***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 67 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Dave.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 02:20
|
|
Cabinet has approved Brexit agreement.
|
>> Cabinet has approved Brexit agreement.
Good.
|
Apparently plenty of opposition within cabinet.
A night's sleep and I expect some resignations.
And then get through parliament...?
No doubt Ulster's in line for a couple more billions...
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 14 Nov 18 at 20:45
|
>> Good.
I admire your optimism. Cabinet appeared to have approved original agreement in December and Chequers.
We know what happened next...
PM's line seems to be this is only Brexit on offer. If it falls then we may not leave at all....
|
|
Hmmm... the fifth columnist conspiracy theory.
|
>>I admire your optimism.
Me? Optimistic? You must be new here.
|
Draft withdrawal agreement - 500+ pages.
goo.gl/cGNnJc
|
...as drafted by the paragon of legal firms, Fudge, Fudge & Weasel.
;-)
|
|
Thanks but I'll rely on the BBC for an executive summary :-)
|
I've been watching it since 2 am and have yet to see anyone approving of it.
Pat
|
I guess that's 1) the nature of a compromise and 2) fairly typical of many things these days, where everyone has an opinion about everything and feels they need to share it. (That's not aimed at anyone here, or even solely at BREXIT, before I get frownies!!)
I saw one dissenting talking head asked last night what he would have done differently but he seemed to be stuck ion a "have a moan and knock the PM" rut. Despite repetitive questioning he had no ideas of his own, and was not able to say say what he'd have done differently, or even explain what he found wrong with the current draft. I don't even know whether he was Leave or Remain.
I'm frustrated that they can't just agree to get on with it. It's never going to suit everyone.
|
What everyone seems to forget is that this is not us leaving the EU deal, this is just a 21 month extension to the process of leaving the EU because the original two year limit wasn't long enough.
|
|
Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has resigned saying he "cannot in good conscience support" draft Brexit agreement
|
>> Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has resigned saying he "cannot in good conscience support" draft Brexit
>> agreement
>>
Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has resigned saying "I have absolutely no idea what I've been doing for the last few months and cannot in good conscience agree with what I've agreed with the EU".
:-(
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 09:18
|
>> Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has resigned saying "I have absolutely no idea what I've been
>> doing for the last few months and cannot in good conscience agree with what I've
>> agreed with the EU".
Thats a bit rich, he was instrumental in drafting it.
|
>> Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has resigned saying
>> "I have absolutely no idea what I've been doing for the last few months
>> and cannot in good conscience agree with what I've agreed with the EU".
>>
Meanwhile there is a suggestion that Raab could not stay as it would damage his tilt at PM
Latest betting odds show Raab in the lead for PM and Bojo some way behind
|
|
True but I guess it is the possibility of the back stop arrangements applying ad infininitum that is the the problem for many. Seems to be why Raab has resigned
|
|
Not only is it just a not yet agreed by the UK or the EU draught extension to the leaving process, we have until March next year to fiddle around with it,
|
UK wants to leave EU.
TM made deal where
1. Transition period exactly same as staying in EU
2. Transition can be extended indefinitely.
3. To end transition UK needs permission from EU.
If EU doesn't permit UK to end transition UK stays in EU forever.
See the problem now?
|
>> See the problem now?
Firstly there is no deal in place yet, this is a draught agreement.
Secondly The UK can unilaterally end any agreement at any time it wants, its just the same as crashing out the EU. Recognise your lack of understanding now?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 10:18
|
Agree with your 1st point that it is still draft proposal.
Disagree on 2nd point. As per current proposal, an independent panel (consisting of UK and EU members + independent(?) members) who would decide whether it is OK for UK to leave.
Everything can be overruled by ECJ.
Communication is not what is said but also being able to catch what is not being said.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6390659/Brexit-deal-lays-bare-compromises-May.html
|
Several resignations have happened this morning from the government.
There's speculation that the DUP might withdraw their agreement with the gov, which would lead to a minority gov. Another election in the spring?
|
>>There's speculation that the DUP might withdraw their agreement with the gov, which would lead to a minority gov. Another election in the spring?
If the DUP remove their support then they mostly likely won't be in power after the spring...
|
|
If TM stays as PM, Brexit means no exit.
|
>> Agree with your 1st point that it is still draft proposal.
>>
>> Disagree on 2nd point. As per current proposal, an independent panel (consisting of UK and
>> EU members + independent(?) members) who would decide whether it is OK for UK to
>> leave.
