Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, lost said:

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

I'm not surprised. I mentioned a long long time ago that if the tories deliver a reasonable brexit it'll fuck Labour who have been saying the tories can't, and that it'll also change may from an abject failure into something better.

And even before the 'failed' deal at the start of last week, the tories had gained a little.

Jezza's problem is that he has nothing to say except "bad", and offers no certain alternative - and that's not just in the HoC, that's something which goes right down to local level.

[ThomThomDrum]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

You can stop with your tabloid crap. Its boring and targeting the wrong audience.

They may as well all wipe their asses with this agreement so, as it means nothing if your interpretation becomes a reality if/when no deal is reached. Whats the point in calling the commitment to a borderless Ireland an overarching requirement in this joint agreement if its not, as you say?

 

[ThomThomDrum]

In short, if this "agreement" is not really an agreement and is in reality not workable either then one can only seeing it all go tits up.

Id still be praying for a Mulligan no matter how unlikely it looks...........

Edited December 12, 2017 by ThomThomDrum

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

You can stop with your tabloid crap. Its boring and targeting the wrong audience.

it's not tabloid crap.

Leo made some threats and the deal doesn't match up with those threats, so he's having to bullshit about what he signed.

Read and understand the fucking document and see for yourself.

 

7 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

They may as well all wipe their asses with this agreement so, as it means nothing if your interpretation becomes a reality if/when no deal is reached.

yep, the doc is arsewipe. It exists only as a fudge to get past the roadblock of the first phase.

If you take what it says as absolutes, it's only able to work out as written if the EU turns into something it isn't and will never be, if Ireland is rejecting EU rules, and the UK is boss of the EU after it's left.

There's clauses been put in there to make each party happy and to give them political cover at home.

For Leo it's the bit you underlined in that previous posts, about it being binding in all circumstances.
(which is impossible, unless the EU is giving the UK a freebie)

For May, it's the bit about "nothing is agreed until it's all agreed".

For the EU it's slightly different, and is mostly about circumventing it's own utterly stupid and impossible timetable for progress, to get on to making an agreement because they're desperate* for there to be an agreement.
(* the UK is less desperate, but more stupid )

 

7 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Whats the point in calling the commitment to a borderless Ireland an overarching requirement in this joint agreement if its not, as you say?

It makes Leo happy, so he's got a "victory" to proclaim at home, because he let his gob run away with itself and left himself needing that victory.

The real point is that it allows things to move forwards to where these things really get sorted, or don't.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

In short, if this "agreement" is not really an agreement and is in reality not workable either then one can only seeing it all go tits up.

Nah. If people were seeing it going tits up, they wouldn't have bothered with the fudge ... unless the EU already plan to give the UK no deal at all, and want to point at the UK and say "unreasonable".

It is simply not possible in legal terms for what has been signed to be implemented. 

It's about getting past the first phase of talks, to get to the meaningful part of talks.

[ThomThomDrum]

You really got hung up on Leos words didnt you?  You are the only one (other than the tabloids) hammering on about it. You are very lucky you dont live here if you get so upset with what Leo (or any politician for that matter) says and then does. Just get on with it and try to ignore stupid comments from stupid mouth pieces. Thats what most folk here do when Leo talks 

[ThomThomDrum]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Nah. If people were seeing it going tits up, they wouldn't have bothered with the fudge ... unless the EU already plan to give the UK no deal at all, and want to point at the UK and say "unreasonable".

 

Yeah but is the fudge not simply papering over cracks that will form gaping wounds and then it will all fall apart? I have no idea what the end game looks in the mind of the EU or the UK for that matter but will they really be able to form a workable agreement in the future if they start with creating toilet paper agreements? 

Edited December 12, 2017 by ThomThomDrum

[zahidf]

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

You really got hung up on Leos words didnt you?  

Not at all. :rolleyes:

You're saying he's got what he wants, and I'm pointing out he hasn't. The document *proves* that he hasn't.

I pointed out before there was a doc that his threats were a problem for there being an agreement, because it is impossible for his wants to be fulfilled at this point in the process.

Because what defines the border in Ireland is the customs agreement that the EU and UK make - and there is no customs agreement in that doc.

 

2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

You are the only one (other than the tabloids) hammering on about it.

You're saying Leo has got a binding agreement.

I'm referring to the doc and pointing out that you're incorrect, and Leo is too.

If you can accept the reality of the doc it doesn't have to be mentioned.

