Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, ThomThomDrum said:

DD doing his darnedest to make the UK look more foolish than voting for Brexit has thus far.... idiot 

It's certainly a stupid shooting off of his gob.

Meanwhile, poor old Leo seems to have missed the clause he signed up to, of nothing having been agreed.

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's certainly a stupid shooting off of his gob.

Meanwhile, poor old Leo seems to have missed the clause he signed up to, of nothing having been agreed.

Thats the problem with the UK: they have to mouth off and undermine us in talks. 

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Thats the problem with the UK: they have to mouth off and undermine us in talks. 

The UK shouldn't be mouthing off about what they've signed.

And Leo should have looked at what he's signed. No one forced him to, and if he didn't read what he signed it's no one's fault but his own.

Yet again, more than the UK can be a cock about brexit. 

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The UK shouldn't be mouthing off about what they've signed.

And Leo should have looked at what he's signed. No one forced him to, and if he didn't read what he signed it's no one's fault but his own.

Yet again, more than the UK can be a cock about brexit. 

The UK and EU "sufficient progress" report is a serious piece of work intended to have serious consequences.

It establishes trust. It allows the parties to progress to phase 2.

It means an "orderly Brexit" is far more likely. All serious things. And things certain UK govt ministers are messing up for no good reason. 

Anything Leo says is minor in comparision

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

It establishes trust. It allows the parties to progress to phase 2.

it allows the parties to progress to stage two where the real talking and dealing is done.

But if it's about 'trust', then perhaps ask the EU why they're (essentially) saying they've signed up to a crock of impossible shite?

The EU and the UK knew they were signing a fudge that moved things to the next stage, where real things get decided.

If Ireland didn't then that's only Ireland's fault, cos the clue is in the words they signed up to.

[russycarps]

I saw this earlier in some comments which summarises the position nicely:

"There are only three ways this can end, each involving deep national humiliation and exposure of much of the political class.
1) Total surrender to the EU in order to protect the economy, even if we think the EU is pushing its luck slightly. This means the worst of all worlds, we keep paying but have no say, but it avoids economic catastrophe. 
2) No deal crash out. This means the lot, closed factories, high inflation following a collapsed pound, Kent turned into a car park etc and a recession lasting for a decade
3) Back off – explain that Brexit is not possible at any acceptable price. Which means going back on everything they have been saying for the past year
The squirming of the Tories are because they want a best of all worlds option which just doesn’t exist. And the great thing is that these three options do not change if you change the political leadership – Boris Johnson or Corbyn will have to play the exact same, weak, hand."

 

Obviously option 3 is the only sane option. Is there any sanity left in westminster?

Edited December 11, 2017 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I saw this earlier in some comments which summarises the position nicely:

"There are only three ways this can end, each involving deep national humiliation and exposure of much of the political class.
1) Total surrender to the EU in order to protect the economy, even if we think the EU is pushing its luck slightly. This means the worst of all worlds, we keep paying but have no say, but it avoids economic catastrophe. 
2) No deal crash out. This means the lot, closed factories, high inflation following a collapsed pound, Kent turned into a car park etc and a recession lasting for a decade
3) Back off – explain that Brexit is not possible at any acceptable price. Which means going back on everything they have been saying for the past year
The squirming of the Tories are because they want a best of all worlds option which just doesn’t exist. And the great thing is that these three options do not change if you change the political leadership – Boris Johnson or Corbyn will have to play the exact same, weak, hand."

 

Obviously option 3 is the only sane option. Is there any sanity left in westminster?

Nah, you're closing down the options. Another reasonable outcome is a trade deal.

How far that deal will stretch we'll have to see, but something similar to Canada or Korea and with no physical border isn't impossible, even if the 'no physical border' part is unlikely.

It all depends on how far the EU will stretch to do something equitable, sensible and logical for the UK's situation, without getting its knickers in a twist over its own internal set-up and how 'normal' trade deals conflict with that.

Don't forget, they don't want to turn Calais into a car park either.

[ThomThomDrum]

Did anyone actually sign anything yet? (Genuine question) And if so, who and what is this document called formally? I thought the signing of anything was to occur this Friday? 

From what I read/understand what was agreed wrt NI was as follows 

• There will be no hard border and that is guaranteed in the agreement irrespective of the outcome of phase 2. 
• The common travel area between the Republic and the UK will be protected
• The whole of the UK will leave the CU
• If no trade agreement can be made in phase 2 that can allow for the above then the UK will ensure full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market that uphold the Good Friday agreement.
• There will be no new regulatory barriers between the UK and NI unless Stormont vote for such. 

Am I reading this wrong? Missing something?

Davis saying that the agreement is not legally binding surly doesn't help matters prior to Fridays signing and prior to the engagement of phase 2? 

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nah, you're closing down the options. Another reasonable outcome is a trade deal.

How far that deal will stretch we'll have to see, but something similar to Canada or Korea and with no physical border isn't impossible, even if the 'no physical border' part is unlikely.