>>
>> Everything can be overruled by ECJ.
Not if you are not part of the ECJ, it has no jurisdiction outside the EU, and if we dump the deal we are out of the EU and out of the ECJ.
|
>>www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6390659/Brexit-deal-lays-bare-compr
omises-May.html
That article is factually wrong in several places. As, predictably, are you. May I suggest actually reading the document rather than relying on the Daily Mail?
e.g. Page 302 "NOTING that nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market,"
Page 310 Article 6 "Until the future relationship becomes applicable, a single customs territory between the Union and the United Kingdom shall be established ("the single customs territory"). Accordingly, Northern Ireland is in the same customs territory as Great Britain. "
>>Communication is not what is said but also being able to catch what is not being said.
Mmm, but I think perhaps that first you need to catch what is said.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 16:22
|
>> >> See the problem now?
>>
>> Firstly there is no deal in place yet, this is a draft agreement.
>>
>> Secondly The UK can unilaterally end any agreement at any time it wants, its just
>> the same as crashing out the EU. Recognise your lack of understanding now?
The UK and EU could certainly agree anything at any time, but ending an agreement unilaterally when it does not provide such a termination option has consequences; an agreement certainly shouldn't be entered into on the basis that it can be reneged on.
Remember "no deal is better than a bad deal"? Now it's "Any deal is better than no deal". That has to be a bad approach.
I wonder how Raab, McVey etc will vote. They must at the very least abstain if they have any integrity at all.
This is now a hole, a train crash, a dead loss, a stain on the UK's reputation. It's not a compromise, it's not Brexit, it's not membership, it's a no-man's-land. Our first loss will be our least loss here. Better to stop the self-immolation and remain in the EU until we have a plan, but I can't see anybody on the political scene who could make that happen.
|
|
Why have they all bar none said how bad the draft is but none have put forward what they'd have done?
|
>> Why have they all bar none said how bad the draft is but none have
>> put forward what they'd have done?
Presumably the Minister for Brexit did put forward his suggestion... :o
|
>> The UK and EU could certainly agree anything at any time, but ending an agreement
>> unilaterally when it does not provide such a termination option has consequences; an agreement certainly
>> shouldn't be entered into on the basis that it can be reneged on.
Its a deal about a deal with Europe. You can end the deal at any time because its about a deal. The deal of course is null and void when you cancel the deal about the deal.
And As Trump has proved, you can pull out of anything with no consequence.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 02:13
|
Well, I have read it. In order to understand it properly I should read it several more times, but I don't have the time.
I don't understand the issues.
Essentially it is an agreement for the transition period, not for the final position. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable. And in fact, inevitable. When reading the Protocol and the Annex it is difficult to see how else they could have done it.
Residency and work are protected on into the future, but only if they started before the end of the transition period. Right of residency and the ability to bring in family members happens when the person has been resident and working for 5 years.
That right of residency is retained unless the person stays outside the UK for 5 years.
To paraphrase, if it is already ongoing, or becomes ongoing during the transition period, it remains ongoing within the structure of EU membership.
e.g. if a court case starts before the end of the transition period it is starting within the jurisdiction of the ECJ. After the transition period ends, that court case stays within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
For the transition period the ECJ retains jurisdiction.
There is no question of permission to leave. There are various joint commissions which have been set up and will continue to be set up. They are commissions with responsibility for their own areas but are subject to EU and UK ratification.
So whilst any deal takes both to agree, simply leaving does not.
After the end of the transition period the ECJ retains the right to comment and opine on UK law, but the UK is not bound to follow their comments or opinions.
Whilst most of our financial liabilities finish at the end of the transition agreement, final accounting will not be complete until 2028.
That includes monies being returned to us as part of our investments in EU activities.
The UK will not participate in any discussion or negotiation as part of the EU for anything likely to be implemented after the end of the transition period unless the EU chooses to invite us. e.g. planned fisheries discussions.
Our financial liabilities continue as is until the end of the transition period, but will not change.
We will continue to be subject to the same legal structure as now until the end of the transition period including any changes made in that time.
Any references in UK Law to an EU law will always be considered as referring to the latest version of that law, even if it changed after the end of the transition period.
The transition period can be extended by mutual agreement.
NI is discussed a page 301 if you wish to read it. Basically it is like it is until it isn't. The period can be extended by mutual agreement.