 

2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

You are very lucky you dont live here if you get so upset with what Leo (or any politician for that matter) says and then does.

Leo has created himself a domestic political problem via his poorly made 'threat', and is having to bullshit to his domestic audience because of it.

C'mon, wise up to your own politician playing politics towards his electorate.

(DD was doing the same the other day when he pointed out the truth that the doc wasn't binding - and if you care to read back, you can find me saying he was just as wrong to have done that; the less politics played around all of this, the better).

 

2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Just get on with it and try to ignore stupid comments from stupid mouth pieces. Thats what most folk here do when Leo talks 

So why are you believing him that the doc is binding?

It's clearly not if you read it, because it's contradictory and impossible to be implemented as-is.

 

 

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not at all.

You're saying he's got what he wants, and I'm pointing out he hasn't. The document *proves* that he hasn't.

I pointed out before there was a doc that his threats were a problem for there being an agreement, because it is impossible for his wants to be fulfilled at this point in the process.

Because what defines the border in Ireland is the customs agreement that the EU and UK make - and there is no customs agreement in that doc.

 

You're saying Leo has got a binding agreement.

I'm referring to the doc and pointing out that you're incorrect, and Leo is too.

If you can accept the reality of the doc it doesn't have to be mentioned.

 

Leo has created himself a domestic political problem via his poorly made 'threat', and is having to bullshit to his domestic audience because of it.

C'mon, wise up to your own politician playing politics towards his electorate.

(DD was doing the same the other day when he pointed out the truth that the doc wasn't binding - and if you care to read back, you can find me saying he was just as wrong to have done that; the less politics played around all of this, the better).

 

So why are you believing him that the doc is binding?

It's clearly not if you read it, because it's contradictory and impossible to be implemented as-is.

 

 

read above. The EU arent happy with Davis mouthing off and will insist it is madr legally binding asap.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Yeah but is the fudge not simply papering over cracks that will form gaping wounds and then it will all fall apart?

Perhaps, but they'd be the same gaping wounds now if they'd not been the fudge.

So making the fudge to move on the important part is the smart move - because it's not possible to define the Ireland border without a *FULL* detailed new customs agreement.

 

10 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I have no idea what the end game looks in the mind of the EU or the UK for that matter but will they really be able to form a workable agreement in the future if they start with creating toilet paper agreements? 

Have you only just discovered the EU exists or something?

These sorts of fudges are an EU standard. It's the only way to make the EU work with so many competing interests.

The EU cocked up by including the irish border in phase one, when the border cannot be set without a customs agreement. The UK pointed this out 9 months ago.

The EU have realised their cock-up, and have been happy to have reality set the agenda.

All of this would be a nothing if Leo hadn't made his 'threat'. Because he made his 'threat', he now needs to try and claim that he hasn't been sidelined by pretending he's signed something different to what he has.

BTW, the agreement states with 100% clarity that the UK is leaving the SM/CU - yet I don't take that with any greater certainty. May needed that for her domestic audience just as Leo needed his 'threat' supposedly delivered.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

yep, what I said the other day. Unhelpful!

Meanwhile, it's still the truth, unless someone can tell me how the UK can have a customs agreement with the EU without having a customs agreement with the EU?

If there's no deal there is no customs agreement and the EU will require Ireland to erect a border. That's simply how it is.

(WTO rules also require the UK to erect a border too, unless the UK gives all countries tariff-free access to UK markets, just to be clear).

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

read above. The EU arent happy with Davis mouthing off and will insist it is madr legally binding asap.

First part: you're right. I'm not happy with DD mouthing off either. I said the same as Guy before Guy did. It's not helpful.

The 2nd part: yep, "straight away" being the full customs agreement that is necessary in order for that doc to be legally do-able.

Unless you reckon the EU is giving the UK SM/CU access for no fee? Cos no fee is mentioned.

Or unless you reckon the UK is going to pay stupidly-high fees for access, whatever the EU might try demanding? 

Be smart enough to read the fucking words in that doc, and to see the thousands of reasons why in the real word it's nothing more than a statement of intent.

[zahidf]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, what I said the other day. Unhelpful!

Meanwhile, it's still the truth, unless someone can tell me how the UK can have a customs agreement with the EU without having a customs agreement with the EU?

If there's no deal there is no customs agreement and the EU will require Ireland to erect a border. That's simply how it is.

