BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

tailwindhome

Emma Barnett in another belter of an interview, this time with DUP Chief Whip Jeffrey Donaldson who can live with 40,000 job losses in NI


https://twitter.com/i/status/1156509039758434304

drhaggis

PBlakeney wrote:

Westminster sounds like a petulant child.
"Why won't you give me what I want?"
"What do you want?"
"I don't know, but give it to me. Now!"

Actually, it's more like:
EU: What if, after transition period, we give NI access to the SM while we sort out the border?
HMG: No! Never! I don't want that!
EU: So what do you want?
HMG: SM access for the whole UK!
EU: OK
[months later]
HMG: This is undemoratic! Remove the backstop!!!

The truth is, the day HMG pushed for the Malthouse alternative reality is the day HMG lost all credibility as a negotiator. In EU's eyes, there is no point negotiating any longer if HMG is going to turn on its own suggestions. There's a reason why the _current_ extension text states the WA is closed for negotiation.

surrey_commuter

TailWindHome wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

cougie wrote:

Coopster just believing in things doesn't seem to work for Brexit.

You've missed the previous deadlines. What's different this time ?

You seem suspiciously light on details.

It was remainers running the show (in govt & civil service) last time and a spineless remainer(now out of her job) who requested 2 extensions.

The electorate have shown what it will do to the 2 major parties if Brexit is not delivered on 31st October.

Ironically Farage isn't happy.
Apparently the leaders and strategist behind the winning Vote Leave campaign don't believe in Brexit.

Why is nobody not more interested in what Cummings thinks? Other than the fact that he can not hide his contempt for him there are good reasons why Farage does not like him.

cougie

Coopster the 1st wrote:

cougie wrote:

What exactly is going well ?

Looks like it's all gone to sh1t from where I'm standing ?

That is because it is going to happen.

I'm sure you and others will continue stamping their feet in a huff like a 3yo child.

Why call me a three year old child when it's you calling me names ?

I'm being civil here and asking genuine questions and you've given no answers and called me names.

And Johnson was originally a remainer too. Are you keeping that in your pocket for when this version of Brexit goes wrong ?

surrey_commuter

Until Coopster popped up I had no idea that anybody thought this was going well.

Am I the only person who thinks Boris is playing a game of being seen to try everything and then blame everybody else when he fails and gets on with a proper negotiation.

pblakeney

TailWindHome wrote:

Emma Barnett in another belter of an interview, this time with DUP Chief Whip Jeffrey Donaldson who can live with 40,000 job losses in NI


https://twitter.com/i/status/1156509039758434304

I do wonder if he is happy to see the axe?
Opinions seem to swing when directly affected.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why is nobody not more interested in what Cummings thinks? Other than the fact that he can not hide his contempt for him there are good reasons why Farage does not like him.

After scanning through his most recent blog, I'm thinking he maybe thinks too highly of himself. Given the tight margins of the vote, both Cummings and Farage were key in getting their side over the line.

sungod

Coopster the 1st wrote:

...
The electorate have shown what it will do to the 2 major parties if Brexit is not delivered on 31st October.

yes, the majority of uk citizens that didn't vote leave will hammer the tories by voting for parties supporting remain

brexiters will carry on whining, but they've never stopped whining so no change there, always blaming others for their own failure

tailwindhome

A No Deal Brexit is simultaneously what brexiteers wanted all along (it's what they voted for) and all Ireland's fault.

rjsterry

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Cummings

After scanning through his most recent blog, I'm thinking he maybe thinks too highly of himself

Maybe?

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why is nobody not more interested in what Cummings thinks? Other than the fact that he can not hide his contempt for him there are good reasons why Farage does not like him.

After scanning through his most recent blog, I'm thinking he maybe thinks too highly of himself. Given the tight margins of the vote, both Cummings and Farage were key in getting their side over the line.

Read the older stuff to figure out what he truly thinks.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Any form of new negotiation on the WA.

They couldn't get it through parliament.

So why do they need to re-open negotiations?

You've just answered your own question Rick.

But what's the quid pro quo?

You can't just say "we don't accept this, do as we want instead". The backstop is a solution to the challenge Northern Ireland poses in light of the UK red lines that they themselves have drawn.

The UK position is simply a threat - do this or we will push the nuclear button. That is not a strong negotiating position to have, nor does it put the UK on the front foot for the future relationship negotiations.

We all know Sterling is at it's lowest ever because that nuclear option is becoming more likely, which suggests what the money's consensus is on how successful that option will be.

The quid pro quo is avoiding a no deal Brexit which hurts the EU as well as the UK (and yes, I am aware of your proportionality argument)

- The WA will not be approved by parliament.
- A50 has minimal chance of being revoked.
- In the absence of either the above, it' a no deal Brexit (extension possible but that just defers the eventual outcome). Unless something else can be agreed.

pblakeney

PBlakeney wrote:

8 months on from the referendum and progress made? Zero. 2 years to get a good deal with the EU that everyone is happy with? Zero chance. Doing that AND negotiating any good deals Worldwide? Optimistic at best.

February 19th, 2017.
Just sayin'

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Any form of new negotiation on the WA.