The Appendices discuss future tariffs and quotas that the UK may or may agree to. I need to read that a few more times to get it properly. I think it's ok, but the devil is always in the detail.
==============================
Now, as I said, I've only read it once and fairly quickly at that, so even I wouldn't take my view as 100% certain. Also bear in mind that it is a Transition Agreement NOT an Exit agreement.
I am sure I would have more comments if I did a proper job.
However, that said, I don't see the uproar. Seems eminently reasonable to me, and, as I said, I don't know how else it could be done.
What I absolutely cannot see, is how under any circumstances "No Deal", essentially no transition could improve on any of this.
I rather suspect that "No deal" is just simpler to understand and this transition is a rather complex matter and so is more popular and easier to "like".
To be outraged by this deal I can only see two possibilities;
1) You are a politician and you think a bit of outrage and grandstanding would help your political career.
2) You truly don't one or both of understand or care about the realities and ongoing issues of practicality and pragmatism and are blinded to anything other than a document which says 100% out irrespective of any implications, ramifications or effects afterwards.
We are leaving. If you wish to *assure* that we leave, then back this transition agreement. If you defeat this agreement then you will cause a rethink. And that rethink may cause either an election or a new referendum. And since you already have what you want, Leave, then how can any reassessment or new decision making help you?
Personally I think now that we should leave and this is a good way of starting that process.
To the Leavers/Brexiteers/call yourself what you will, this is the transition to Exit, it is yours to lose. If I were you, I would try not to.
[as usual, have not proof read, can't type for sugar, it is what it is] M.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:35
|
|
Well done for reading the whole thing already.
|
I'm not posting this to enter into a discussion as these are not necessarily my own views.
I'm posting because I have more contact with the Leave voter than most on here and think it would make for a more balanced discussion if I can let you know the many opinions I've heard today.
Many are perplexed at where the 3 options have suddenly appeared from. They assumed it was A deal or no deal, now there appears to be a No Brexit in TM's own words.
There has always been the assurance that a 'deal' was no longer an option as we were leaving anyway and it was just a matter of how. This is being seen as a threat and a deliberate position of trying to hold a gun to people's heads.
They see Michel Barnier as trying to trap us into a permanent customs union, they are also concerned about our fishing rights being at risk.
They are aware that Tony Blair has said that EU Officials told him privately that they had forced Britain to cave in and feel that is what we have done.
Concerns have also been voiced that EU judges will rule on any disputes relating to the withdrawal.
More worryingly many have listened to Corbyn's statement today and find themselves agreeing with him.
More worryingly (from my point of view) is that so many people I have spoken to said they will never bother to vote again in any election either local or national or a referendum as their vote was ignored last time.
If there was to be another referendum they would not vote, which some will see as a good result, but in all honesty, it isn't.
Most of all, and I share this view too, they/we can't understand why TM can't go back to EU and say my people simply won't accept this so we/you have to concede a little bit more so let's go back to the drawing board and start again.
The EU expected us to roll over, and we have done.
My opinion for what it's worth...TM is tired and has given up. It's too much for her and she's lost her fight.
Pat
|
>>Most of all, and I share this view too, they/we can't understand why TM can't go back to EU and say my people simply won't accept this so we/you have to concede a little bit more so let's go back to the drawing board and start again.
An analogy for you;
Assume you have a lease car and you want out of the deal early. The finance company says that the final balloon payment is £10,000. You go back and say "not happening I want £5,000". The finance company says; "no, I'll give you £8,000 and that's it".
You return and say that you cannot accept that deal. So they say, "Fine, give the car back and walk home. Dunno how you'll pick the kids up from school though. Otherwise just keep the car and carry on paying the monthly payment".
Sure there's brinkmanship, there's differing priorities and different levels of need. But nonetheless, the idea prevailing at the time of the referendum that the EU would be desperate for a deal with us is wrong. We do need them more than they need us. A *lot* more.
They have options and scope that we do not have.
And they do not want leaving the EU to be seen as a panacea and so must look at everything they agree as setting a precedent. If they make it attractive, then someone else might want it. And worse, it might be one of the other rich countries.
>>The EU expected us to roll over, and we have done.
I don't think so. I can't see any concession that is not reasonable. To e honest, I cannot see any alternatives either.
1) EU Law takes precedence for the transition period and then stops.
2) People already in place can stay there, new ones may not start after the transition
3) The arrangements with NI stay exactly as they are now until superceded by a different mutual agreement.
4) They give us all money owed and owing, we do the same to them.
