Brexit Schmexit

[Lad]

They'd be better asking the South Armagh Brigade for advice on getting round a hard border.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, Lad said:

They'd be better asking the South Armagh Brigade for advice on getting round a hard border.

Hey, it puts Corbyn in a strong position, then. He's got some good contacts there. 

 

[Lad]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Hey, it puts Corbyn in a strong position, then. He's got some good contacts there. 

 

[russycarps]

Good speech from Major today. Worth checking out. The tories are in disarray. Thank god we have some of the finest politicians in a generation on the opposition bench to slam home the advantage.

Oh wait.....

 

[eFestivals]

Tusk, today: There can be no frictionless trade outside of the customs union and the single market.

That's shat on May's plans, but also Jez's. I don't think it's merely coincidence that he included 'single market' in what he said.

(but also, I'll point out that if May's being called out as going against the December agreement over Ireland, those words by Tusk go against that December statement, too).

[lost]

Its like watching a car crash in slow motion. You can see its going to break down into an argument over semantics and what constitutes a border. Both sides are happy to play with fire to push their agenda and you get the feeling there are people who would be happy to see bombs going off again so they can say "I told you so"

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, lost said:

Its like watching a car crash in slow motion. You can see its going to break down into an argument over semantics and what constitutes a border. Both sides are happy to play with fire to push their agenda and you get the feeling there are people who would be happy to see bombs going off again so they can say "I told you so"

It's all a bit odd that the govt supposedly agreed a view last week, and that May's waited a week to actually say what it is, and in the meantime we've had both of Corbyn and the EU pre-empt it.

But i do agree with what May said the other day, that no UK PM could agree to the fall-back position in the EU draft document ... cos while everyone wants to point out that "the UK are the ones that are changing things", if they agreed to the EU's wants the EU will be forevermore changing things in NI. If it were about agreeing a fixed position, that might perhaps be different.

I'm still not discounting the possibility that the tories are thinking of bailing and leaving Corbyn holding the shitty brexit stick.

[zahidf]

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's all a bit odd that the govt supposedly agreed a view last week, and that May's waited a week to actually say what it is, and in the meantime we've had both of Corbyn and the EU pre-empt it.

But i do agree with what May said the other day, that no UK PM could agree to the fall-back position in the EU draft document ... cos while everyone wants to point out that "the UK are the ones that are changing things", if they agreed to the EU's wants the EU will be forevermore changing things in NI. If it were about agreeing a fixed position, that might perhaps be different.

I'm still not discounting the possibility that the tories are thinking of bailing and leaving Corbyn holding the shitty brexit stick.

But the Tories agreed that fall back position in Dec

 

Also, this

the UK govt have produced no papers or given their position except Mays waffly speechs.

The EU are publishing their guidelines on the future trade deal. does the uk govt even have a settles position on this?

 

May is playing catch up on this massively. Why was this not all sorted before Article 50 was invoked?

[LJS]

45 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But the Tories agreed that fall back position in Dec

 

Also, this

the UK govt have produced no papers or given their position except Mays waffly speechs.

The EU are publishing their guidelines on the future trade deal. does the uk govt even have a settles position on this?

 

May is playing catch up on this massively. Why was this not all sorted before Article 50 was invoked?

Correct. Ian Dunt sums it up pretty well...

"There've been a lot of inane responses to the publication of the draft withdrawal agreement yesterday. Several journalists and MPs insisted Brussels is launching some sort of militarised power-grab against UK territory. Others say the Europeans are motivated by bleak bureaucratic extremism and that we must now prepare to walk away from talks.

The dimwittedness of the commentary is quite extraordinary. Very few observers - including the prime minister - seem to even be aware that these were the terms the UK agreed to just three months ago. Complaining about it now is like being outraged by the things you did when you were drunk on the weekend. Just because you didn't know what you were doing at the time doesn't mean you didn't do it."

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/03/01/davis-failure-is-now-apparently-his-best-weapon

[eFestivals]

43 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But the Tories agreed that fall back position in Dec

Only by a selective reading of the agreemment - which in sensibleland means they didn't.

 

 

43 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

Also, this

the UK govt have produced no papers or given their position except Mays waffly speechs.

The EU are publishing their guidelines on the future trade deal. does the uk govt even have a settles position on this?

And with a literal reading of that December agreement, the EU said it was possible to achieve these things without need of the formal SM/CU (so via a bespoke agreement).

The UK is failing because its not putting forwards a way to do it, but the EU is bullshitting about it by now pretending something different to what it signed up to.

 

43 minutes ago, zahidf said:

May is playing catch up on this massively. Why was this not all sorted before Article 50 was invoked?

because it wasn't possible to do before a50 without the UK giving up sovereignty of NI.

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Very few observers - including the prime minister - seem to even be aware that these were the terms the UK agreed to just three months ago.

thing is, that's not actually true - because it was all couched within "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

Anyone with half a brain recognised that agreement wads a crock of shit at the time - so it's a bit rich for many of those people to now pretend it was unshakable.

[zahidf]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Only by a selective reading of the agreemment - which in sensibleland means they didn't.

 

 

And with a literal reading of that December agreement, the EU said it was possible to achieve these things without need of the formal SM/CU (so via a bespoke agreement).