They couldn't get it through parliament.

So why do they need to re-open negotiations?

You've just answered your own question Rick.

But what's the quid pro quo?

You can't just say "we don't accept this, do as we want instead". The backstop is a solution to the challenge Northern Ireland poses in light of the UK red lines that they themselves have drawn.

The UK position is simply a threat - do this or we will push the nuclear button. That is not a strong negotiating position to have, nor does it put the UK on the front foot for the future relationship negotiations.

We all know Sterling is at it's lowest ever because that nuclear option is becoming more likely, which suggests what the money's consensus is on how successful that option will be.

The quid pro quo is avoiding a no deal Brexit which hurts the EU as well as the UK (and yes, I am aware of your proportionality argument)

- The WA will not be approved by parliament.
- A50 has minimal chance of being revoked.
- In the absence of either the above, it' a no deal Brexit (extension possible but that just defers the eventual outcome). Unless something else can be agreed.

That’s not quid pro quo and that’s not a negotiation, that’s a threat. Where is the give? Just stamping for feet saying “I will do it you know” is not negotiating.

You do know it was the UK that asked for the backstop originally, right?

As ever a reminder - U.K. hurts proportionally a lot more than the EU in the event of a no deal Brexit.

That includes US threats to bin any agreements. That includes the monster disruption across the U.K. That includes a likely break up of the Union. That makes a reunification of Ireland much more likely etc etc.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Any form of new negotiation on the WA.

They couldn't get it through parliament.

So why do they need to re-open negotiations?

You've just answered your own question Rick.

But what's the quid pro quo?

You can't just say "we don't accept this, do as we want instead". The backstop is a solution to the challenge Northern Ireland poses in light of the UK red lines that they themselves have drawn.

The UK position is simply a threat - do this or we will push the nuclear button. That is not a strong negotiating position to have, nor does it put the UK on the front foot for the future relationship negotiations.

We all know Sterling is at it's lowest ever because that nuclear option is becoming more likely, which suggests what the money's consensus is on how successful that option will be.

The quid pro quo is avoiding a no deal Brexit which hurts the EU as well as the UK (and yes, I am aware of your proportionality argument)

- The WA will not be approved by parliament.
- A50 has minimal chance of being revoked.
- In the absence of either the above, it' a no deal Brexit (extension possible but that just defers the eventual outcome). Unless something else can be agreed.

That’s not quid pro quo and that’s not a negotiation, that’s a threat. Where is the give? Just stamping for feet saying “I will do it you know” is not negotiating.

You do know it was the UK that asked for the backstop originally, right?

As ever a reminder - U.K. hurts proportionally a lot more than the EU in the event of a no deal Brexit.

That includes US threats to bin any agreements. That includes the monster disruption across the U.K. That includes a likely break up of the Union. That makes a reunification of Ireland much more likely etc etc.

Did you bother to read what I posted above?

Both on what will happen if there is not a change, or on my point about proportionality? :roll:

rick_chasey

But you're not proposing anything. You're just offering examples of British domestic obstinacy about a clause it itself requested.

Why not throw in the threat to blow up the world via MAD without a deal?

It's just useless threats.

bobmcstuff

Also the point that A50 won't be revoked is nothing to do with the EU surely, so why should they take that into account?

At this stage it is one of the few things we actually can do unilaterally.

bompington

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The electorate have shown what it will do to the 2 major parties if Brexit is not delivered on 31st October.

Ah yes. The Electorate. United, of one mind, consistent in its beliefs and demands.

You know, despite the awfulness of Brexiteers, we should reject the facile cries of fascist thrown at them.

And yet, given the stuff they throw around - "The Electorate", "The Will of the People", "betrayal of Brexit" - terms like Ein Volk, Volksverräter, even Gesundes Volksempfinden, keep coming to mind.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why is nobody not more interested in what Cummings thinks? Other than the fact that he can not hide his contempt for him there are good reasons why Farage does not like him.

After scanning through his most recent blog, I'm thinking he maybe thinks too highly of himself. Given the tight margins of the vote, both Cummings and Farage were key in getting their side over the line.

Read the older stuff to figure out what he truly thinks.

Lots of obsession with project management, and basically trying to be ruder about the ERG than most remainers.

I mean he seems to spend lots of time talking down the government's approach to PMing, but then has campaigned strongly for a course of action that has no chance of success without strong project management.

He comes across as a wierdo.

I appreciate I possibly haven't read far back enough.

rick_chasey

He also dresses like a baddie.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Any form of new negotiation on the WA.

They couldn't get it through parliament.

So why do they need to re-open negotiations?

You've just answered your own question Rick.

But what's the quid pro quo?

You can't just say "we don't accept this, do as we want instead". The backstop is a solution to the challenge Northern Ireland poses in light of the UK red lines that they themselves have drawn.

The UK position is simply a threat - do this or we will push the nuclear button. That is not a strong negotiating position to have, nor does it put the UK on the front foot for the future relationship negotiations.

We all know Sterling is at it's lowest ever because that nuclear option is becoming more likely, which suggests what the money's consensus is on how successful that option will be.