5) We try to promote close relationships after the end of the transition
What in that do people not like? How could it have been different?
And I warn you and all other people preferring leave; accept this deal. Because if you reject it you will cause disruption which may result in a change of leader, a change of Government and a referendum.
At least you know this is actually a transition deal and will result in leaving. Even if it is later rather than now.
And truly, really honestly, did you ever think you were going to achieve more than BEANO?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 17:09
|
And by the way, do you know why there is no final solution agreed for NI?
Because nobody, not NI, not Westminster, not Dublin, not Brussels, not the people, not the negotiators and not even me, has the slightest idea what that solution could be.
*That's* why the backstop matters, *that's* why the deal must be expendable, because No Deal in that situation is Armageddon.
The legal and default situation is that a hard border drops between NI and I.
|
Actually, perhaps I do have a clue; a single customs union complimentary to the EU but not solely EU members.
But I don't think the British public, or British media, could accept that at this stage.
|
To quote myself;
>>And I warn you and all other people preferring leave; accept this deal. Because if you reject it you will cause disruption which may result in a change of leader, a change of Government and a referendum.
And to whom do you think that could possibly appeal? Who could find value in the disruption?
Two groups;
1) Politicians wanting to further their public exposure and career
2) People who want desperately to remain no matter what the cost.
Which of those two groups is it firing up the Leave supporters at the moment?
Mr. Nigel " "I never said it would be a beneficial thing for us to leave"." Farage.
Mr. Boris "I want to be PM" Johnson?
What a bunch of moronic, self-centred, self-motivated disingenuous idiots.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:34
|
>
>> Mr. Nigel " "I never said it would be a beneficial thing for us
>> to leave"." Farage.
>>
>> Mr. Boris "I want to be PM" Johnson?
>>
>> What a bunch of moronic, self-centred, self-motivated disingenuous idiots.
You forgot slimy reptile "We should leave the EU while I set up my company in the EU" Jacob Reese Mog.
Ironically poor old May is probably the only principled and fundamentally decent politician in the whole tory party.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:35
|
|
And what about greasy fanatical brexiteer Nigel "I just applied for French citizenship" Lawson?
|
>>Ironically poor old May is probably the only principled and fundamentally decent politician in the whole tory party.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that someone that was so fervently against the human rights act can be called principled.
|
>>Which of those two groups is it firing up the Leave supporters at the moment? <<
Actually is none of those.
It's TM saying Brexit means Brexit repeatedly then finally introducing another option today of 'No Brexit'.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Pat
|
Can we try and NOT resort to childish mudslinging, please?
Pat
|
|
Oh dear, here we go again. Can you not just stick to the issues and stop with this crap?
|
Really? Its been TM in the press and on the TV trying to derail the deal?
I thought I'd seen statements by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage et al.
|
>> Don't shoot the messenger.
The messenger has got it muddled up in delivery. This is not Brexit, or remain, its an extension to the two year deadline.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 02:16
|
>
>> It's TM saying Brexit means Brexit repeatedly then finally introducing another option today of 'No
>> Brexit'.
A lot has happened today, so I've probably missed it. Where did the PM say that?
|
>> Actually is none of those.
>>
>> It's TM saying Brexit means Brexit repeatedly then finally introducing another option today of 'No
>> Brexit'.
>>
>> Don't shoot the messenger.
I think the messenger is muddled.
No Brexit isn't something TM is threatening or even an option it's in her power to take forward. If however the current deal is rejected there is a possibility of that being an outcome. Not because she's offering it but because, via a second referendum or some other scheme, it is what the Commons votes for.
|
|
I took it as a coded message raising the possibility of a second referendum..
|
>> I took it as a coded message raising the possibility of a second referendum..
To me it sounded like "These other people will potentially undermine it and leave only two options, but I've done my bit".
|
>My opinion for what it's worth...TM is tired and has given up. It's too much for her and she's lost her fight.
Given up on what? this is not a deal, its merely an extension to the two year deadline, to give us more time to sort it out.
Why do you think its a fight? its not a fight, there is no "enemy" nothing to roll over about, You want to leave the EU, fine you can crash out now with all the pain (yes YOU will feel pain) or unravel this over a longer period of time in a less painful manner
Now what do you want?
|
Oh, and two other things;
The bits around Gibraltar are concerning. I cannot imagine Gibraltar being happy.
Essentially whilst we can participate as an EU Member, we can not vote on anything likely to take effect after the end of the transition.