It all depends on how far the EU will stretch to do something equitable, sensible and logical for the UK's situation, without getting its knickers in a twist over its own internal set-up and how 'normal' trade deals conflict with that.

Don't forget, they don't want to turn Calais into a car park either.

All in 1 year though? (or 9 months cos it needs to get through the eu parliament?)

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Did anyone actually sign anything yet? (Genuine question) And if so, who and what is this document called formally? I thought the signing of anything was to occur this Friday? 

From what I read/understand what was agreed wrt NI was as follows 

• There will be no hard border and that is guaranteed in the agreement irrespective of the outcome of phase 2. 
• The common travel area between the Republic and the UK will be protected
• The whole of the UK will leave the CU
• If no trade agreement can be made in phase 2 that can allow for the above then the UK will ensure full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market that uphold the Good Friday agreement.
• There will be no new regulatory barriers between the UK and NI unless Stormont vote for such. 

Am I reading this wrong? Missing something?

Davis saying that the agreement is not legally binding surly doesn't help matters prior to Fridays signing and prior to the engagement of phase 2? 

He has to mouth off to impress people apparently.

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Did anyone actually sign anything yet? (Genuine question) And if so, who and what is this document called formally? I thought the signing of anything was to occur this Friday? 

Good point. Not entirely sure if anything "signed" yet. The thing the other day was called the Joint Report.

However, that has been given the nod to Ireland, which means it goes to a full EU council meeting, for them to decide if the next step (real talks) is appropriate.

 

Quote

From what I read/understand what was agreed wrt NI was as follows 

• There will be no hard border and that is guaranteed in the agreement irrespective of the outcome of phase 2. 
• The common travel area between the Republic and the UK will be protected
• The whole of the UK will leave the CU
• If no trade agreement can be made in phase 2 that can allow for the above then the UK will ensure full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market that uphold the Good Friday agreement.
• There will be no new regulatory barriers between the UK and NI unless Stormont vote for such. 

Am I reading this wrong? Missing something?

While it said there was fall-back for NI (or whole UK) to SM/CU rules if there's no deal, if there's no deal there won't be SM/CU rules - because that can only happen with a deal. The UK cannot grant itself rights to EU entities.

It also says that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed - so Ireland couldn't legally hold the UK to having to have SM/CU for Ireland ... or even claim to have been stitched up if the UK were to back out. 
(and anyway, why would they care? No deal = the border Leo threatened if there was no deal. It makes no difference at all, ultimately).

Whole of the UK will leave SM & CU (that's explicitly worded).

For your 4th point, it's not 100% clear of the nuances in what you've said. The agreement only commits the UK to uphold those parts of the SM/CU that are necessary for no border, they do NOT commit the UK to full SM/CU rules.
(the right to settle and work is something in the SM/CU that is not a border issue, as one easy example)

Edited December 11, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Davis saying that the agreement is not legally binding surly doesn't help matters prior to Fridays signing and prior to the engagement of phase 2? 

DD is technically correct, tho it was a knobbish thing to say, at this point or at any point.

I'm of the view that the agreement has been made with the intention to fulfil it, but that the UK is not in the position to fulfil it by its own wants, and the UK has not signed itself up to fulfil it on all terms that might be offered by the EU.

So, for example, if the EU offered a deal at too high a price, the UK would walk away and the EU would expect the UK to walk away.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

All in 1 year though? (or 9 months cos it needs to get through the eu parliament?)

quite possibly not that fast to get thru all the process, but if a deal is agreed by the EU27 then history says the rest is a formality. 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

He has to mouth off to impress people apparently.

brexit is something where very many people have said stuff as red lines, so they now all have to find words to hide their backtracking.

At least DD has some words, and isn't hiding, afraid to say anything at all.

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

DD is technically correct, tho it was a knobbish thing to say, at this point or at any point.

I'm of the view that the agreement has been made with the intention to fulfil it, but that the UK is not in the position to fulfil it by its own wants, and the UK has not signed itself up to fulfil it on all terms that might be offered by the EU.

So, for example, if the EU offered a deal at too high a price, the UK would walk away and the EU would expect the UK to walk away.

Maybe but at the same time, we agreed to the order of talks. If it was dependant on trade to THAT extent, why did we agree to that order? 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Maybe but at the same time, we agreed to the order of talks. If it was dependant on trade to THAT extent, why did we agree to that order? 

because that was the only order of talks on the table from the EU.

The UK did point out it wasn't logical (cos you can't say what the border will be without knowing what the trade agreement is) but the EU wouldn't budge and so the UK said it would go along with the EU's timetable. 

But to be fair to the EU, they've been happy to do a necessary fudge. So we are where we are.

And it's a fudge where the same logical outcome wanted by the Irish is preserved (if there's a deal it's a no-borders deal, and if there's no deal there's no deal and the hardest border).

And it's a fudge where all May's 'red lines' are preserved too.

They should open a fudge factory.

[zahidf]

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

because that was the only order of talks on the table from the EU.