(WTO rules also require the UK to erect a border too, unless the UK gives all countries tariff-free access to UK markets, just to be clear).

oh yeah, its just that if its a fudge, why bring attention to it? Just makes it harder to get through the Eu parliament and makes us in the UK look untrustworthy if we are talking about not complying with it!

[ThomThomDrum]

Just now, eFestivals said:

You're saying he's got what he wants,

Am I? I dont believe I said that. If I did I apologise but I dont recall doing so. 

I did point out certain things that are said in the agreement and if they are not compatible and workable then the agreement is a load of shite. Thats what I said effectively. 

You said there cant be a borderless situation with out a deal. I did not disagree with that just pointed out that apparently this agreement says there will be no border, even in the absence of a deal. I have no idea how that would work. Maybe some clever folk in the EU and the UK Governments have a magic formula and a crafty spell that can make that work, but I was just pointing out that there is apparent commitments to have no border from all sides irrespective of phase 2 outcomes. 

Quote

Leo has created himself a domestic political problem via his poorly made 'threat', and is having to bullshit to his domestic audience because of it.

You are the only one talking about this threat. Seriously no one else is. Absolutely no one. Id say most people here are unaware of what he said at any point in reality. Just you and the tabloids

Quote

 

So why are you believing him that the doc is binding?

Did I say it was binding? Hmmmmmmm. Yet again you recall things about peoples posts that seem not exactly accurate 

I think you read between the lines of many a post on here a bit too much. You know 2+2 doesnt equal 5? 

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, ThomThomDrum said:

I did point out certain things that are said in the agreement and if they are not compatible and workable then the agreement is a load of shite. Thats what I said effectively. 

Then we're in agreement.

As legally binding, it's a load of impossible shite - which is precisely why it's can never be a legally binding doc.

But it's not only shite. It lays out a number of parameters for where each party is aiming in a final agreement.

The UK makes clear it wants no Ireland border in all circumstances.
Ireland makes clear it wants no border in all circumstances.

The EU accepts those (and other UK wants), and indicates that in-theory* a deal is possible that delivers everyone's wants.

(* not the same as in-practice, of course ... but it means the final argument will be about the fee the UK pays for its wants, and not about whether its wants can be fulfilled).

 

Just now, ThomThomDrum said:

You said there cant be a borderless situation with out a deal. I did not disagree with that just pointed out that apparently this agreement says there will be no border, even in the absence of a deal.

The agreement also says that none of the agreement is an agreement without a further agreement.

It's full of contradictory shite, as well as being detail-free on how no-border in Ireland will work.

See it for what it is, not how Leo or May would like it sold to you or I.

 

Just now, ThomThomDrum said:

I have no idea how that would work. Maybe some clever folk in the EU and the UK Governments have a magic formula and a crafty spell that can make that work, but I was just pointing out that there is apparent commitments to have no border from all sides irrespective of phase 2 outcomes. 

There's also a commitment that none of the JR is a commitment.

Everyone signed up to those contradictions, while knowing they are contradictions.

(at least, I hope they all knew they were contradictions, else they're too fucking stupid to be part of the process).

 

Just now, ThomThomDrum said:

You are the only one talking about this threat. Seriously no one else is.

And yet your focus is all about claiming the basis for the threat has been delivered. That's you talking about the threat.

I'm only pointing back to when Leo made that threat and saying it's caused problems that didn't need to be in the mix.

 

Just now, ThomThomDrum said:

Absolutely no one. Id say most people here are unaware of what he said at any point in reality. Just you and the tabloids

I pay attention and reference facts. That makes me the opposite of the tabloids.

Did Leo make a threat? Yup.
Did it help or hinder the political process? Hinder.
Has his want been delivered? Nope.
Is Leo claiming that it has &/or that he's been mugged? Yep.

Who's the dummy? Leo for creating a situation where he's having to bullshit, when none of it needed to be in the mix.

 

Just now, ThomThomDrum said:

Did I say it was binding? Hmmmmmmm. Yet again you recall things about peoples posts that seem not exactly accurate 

When I 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", you said...

"As thats not what I get from reading the agreement. (maybe thats just my interpretation)"

So WTF ARE you saying...?

 

[ThomThomDrum]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

So WTF ARE you saying...?

 

That they are all saying they are in "agreement" that there will be no border irrespective of phase two outcomes. That is not the same as saying something is legally binding 

Quote

I pay attention and reference facts. That makes me the opposite of the tabloids.

Hmmm. You tend to repeat yourself like a broken record on points you seemingly love to make over and over again.  Opposite of the tabloids?  