It is pretty much BEANO for the transition period. We will see what happens after that.
|
And Boris is an unmitigated twit. He is showing himself to be an unmitigated, self-obsessed scoundrel who would have no bearing on anything without the support of the sensationalist media.
And remember, as for consultants, change holds no fear for the media.
Any problems, outrage, arguments and accusations just make media more money.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:35
|
|
Trouble with Boris is that he believes the image that the media created. That of a Churchill type character. His tenure as Foreign Secretary was peppered with co** ups, not least his handling of that poor woman under arrest in Iran. The man isn't an idiot by any stretch but he should stick to what he knows (he's quite a good author)
|
Thanks for the Executive Summary, which I expected from the BBC not you!! :-)
However what you report you have read doesn't surprise me, I thought it would probably be fundamentally a sound piece of work.
I expect Leave supporters would see it differently but also your conclusions make a lot of sense, and at least are based on your own judgements of what the document contains, rather than what the media or a career politician has told you.
Thanks again.
|
You're welcome.
And going by the standard of summary in The Mail that Moviloco linked to, I think everybody who cares should read it for themselves.
The trouble is, virtually every piece of the media has an ulterior motive.
|
I agree that it couldn't be much different. It's not what it says that is the problem, it's what it doesn't say.
There is no solution there, it's just an extension of membership but worse, that means we leave before we have got a deal and that there is no incentive for the Union to concede anything that has a cost for it from this point on, having banked the transition arrangements (and about 40bn.)
It hasn't changed a lot, but it has demonstrated that we were in no position to trigger article 50, and no progress has been made in over two years on defining or negotiating Brexit.
|
Mostly agreed.
But really it has just put down in black and white the reality of the situation which has always been obvious.
|
>> It hasn't changed a lot, but it has demonstrated that we were in no position
>> to trigger article 50, and no progress has been made in over two years on
>> defining or negotiating Brexit.
Untangling 40 years of membership simply isn't possible to untangle in two years, at least not in a destructive manner. Article 50 was never intended to be used.
|
If we had started from the point that we were prepared to walk away without any deal at all, we would have had an acceptable deal now.
Pat
|
>> If we had started from the point that we were prepared to walk away without
>> any deal at all, we would have had an acceptable deal now.
>>
>> Pat
You have absolutely no proof, or evidence or knowledge or experience that would have been the case. Thats its taken two years and still not done would seem to indicate different.
Unless of course you can provide some?
And what do you call an "acceptable deal"?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 18:26
|
>>If we had started from the point that we were prepared to walk away without any deal at all, we would have had an acceptable deal now.
Can you explain or justify how that would conceivably have been the case? Because everybody who understood the ramifications would know that we had to be bluffing.
For example;
all Brits living and working in the EU would have had to come home immediately. No PM could risk that. And the EU would know that.
There would have been an instant hard border in Ireland. No PM could risk that. And the EU would know that.
Can you explain what you believe to be wrong with the current transition deal and how you would improve it?
Please don't resort to ignoring the difficult stuff. You made a strong statement, now stand up for it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 18:32
|
You can both tell me I'm sure, you've spent the last 2 years telling me I don't understand anything.
Do you walk into any negotiation accepting the first offer, or do you bluff.
Don't bother to answer that, I think we all know.
Pat
|
>>Do you walk into any negotiation accepting the first offer, or do you bluff.
I rarely, if ever, bluff. If one bluffs and gets called, there is nowhere else to go. It is an all or nothing technique, ask a poker player. And an unbelievable bluff is the worst.
So can you explain or justify how your statement that by saying we were prepared to leave without a deal would have got us an acceptable deal by now?
>>You can both tell me I'm sure, you've spent the last 2 years telling me I don't understand anything.
Oh, why are you trying to start a silly argument with silly comments. Just discuss the issues. I am.
Of course I can tell you about both. I have read the agreement and know what is good and bad about it. That's why I have opinions about it.
I asked about your opinion, see the question below;
"Can you explain what you believe to be wrong with the current transition deal and how you would improve it?"
|
I could, and I would have been able to have told you my opinion many times in the last 2 years, but you would just have dismissed it with the explanation of me being ignorant and unable to understand the facts.
That is a fundamental trait of remainers or anyone who opposes Brexit.
They are incapable of looking at other options, believing they may not be 100% right in their opinion and dismissing anyone else's by demeaning them.