The UK is failing because its not putting forwards a way to do it, but the EU is bullshitting about it by now pretending something different to what it signed up to.

 

because it wasn't possible to do before a50 without the UK giving up sovereignty of NI.

 

I think the UK govt should have got its position papers ready and stuff organised before invoking A50. They seem to be winging it at the moment

The EU are being nice to us: the rest of the world must be licking their lips at the thought of negotiating with the current UK govt...

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I think the UK govt should have got its position papers ready and stuff organised before invoking A50.

I do too.

I also think the opposition shouldn't have whipped it's MPs to vote for a50 when the plans were unknown. 

There's more than one leader who's a moron.

[LJS]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

thing is, that's not actually true - because it was all couched within "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

Anyone with half a brain recognised that agreement wads a crock of shit at the time - so it's a bit rich for many of those people to now pretend it was unshakable.

Oh, that's OK then. It's fine for our government to agree something that "Anyone with half a brain recognised ...was a crock of shit"

The reason it was a crock of shit is because the government's line was that technology, unicorns  fairy dust and magic beans would somehow solve the Irish border problem.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

I do too.

I also think the opposition shouldn't have whipped it's MPs to vote for a50 when the plans were unknown. 

There's more than one leader who's a moron.

So what? Why is it that every single time anyone criticises Treeza, you can't agree without taking the opportunity to stick the knife into Jezza?

I'll tell you a secret. We all know you're not jezza's biggest fan but it really isn't necessary to remind us in every post.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

Oh, that's OK then. It's fine for our government to agree something that "Anyone with half a brain recognised ...was a crock of shit"

The reason it was a crock of shit is because the government's line was that technology, unicorns  fairy dust and magic beans would somehow solve the Irish border problem.

Yep.

While the EU agreed that technology, unicorns  fairy dust and magic beans would solve the Irish border problem - but they are now saying that technology, unicorns  fairy dust and magic beans are not allowed to be the solution.

I'm pointing out that all the people who signed it knew it was worthless, and all the people who read it knew it was worthless. May isn't working to it today, but neither are the EU.

We need to get a solution, but we don't get any nearer to that by playing dumb today over something we were smart enough to understand a few weeks back, just so we can point accusing fingers in a preferred direction.

Edited March 1, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep.

While the EU agreed that technology, unicorns  fairy dust and magic beans would solve the Irish border problem - but they are now saying that technology, unicorns  fairy dust and magic beans are not allowed to be the solution.

I'm pointing out that all the people who signed it knew it was worthless, and all the people who read it knew it was worthless. May isn't working to it today, but neither are the EU.

We need to get a solution, but we don't get any nearer to that by playing dumb today over something we were smart enough to understand a few weeks back, just so we can point accusing fingers in a preferred direction.

Wow!

You really believe any of that shit?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

You really believe any of that shit?

you think it was a document that meant something because it had no contradictions?

If any of the people signing it thought it did mean something, they need to start back on day one of civil service college or something.

You'll have to tell me what you think it said that was solid and sound and not negated by another part for the UK, and where the EU excluded all options except full SM/CU.

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

you think it was a document that meant something because it had no contradictions?

If any of the people signing it thought it did mean something, they need to start back on day one of civil service college or something.

You'll have to tell me what you think it said that was solid and sound and not negated by another part for the UK, and where the EU excluded all options except full SM/CU.

Yeah! the UK said "don't worry about Ireland it'll be OK - we've got unicorns and stuff"

So the EU said "great, show us your unicorns & that'll be fine... but just on the off chance your unicorns are mythical, sign here to accept a "common regulatory area"

There's only one idiot in that process (I'll give you a clue - its the one with the unicorns)

 

 

[zahidf]

ALL SORTED

 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Yeah! the UK said "don't worry about Ireland it'll be OK - we've got unicorns and stuff"

So the EU said "great, show us your unicorns & that'll be fine... but just on the off chance your unicorns are mythical, sign here to accept a "common regulatory area"

There's only one idiot in that process (I'll give you a clue - its the one with the unicorns)

you need to read what the EU *actually* signed, rather than invent a load of self-serving fantasy bollocks.

 

[LJS]

58 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you need to read what the EU *actually* signed, rather than invent a load of self-serving fantasy bollocks.

 

Why?

Were there no unicorns in it?

[zahidf]

More unicorns from May

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Why?

Were there no unicorns in it?

there were plenty of unicorns, owned by the EU as well as the UK.

What don't you understand about it being a meaningless fudge, and all signatories knowing it was a meaningless fudge?

(if they didn't know it was a meaningless fudge they're not fit to be one of those sign-ers, cos it was all there in black and white.

Are you dafter than David Davies, Boris, and Fox combined? Or smarter than Barnier and Tusk?

Cos they all know it was that fudge.

(not sure about poor old Leo, tho. Perhaps he is that daft, i've no idea).

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

More unicorns from May

 

 

hey, have you seen Corbyn's list of unicorns?

Cos he's got one too. It's called something like the 'five tests'.

It's no good pointing out that May's a moron when Corbyn is too. We can only be saved if there's someone to save us, and there's no one to save us.