All sides are claiming this agreement gives them what they want (or is at least good for their self interests) yet it gives no one anything in reality. So like Leo they are all dummys then............. or maybe they are all just playing the political game as they do all the time. Say one thing, do another. Say one thing, mean another. Talk up certain things, avoid talking of certain other things. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by ThomThomDrum

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

That they are all saying they are in "agreement" that there will be no border irrespective of phase two outcomes. That is not the same as saying something is legally binding 

Yep, that's just as obvious as anything else from the doc.

56 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

All sides are claiming this agreement gives them what they want (or is at least good for their self interests) yet it gives no one anything in reality. So like Leo they are all dummys then.............

Leo is the only one who backed himself into a corner with recent words, and then needed to make statements to avoid himself looking like a plonker who'd caved - that's where the difference is with Leo. He backed himself into a corner where he had to come out proclaiming victory (while the others only expressed relief at clearing a hurdle).

And he's not the first politician to be a bit slow to have joined up the dots and where things go next, but he's the only one who managed that here. He's having to make patently-false statements to cover his arse, when presumably he's smart enough to really know what he was signing.

It would have been better if he'd not felt the need to grandstand a few weeks ago, then none of what he's done would have been necessary.

 

56 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

or maybe they are all just playing the political game as they do all the time. Say one thing, do another. Say one thing, mean another. Talk up certain things, avoid talking of certain other things. 

everyone avoids the difficult stuff to do the easy stuff first, in the hope that the difficult stuff will be less difficult cos the easy stuff have clarified a few things.

And the JR definitely clarified a few things. It says (amongst other things) the EU has been telling porkies about a Canada-type deal being the best available option (tho whether a better deal is an affordable [from UK perspective] option is something we've yet to find out).

[zahidf]

ha!

 

 

[eFestivals]

1. it's always been clear what May wanted for those who were listening.
2. there's nothing agreed until a trade deal IS negotiated.
3. you got the the hard brexiters there.
4. that's Labour's policy.
5. your logical fail
6. Hmmm. There's borders and then there's the right to settle. Guess which one people care more about?
7. trade related red tape is not all red tape. There's still potential for a bonfire of regulations.
8. who knows how that'll work out? But trade with 'the deepest free trade deal' is shrinking without the ability to expand trade elsewhere. On a purely-trade basis (and ignoring the pain of changing) I'm not convinced that being tied to the EU is the sure winner.
9. you got the the hard brexiters there.
10. but far fewer of them, even if remaining in the SM/CU.

Still, a more factual account doesn't read as good as bullshit for those who need bullshit spoon-fed.

[zahidf]

DD backing down?

 

 

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, zahidf said:

DD backing down?

is that your take? :lol:

It's DD taking the piss, firstly by pointing out that the JR is not a binding agreement, and secondly he's saying that whatever measures the UK introduces for EU nationals in the UK won't be as cumbersome as what already exists for UK nationals in the EU.

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

is that your take?

It's DD taking the piss, firstly by pointing out that the JR is not a binding agreement, and secondly he's saying that whatever measures the UK introduces for EU nationals in the UK won't be as cumbersome as what already exists for UK nationals in the EU.

sounds a bit more serious than that.. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

sounds a bit more serious than that.. 

I suspect that's merely to create room for talks on a transition deal, which I've read is going to be sorted before talks start on future trade.

As for DD I'm sure it he was taking the piss, tho using language that covers his arse. And probably not thinking about what the consequences might be.

As I said the other day, he should have kept his gob shut about it. When something is a fudge to get past an obstructive point, it's not a good thing for those involved in the fudge to be pointing out that it's a fudge. It doesn't help, and risks putting the obstruction back in place.

I've just read something about the Germans being pissed off that May is saying the bill is dependent on a trade deal, too, as the paperwork for the exit terms will be a different agreement to future trade arrangements.

But, you know, they all signed that bit of paper knowing what it was, so it's still a bit rich for the EU to suddenly pretend it wasn't what it was (if that's what they're doing by moving the dates of talks).

[ThomThomDrum]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But, you know, they all signed that bit of paper knowing what it was, so it's still a bit rich for the EU to suddenly pretend it wasn't what it was (if that's what they're doing by moving the dates of talks).

The 27 leaders are meeting this Friday to sign off on it are they no? So idiotic statements (no matter how true they are) could put that at risk. Hence DDs back tracking on what he really "meant".