I have watched, and admired, Movilogo but I have also noted how when he has come up with valid points they have always been ignored and insults have been the answer.
At the very least, it makes any discussion totally unworthy of the time it takes to do it.
I have spent most of today gathering opinions, both for and against, and none have yet resorted to those tactics.
I thought you would welcome the views of people you don't normally come into contact with on a day to day basis, and the people who were responsible for the way the referendum went.
As with any remainers, it seems that unless those views align with yours then they have to be wrong and not worth a consideration.
That in itself, actually reinforces the views and makes us more determined.
Pat
|
|
Ok, I think we're going over old ground. Leave it there all of you. You're never going to agree over anything - it's now boring.
|
>>Ok, I think we're going over old ground. Leave it there all of you.
With respect, you asked that the personal comments and silliness be left out of it.
I am 100% following that request. The discussion is about the draft transition agreement which I have read and put some effort in to.
I do not quite see how it is reasonable, in this thread, that I should not be able to discuss it in the proper fashion.
|
I agree with mark, surely we are allowed to discuss this in a civilised manner otherwise there isn't much point to the thread?
Pat
|
|
OK, as long as it's civilised ! ;-)..
|
I am seeking your opinion. I have sought it many times, you have always refused to give it. I have not ignored, or insulted. I have deliberately and carefully referred to nothing other than the issues. Nobody has resorted to any tactics.
I am looking at your opinion and have asked you to explain it. Can you not simply do that?
As I have repeatedly told you, I am not a remainer. We have voted to leave, and we should be leaving. I do not even support a second referendum.
You made a statement and I am trying to ask you about it. Why are you refusing to discuss it?
My questions are;
You believe that if we had bluffed that we were prepared to leave without a deal we would now have an acceptable deal.
Can you explain how you think that would have worked?
You do not believe that the current transition deal is acceptable.
Can you explain what you believe to be wrong with the current transition deal and how you would improve it?
|
Can you tell me where the third option appeared from last night of 'No Brexit' because it is that which is concerning most of the people I have spoken to?
Also the fact that we can only actually leave when the EU agree to allow us to.
Brexit means Brexit, that isn't.
Surely it's obvious that in any negotiation you start from the position the other party least want?
Pat
|
>> Surely it's obvious that in any negotiation you start from the position the other party
>> least want?
Do you? Seems to me a guaranteed way of making the other party not take you seriously and wall away.
|
>> Can you tell me where the third option appeared from last night of 'No Brexit'
>> because it is that which is concerning most of the people I have spoken to?
Who suggested this, where did you/they see this?
|
if you paste
"no deal, or no Brexit"
including the quotes into Google, sooty, you will see Mrs May apparently said it this morning, as is reported by lots of news sources.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 19:27
|
>>Also the fact that we can only actually leave when the EU agree to allow us to.
We can leave unilaterally - it's the no deal option.
|
>> Can you tell me where the third option appeared from last night of 'No Brexit'
>> because it is that which is concerning most of the people I have spoken to?
No, because I have been busy. But I shall certainly look into it.
>> Also the fact that we can only actually leave when the EU agree to allow
>> us to.
That is what Movilogo said, but it is not what the draft transition agreement says. I think Movilogo may have confused a comment in the Mail report which was about the NI border. In that it said that any solution to the current situation required agreement from both parties. That means not just the EU, but EU and the UK. It also had safeguards in it about the EU behaviour in that they were limited in what they could refuse to accept and the justification they must provide for not accepting it.
>> Surely it's obvious that in any negotiation you start from the position the other party
>> least want?
Well, kind of. You start from the position of what you most want. it is always better to begin with a positive stance of what you want, not what you will threaten the other with. Though that can come later. But if you try bluffing with an unbelievable statement, such as we'll walk with no deal, all you will hear is "go on then". And once your bluff has been called, then what do you do?
So bluffing is usually, perhaps always, bad. And stupid bluffs are very stupid.
>>Brexit means Brexit, that isn't.
I don't understand that.
Now, again, what is wrong with the current draft transition agreement and how would you change it?
|
>> Can you tell me where the third option appeared from last night of 'No Brexit'
I can now.
news.sky.com/video/mps-cheer-at-chance-for-no-brexit-11554766
A stupid thing to say, and I dislike having to interpret the words of others, but what she said was;
and I paraphrase; we can be forced into no deal, risk no brexit, or work together to make this deal work.
