Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

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". 

absolutely. I've said DD should have kept his gob shut. There's niceties to be kept up in order to get to the real thing.

 

[pink_triangle]

13 hours ago, lost said:

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

 

Well labours strategy seems to be to not talk about Brexit and just hope the conservatives mess it up. The polling may suggest that the public want a bit more. 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Well labours strategy seems to be to not talk about Brexit and just hope the conservatives mess it up. The polling may suggest that the public want a bit more. 

if you read newspaper comments under any brexit story, you'll see Labour voters slaughtering the Labour Party for their cowardice.

And as you've pointed out, Labour are hoping the tories will mess up, just as they've been hoping that "the tories will rip themselves to shreds over brexit".

Right now it looks like neither are happening, and what is the mess-up is Labour's timid-as-fuck strategy.

Psssst. Don't mention brexit. Jez did once but I think he got away with it.

[pink_triangle]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if you read newspaper comments under any brexit story, you'll see Labour voters slaughtering the Labour Party for their cowardice.

And as you've pointed out, Labour are hoping the tories will mess up, just as they've been hoping that "the tories will rip themselves to shreds over brexit".

Right now it looks like neither are happening, and what is the mess-up is Labour's timid-as-fuck strategy.

Psssst. Don't mention brexit. Jez did once but I think he got away with it.

I just think with Brexit dominating the news, you can't have a labour leader/party scared to touch the subject, the public won't see it as credible.

[zahidf]

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

all that does is - yet again - prove that DD was technically correct.

The EU are saying it's binding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. It's in the text!

 

[eFestivals]

and PS: it's just not legally or technically possible to codify the Ireland border bit, unless the EU are going to include everything of the SM/CU 'offer' they're making the UK so that the Ireland bit stands firm if there's no other deal.

And if the EU did, I'm damned sure May wouldn't sign it; her govt would fall if it did, and everything would be back to square one.

So it's pie in the sky.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

and did you bother to actually read the article, zahid, or is 140 characters the limit to your intelligence?

Cos it reveals you got mugged yesterday with twitter twattery, lookie...

An intention to start negotiating a transition period from Brexit to a future trade pact early in 2018 now includes a plan to be able to launch talks in January. The new draft makes clearer that talks on what happens after transition will start only after further guidelines are agreed in March.

So there you go. Not 'punishment' handed out to DD. It's what I guessed at (an informed guess, by actually reading stuff), that the deal for the trade talks is to do the transition deal first.

 

 

 

[ThomThomDrum]

Arent the MEPs meeting today to debate and vote on if the UK are allowed to move to phase 2 or not, but are altering wording of any resolution because of what DD said? Is the vote a foregone conclusion or is there actually potential for it to be a sticky situation mirroring the sticky issue May and DD potentially have with trying to pass their current Brexit bill through parliament?

 

Also I hear that the MEPs will be formally criticizing DD today. (what a naughty boy he is!  )

Edited December 13, 2017 by ThomThomDrum

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Arent the MEPs meeting today to debate and vote on if the UK are allowed to move to phase 2 or not, but are altering wording of any resolution because of what DD said? Is the vote a foregone conclusion or is there actually potential for it to be a sticky situation mirroring the sticky issue May and DD potentially have with trying to pass their current Brexit bill through parliament?

The only parliament in the world without the right to propose legislation is normally the commission's nodding donkey. If they're going to do one at him, they'll have been told that's what they're to do.

The willy waving in all directions now is pathetic.

If the EU want a binding agreement they've got shit loads of work to do before they're able to give terms. Get on with it then.

 

Quote

Also I hear that the MEPs will be formally criticizing DD today. (what a naughty boy he is!  )

care to tell me why these MEPs are unable to understand the words "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" which their masters happily signed?

Edited December 13, 2017 by eFestivals

[ThomThomDrum]

I dont hold out much hope for this process if this is the mess that coming out of the 'pointless and meaningless' phase 1 creates..

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I dont hold out much hope for this process if this is the mess that coming out of the 'pointless and meaningless' phase 1 creates..

Yup. Too many people talking too much shit, to try and justify misplaced things they've said previously.

Which either means they're weak politically in their own domain and trying to shore-up their position, or they're too stupid to understand the politics which are going on. Take your pick.

Rather amusingly, 'the bigots' aren't the ones making trouble right now.

Edited December 13, 2017 by eFestivals

[ThomThomDrum]

Too many groups with diverging interests for it to all ever align as far as I can see. A weakened UK government post last GE doesnt help that

Edited December 13, 2017 by ThomThomDrum

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Too many groups with diverging interests for it to all ever align as far as I can see. 

the doc signed the other day shows that they can. 

The only problem today with the doc is that it doesn't say what some have to pretend it does say.

That part aside, it outlines the wants and intents of all sides, and says it's theoretically possible - tho of course the devil will be in the detail.

Don't forget, a deal is wanted by all sides, because no deal is damaging to all sides. That doesn't mean any party would sign up to anything ("no deal is better than a bad deal" applies to all), but it does mean that all sides will be prepared to make compromises to have a deal come together.

As long as everyone has realistic ideas of outcomes when starting talks then a deal gets done.

The biggest problem I can foresee will be if the UK reckons it can get EU market access for no fee (or a low fee). The problem here is that the EU will point at Norway and say 'that much' while the UK will point at Canada and say 'that much'.

[ThomThomDrum]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the doc signed the other day shows that they can. 