The quid pro quo is avoiding a no deal Brexit which hurts the EU as well as the UK (and yes, I am aware of your proportionality argument)

- The WA will not be approved by parliament.
- A50 has minimal chance of being revoked.
- In the absence of either the above, it' a no deal Brexit (extension possible but that just defers the eventual outcome). Unless something else can be agreed.

At some point, the members of the EU will decide that it is in their long term interests not to bend over backwards to accommodate a partner who negotiates in bad faith. There's much more of a balancing act for them between long term stability of the market and short term disruption.

A50 only has minimal chance of being revoked without asking the country again.

rick_chasey

DrHaggis wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Westminster sounds like a petulant child.
"Why won't you give me what I want?"
"What do you want?"
"I don't know, but give it to me. Now!"

Actually, it's more like:
EU: What if, after transition period, we give NI access to the SM while we sort out the border?
HMG: No! Never! I don't want that!
EU: So what do you want?
HMG: SM access for the whole UK!
EU: OK
[months later]
HMG: This is undemoratic! Remove the backstop!!!

The truth is, the day HMG pushed for the Malthouse alternative reality is the day HMG lost all credibility as a negotiator. In EU's eyes, there is no point negotiating any longer if HMG is going to turn on its own suggestions. There's a reason why the _current_ extension text states the WA is closed for negotiation.

HMG originally proposed the backstop....

rick_chasey

In today's paper

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

In today's paper

Ferchrissake, don't you know that's just Project Fear?

tailwindhome

Robert88 wrote:

Ferchrissake, don't you know that's just Project Fear?

Hi
Project Fear has been rebranded as 'Sensible Planning'
See infomercial below

https://twitter.com/hmtreasury/status/1 ... 8915294208

drhaggis

Rick Chasey wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Westminster sounds like a petulant child.
"Why won't you give me what I want?"
"What do you want?"
"I don't know, but give it to me. Now!"

Actually, it's more like:
EU: What if, after transition period, we give NI access to the SM while we sort out the border?
HMG: No! Never! I don't want that!
EU: So what do you want?
HMG: SM access for the whole UK!
EU: OK
[months later]
HMG: This is undemoratic! Remove the backstop!!!

The truth is, the day HMG pushed for the Malthouse alternative reality is the day HMG lost all credibility as a negotiator. In EU's eyes, there is no point negotiating any longer if HMG is going to turn on its own suggestions. There's a reason why the _current_ extension text states the WA is closed for negotiation.

HMG originally proposed the backstop....

The UK-wide backstop, yes. But the original, NI only, version? Could you share a link?

kingstongraham

DrHaggis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Westminster sounds like a petulant child.
"Why won't you give me what I want?"
"What do you want?"
"I don't know, but give it to me. Now!"

Actually, it's more like:
EU: What if, after transition period, we give NI access to the SM while we sort out the border?
HMG: No! Never! I don't want that!
EU: So what do you want?
HMG: SM access for the whole UK!
EU: OK
[months later]
HMG: This is undemoratic! Remove the backstop!!!

The truth is, the day HMG pushed for the Malthouse alternative reality is the day HMG lost all credibility as a negotiator. In EU's eyes, there is no point negotiating any longer if HMG is going to turn on its own suggestions. There's a reason why the _current_ extension text states the WA is closed for negotiation.

HMG originally proposed the backstop....

The UK-wide backstop, yes. But the original, NI only, version? Could you share a link?

It's up to the UK whether the backstop extends across the whole of the UK or just NI.

drhaggis

Yes, of course. Unlike others, the EU won't say no to something they proposed in the first place.

rick_chasey

DrHaggis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Westminster sounds like a petulant child.
"Why won't you give me what I want?"
"What do you want?"
"I don't know, but give it to me. Now!"

Actually, it's more like:
EU: What if, after transition period, we give NI access to the SM while we sort out the border?
HMG: No! Never! I don't want that!
EU: So what do you want?
HMG: SM access for the whole UK!
EU: OK
[months later]
HMG: This is undemoratic! Remove the backstop!!!

The truth is, the day HMG pushed for the Malthouse alternative reality is the day HMG lost all credibility as a negotiator. In EU's eyes, there is no point negotiating any longer if HMG is going to turn on its own suggestions. There's a reason why the _current_ extension text states the WA is closed for negotiation.

HMG originally proposed the backstop....

The UK-wide backstop, yes. But the original, NI only, version? Could you share a link?

Was widely reported the case in Europe eg here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/eco ... -1.3761566

I think this was the original UK proposal, though I have only skimmed it so I might be wrong: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... gement.pdf

rick_chasey

So the sequence is as follows:

UK sets out red lines.

EU suggests the various options the UK has for its various red lines which leads to one conclusion - this is fine but it is a challenge for Irish border - a challenge that threatens the GFA and both sides have agreed to avoid threatening that.

UK proposed backstop as a temporary solution to this challenge. EU agrees after some negotiation

UK then decides it hates the backstop and threatens no deal unless the EU "gives" on the backstop, but has not yet come up with an alternative solution that actually works when you follow it through logically.