I think when she said "risk No Brexit" she was saying something similar to what I said this morning; If we disrupt this deal, we may bring down her leadership and perhaps her Government. The ensuing chaos may include a GE and perhaps a second referendum which might risk Brexit. (I think that is anything but certain, though it is clearly possible).
So I believe that she was threatening the risk of No Brexit, not offering the option.
But watch the video, see what you think
|
You will perhaps recall about 2 years ago when I said she was awful, that several in here thought she was the best person for the job.
I think she is probably the best intentioned and perhaps the most honest. But "the best"? Far from it.
|
>> You will perhaps recall about 2 years ago when I said she was awful, that
>> several in here thought she was the best person for the job.
>>
>> I think she is probably the best intentioned and perhaps the most honest. But "the
>> best"? Far from it.
>>
Is echo that, I respect her quite a bit by not quitting, I bet there's many a night where it seemed like the easy way out. And there's many that would have quit but fair play she stuck it out.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 20:01
|
>> Is echo that, I respect her quite a bit by not quitting, I bet there's
>> many a night where it seemed like the easy way out. And there's many David Camerons that
>> would have quit but fair play she stuck it out.
>>
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 20:04
|
|
I listened to first minute or so of press conference this evening with a deja-vu about Cameron's cut and run. Briefly considered possibility she was delivering her own valediction before chucking in the towel.
|
>> I listened to first minute or so of press conference this evening with a deja-vu
>> about Cameron's cut and run. Briefly considered possibility she was delivering her own valediction before
>> chucking in the towel.
I saw the start of her conference and after the first 30 words or so I was typing in here to say she was resigning. Certainly looked that way.
|
>> You will perhaps recall about 2 years ago when I said she was awful, that
>> several in here thought she was the best person for the job.
I think she was seen as a 'safe pair of hands'. When choice was reduced to her or Andrea Leadsom it was a 'no brainer'.
|
Thanks for the link, having listened to it a few times it seems to me she is linking the deal with brexit, as in this is the deal. Not that we wouldn't leave.
I don't hear a third option, just two. Perhaps she stumbled in her speech or a poor choice of words.
|
|
Poor [stupid] choice of words, I think.
|
I have said a number of times that I believe the choice to be this deal or no deal.
I don't believe there is a possible choice between this deal and a different deal.
|
>>
>> I don't hear a third option, just two. Perhaps she stumbled in her speech or
>> a poor choice of words.
>>
A warning of what could happen is not the same as offering it as an option.
"Project fear" was a warning, not an option to be offered in a referendum.
|
>> "Project fear" was a warning, not an option to be offered in a referendum.
And for next few weeks we're going to get 'Project Fear' on steroids over consequences if MPs reject the deal.
|
|
"project fear" is a description of hard brexit. Hard Brexit is still an option. If people chose that despite the warnings and it happens as described then so be it. It was a choice.
|
>> "project fear" is a description of hard brexit. Hard Brexit is still an option. If
>> people chose that despite the warnings and it happens as described then so be it.
>> It was a choice.
>>
Option/choice/warning - my point was I don't think TM was seriously offering no Brexit as a suddenly introduced 3rd option. It came out by accident because of clumsy wording.
|
Ok, Ill try and extrapolate Pats assertion being as she wont.
Her position is that we should have bluffed the EU into giving in to our requirements. Bluffing assumes the other side is in need of something you have, or something they think you have and need.
Lets check that assertion out.
The economy of the EU is the second only to the USA in the world. If we, the UK leave that, they stay second, and the UK becomes 6th.
Nothing the EU needs there then.
Lets look at future trading
UK imports are 18% of the EU total exports. UK Exports to the EU are 44% of total UK exports.
So they have an 18% hit, we get a 44% hit. They stay 2nd largest economy and we fall to about 10th. Not exactly the ace in the hole at the card table when bluffing now is it.
So in short, the EU CAN afford to dump us out, we on the other hand will take a hit if we do.
Now lets see you bluff that one out at the card table.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 19:34
|
Perhaps you could outline exactly the sort of deal you would have found acceptable had the government adopted the negotiating strategy you outlined or indeed what you find so unacceptable in TM’s proposed deal.
I must admit I am mystified as to what you actually want. I seem to remember you saying that it was the job of the politicians to sort out the details of the deal. Well they have. As far as I can see it gives most who voted leave what they wanted. It seems just about acceptable to those who would have preferred to stay in the EU. I personally think that’s not a bad result when trying to resolve an issue that has split the country more or less in half.
|
>>As far as I can see it gives most who voted leave what they wanted.