I beg to differ. I think that doc highlights the potential issues that will potentially pull it all down simply due to its explicit contradictions. Especially if the only thing to be taken out of that 'agreement' is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Its not really an agreement on anything then is it? Only we will agree that we will hopefully agree later. We agree to continue to try an push round pegs into square holes. We agree to appease everyone now by giving no one anything right now. 

As soon as talks progress and the perceived understandings that each interested parties has get impeded 'for the good of a future deal/real agreement' we will see a hardening of positions and a collapse, whether thats the DUP, Hard line Brexiters or the EU. The poor UK government will be stuck between that 3 way fuck fest and I dont think it will be pretty. 

Where do the required concessions come from when there are so many 'red line' issues on all sides? 

And if Grieve et al get their way later then a final agreement becomes potentially even more difficult to get through. Not that i disagree with their right to such a potential vote that they are looking for in the future its just it will make agreement on a final Brexit plan even more difficult simply because more voices/opinions will muddy things further 

 

[zahidf]

i doubt it will come to pass but would you take the option as a dual citizen?

 

[sjseabass]

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

i doubt it will come to pass but would you take the option as a dual citizen?

 

That article is a year out of date. Haven’t heard anything about it recently, sadly

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I beg to differ. I think that doc highlights the potential issues that will potentially pull it all down simply due to its explicit contradictions.

There's no contradictions in the intent in the doc.

There's some bull to get round particular roadblocks to keep people happy right now, but the intent is clearly stated: UK out of SM/CU, with a new trade deal that allows for free movement (but not necessarily free of remotely-done bureaucracy) of goods over that border.

All sides have indicated they're happy to pursue having that outcome.

 

25 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Especially if the only thing to be taken out of that 'agreement' is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

That's one of those bits of bullshit. There will be more than one agreement made, and they'll be signed at different times. 

Instead of taking that line literally, it really means that nothing at all is agreed just yet, because the paperwork for any legal agreements hasn't been drawn up, and some parts (like a new trade agreement) might never get agreed.

 

25 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Its not really an agreement on anything then is it?

Correct.

It's an agreement that Ireland's red line was a fake, if you like - but you can blame the EU for having set that up. The border CANNOT be agreed without a customs deal, and ultimately all the UK has done is restate that it doesn't want a border.

Meanwhile the EU has got a payments-amount agreement, and agreement has been made for citizens on the 'other' side of each's border.

It's progress. It was only ever meant as a progress point.

 

25 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Only we will agree that we will hopefully agree later. We agree to continue to try an push round pegs into square holes. We agree to appease everyone now by giving no one anything right now. 

As soon as talks progress and the perceived understandings that each interested parties has get impeded 'for the good of a future deal/real agreement' we will see a hardening of positions and a collapse, whether thats the DUP, Hard line Brexiters or the EU. The poor UK government will be stuck between that 3 way fuck fest and I dont think it will be pretty. 

It might pan out like that, but it shouldn't. The EU have agreed in principle that a deal outside of the SM/CU that creates a 'open' border for goods is a go-er.

 

25 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Where do the required concessions come from when there are so many 'red line' issues on all sides? 

Are there? I don't think there are. Things are in agreement, and those red lines cease to matter much.

Ireland should get borderless - with the UK too. NI will be aligned with UK trade regs. And if Ireland is borderless, that means Dover is too for goods.

There's the details on the technical structure of that to be worked out - tricky, but not impossible. It's only got to cover physical goods, and associated regulations (plus a bit more for any cross-Ireland issues), and outlines of those already exist with Norway & Switzerland.

And then there's a price the UK pays to be agreed (and no one really thinks the UK will get a freebie like Canada). If the price is around 50% of the net amount now (so £4-5Bn), it'll be a done deal.

(if the UK gets services into a deal too, the price could as much as double)

 

25 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

And if Grieve et al get their way later then a final agreement becomes potentially even more difficult to get through. Not that i disagree with their right to such a potential vote that they are looking for in the future its just it will make agreement on a final Brexit plan even more difficult simply because more voices/opinions will muddy things further 

You've already seen in the last few days how even the brexit nutters haven't been too vocal about what May signed, and it'll be much the same from all sides if a deal comes in at around something like I've outlined above. The tories will come together around the deal, because it won't be (in context of brexit) a bad deal.

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, zahidf said:

i doubt it will come to pass but would you take the option as a dual citizen?

it's not "citizenship" (in the legal sense). The EU cannot offer that.

So it wouldn't be dual citizenship, it would just be something which would preserve rights within the EU.

[zahidf]

 

 

[ThomThomDrum]

Another moment  for May to rue the day she arrogantly called that GE. Oh dear! 

[zahidf]

PARKLIFE

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Another moment  for May to rue the day she arrogantly called that GE. Oh dear! 

i dont understand why the govt fought it. The EU parliament is going to vote on the final deal. Why shouldnt the UK parliament?

[pink_triangle]

Hopefully the leader of the opposition will start to show some interest in Brexit now.

[feral chile]

16 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Hopefully the leader of the opposition will start to show some interest in Brexit now.

I've read that Labour is deliberately being ambivalent so as to keep both sides on board. Given that you've previously favoured strategic policies to attract voters, would you support this?

For the record, I'd respect them more for integrity. I don't want him to be harvesting support by being strategic.

Supposing keeping both sides sweet was a vote winner, would you be in favour?