The UK did point out it wasn't logical (cos you can't say what the border will be without knowing what the trade agreement is) but the EU wouldn't budge and so the UK said it would go along with the EU's timetable. 

But to be fair to the EU, they've been happy to do a necessary fudge. So we are where we are.

And it's a fudge where the same logical outcome wanted by the Irish is preserved (if there's a deal it's a no-borders deal, and if there's no deal there's no deal and the hardest border).

And it's a fudge where all May's 'red lines' are preserved too.

They should open a fudge factory.

doesnt sound like the EU are fudging...

 

[russycarps]

Well shit. This has thrown a spanner in the works. I'm now an ardent Brexiteer, sorry....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/12/michael-gove-says-brexit-means-higher-animal-welfare-standards/

 

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

doesnt sound like the EU are fudging...

As I've already said, it's not (necessarily) anything the UK are attempting to avoid, they're merely pointing out the reality of no-deal if no-deal is what happens.  

There can only be a borderless Ireland if there's a deal.  It's not possible to have a borderless Ireland with no deal.

And if the only borderless offer from the EU is full SM/CU membership the UK do not have to accept it as it's explicitly excluded as an option in last week's agreement - so the UK wouldn't be breaking anything.

In fact, the EU would be breaking last week's deal by not offering a borderless deal that was different to SM/CU membership.

The fudge of the EU I was referring to was them going along with the suggestion that the UK can have borderless while being outside of the SM/CU.

Whether the EU are really going to make that option available we'll have to see - cos Juncker or Tusk (I forget which) said almost immediately after that agreement that a Canada-type deal is likely to be the best which will be on offer (and it's hard to see how that could be borderless).

[ThomThomDrum]

41 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

There can only be a borderless Ireland if there's a deal.  It's not possible to have a borderless Ireland with no deal.

 

Really? Is that actually true? As thats not what I get from reading the agreement. (maybe thats just my interpretation)

Quote

The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. They are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom.

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by ThomThomDrum

[ThomThomDrum]

44 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Well shit. This has thrown a spanner in the works. I'm now an ardent Brexiteer, sorry....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/12/michael-gove-says-brexit-means-higher-animal-welfare-standards/

 

Will foie gras become illegal in the UK now so, or will the UK food industry just export its cruelty of animals?  

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Really? Is that actually true? As thats not what I get from reading the agreement. (maybe thats just my interpretation)

You just need to ask yourself: how can Ireland go against the EU?

The EU needs to approve a deal that is no-borders. If there's no deal between the UK and EU, there cannot be a deal that has no borders in Ireland.

And as you've bolded, the Joint Report doesn't pre-determine the outcome of future talks.

The bit you've underlined is a legal impossibility. So it can only be a statement of intent, but that makes it meaningless.

[ThomThomDrum]

I think this is probably one of the points were these talks and agreements will show major cracks and a potential to fall apart.

My reading of the agreement is that the EU and UK both commit to some form of borderless Ireland irrespective of nature of a deal, or in the event of no deal. How that works in reality is anyones guess, but thats what I see both sides signing up to in 2 days time.

 

[lost]

Times reporting the brexit deal has put the Tories back in the lead in the polls:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-lead-polls-for-first-time-since-june-wlnvjhp5t

Quote

The prime minister’s Brexit deal appears to have improved her public standing and edged the Tories ahead on 42 per cent of the vote, up two points on last week, with Labour unchanged on 41 per cent. The YouGov poll of 1,680 adults on Sunday and yesterday also suggests that the Liberal Democrats are unchanged on 7 per cent with the rest down one point on 10 per cent.

Quote

Mrs May’s lead over Mr Corbyn has risen sharply, from four to nine points. Asked who would make the best prime minister, 37 per cent said Mrs May, up from 34 per cent last week, and 28 per cent said Mr Corbyn, down from 30 per cent last week. In a separate question about who voters would most trust to negotiate Brexit, 32 per cent said Mrs May, 16 per cent said Mr Corbyn and 33 per cent said neither.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, ThomThomDrum said:

I think this is probably one of the points were these talks and agreements will show major cracks and a potential to fall apart.

My reading of the agreement is that the EU and UK both commit to some form of borderless Ireland irrespective of nature of a deal, or in the event of no deal. How that works in reality is anyones guess, but thats what I see both sides signing up to in 2 days time.

It states an intent, yeah ... but it's impossible to be followed thru on in the way it's written, unless...

1. the EU is going to give the UK a borderless deal which isn't SM/CU (cos the JR says the UK is leaving those in all circumstances).

2. the EU is going to give the UK free (as in "for no payment") access to that not-SM/CU-deal (cos no fee is stated)

Can you see the EU giving the UK a better deal than EU members get? I can't.

So you need to recognise it for what it is, just an outline of what each side would like and is prepared to go to in order to get what it likes, without being binding.

I might have mentioned that Leo fucked up by issuing 'threats'. His problem now is that the deal he signed does not match those 'threats', leaving him looking like a plonker so he's having to bullshit.