Then please tell me the date when UK will leave EU.
(without any if and but)
|
>> >>As far as I can see it gives most who voted leave what they wanted.
>>
>> Then please tell me the date when UK will leave EU.
>> (without any if and but)
29-03-19
|
>>Then please tell me the date when UK will leave EU.
Surely you found that out when you read the Draft Transition Period? You have read it, haven't you? After all your opinion about it I assumed that you must have.
March 29, 2019, 8:00 PM GMT-3
The draft transition document specifies that transition will last until December 31, 2020, 11:59 PM GMT -3
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 21:13
|
Can that transition be extended or not?
Can UK unilaterally end transition period?
|
|
Read the agreement and then you will know everything.
|
I said most not all. Look at the positives of what the deal will provide. I rather think that most who voted leave will, if the take a serious look at what the deal will give them will be able to accept the deal for what it is i.e. the best deal available. An injection of realism is required.
|
On a second re-read and especially the Annex;
So the solution to the NI issue is potentially this;
That there will be a new customs area which will comprise of the EU and the UK. And I'd be pretty sure that other non-EU members will get added in the future.
If that is to be the permanent solution then there is a bunch of stuff that will go with it. Or, at least, that the EU wants to go with it.
I quite like this actually.
I didn't like what the EU was becoming. Much of what it did was worthwhile, but it was extending itself into areas I didn't think it should go. And we were letting it deal with important matters that concerned us without sending serious people to be involved.
We just used it as a place to dump people we didn't want but who would have made too much noise if we fired them.
But this Customs Union idea it seems to me like it's got some mileage.
Surely we're unlikely to object to environmental and green agreements. We might as well make them with the EU as with anybody. They'd probably insist on many of the same product standards that we have now, but they are actually pretty good.
The curvy banana was always a fantasy and who cares what Dyson thinks about vacuum cleaner power.
There is no doubt some pretty keen negotiating would be required from intelligent people to avoid us getting stuck with any stupid stuff or getting blackmailed into anything, but meh, could be done.
All in all, following that customs union idea would take us to perhaps a meaningful BEANO which would achieve a number of things;
We wouldn't be part of the EU, we would have agreements with the EU.
Much of the stuff that goes with full exit would not be necessary.
As a country we would not have to deal with ECJ jurisdiction, though many of our industries and companies would.
All in all, I think there's mileage in that approach.
The danger to it is, of course, twits like Farage leaping up and down about curvy bananas and other such nonsense.
I wish people would look at politicians and failures leaping up and down about the agreement and try to understand their motivation for doing so.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:33
|
Pat and others - I think you'd be surprised at how well that transition agreement could serve the sensible goals of an EU Leaver.
I'll try and find a decent and objective summary of it somewhere, because the full document is tough but all the current summaries, such as the Daily Mail, are garbage.
|
I should have said, click on that article even if you think it won't be interesting and scroll down to the flowchart at the bottom.
Aids understanding
|
This is EU summary version
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-6422_en.htm
All EU rules will apply during transition period. So UK is not really leaving EU on March 2019.
Transition period can be extended once. But not mentioned for how long.
So there is no proof that it can't be extended say for 5 years.
Hence the headline news that UK is not really leaving EU is correct.
Leaving EU yet following all EU rules is not leaving.
|
Why did you seek out and chose an EU summary version? Why not read the real thing and then make comment?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 22:03
|
Is the EU summary wrong? I thought you'd be happy that I read EU version and not Daily Mail :-)
|
|
I wish I could add a smiley to that movilogo...!
|
>> Is the EU summary wrong? I thought you'd be happy that I read EU version
>> and not Daily Mail :-)
Touche
But its still a genuine question.
And I think you have me wrong. I want a hard Brexit with no deal. Albeit not for the same reason you do, my rationale is vastly different to yours
|
>>And I think you have me wrong. I want a hard Brexit with no deal.
What??
If that's really the case then my respect for you went up from zero to division by zero.
|
>> If that's really the case then my respect for you went up from zero to
>> division by zero.
You have no idea how apt your remark is.
|
Is the EU summary wrong? I thought you'd be happy that I read EU version and not Daily Mail :-)
|
>> Why not read the real thing and then make comment?
>>
>>
>>
'cos it's about the only thing longer and more convoluted than this thread..........
|
Are we there yet? - CGNorwich
