, you'll at least have to find a source for it.
"However as I say, until your willing to behave in a civil manner rather than insist you know how I think, regardless of the evidence, there is no point in continuing."
I've never actually claimed I know how you think. What I've claimed is that you've made several false claims, which I attribute to the fact that you're misinformed about the facts.
And that it's my belief that you are so because you get your understanding of the world not from the real world, but from the Brexiter fantasy version of it.
You're perfectly welcome to challenge these assumptions of mine by providing proof of the claims you make by citing reputable sources - but so far you've chosen not to.
Instead you keep repeating the same beliefs over and over - but that of course proves nothing.