BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why don’t they reopen parliament?

If time to debate is a key factor in this recall parliament.

The government has to request a recall:-
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/recallparliament/

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why don’t they reopen parliament?

If time to debate is a key factor in this recall parliament.

The government has to request a recall:-
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/recallparliament/

Yeah. So why don’t they?

sungod

because the extremists are in charge, all that matters is the party and their lust for power at any cost (to others)

pblakeney

The narrative now is that those in charge not only want a no deal Brexit, they want to pin the blame on the EU.

robert88

sungod wrote:

because the extremists are in charge, all that matters is the party and their lust for power at any cost (to others)

Yes it really is that simple, and ultimately they don't care about the party, they just use it. They would throw it under the bus if need be.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why don’t they reopen parliament?

If time to debate is a key factor in this recall parliament.

The government has to request a recall:-
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/recallparliament/

Yeah. So why don’t they?

Obvious. Do think the government would suggest a recall if the likely first point on the agenda is a vote of no confidence?

Stevo_666

And good to see that we're getting the usual high standard of debate looking even-handedly at the issue

rick_chasey

What's the counter argument to opening parliament early then?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the counter argument to opening parliament early then?

It sounds like you already have an answer prepared.

I'm just looking at at it from the current governments likely point of view.

rick_chasey

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

Jez mon

The primary objective for any government is presumably to stay in power. Right now, the safest way of achieving that is to continue with the recess.

Taking a longer view, a no deal Brexit completely disarms the Brexit party, and possibly results in a parliamentary majority.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

The primary objective for any government is presumably to stay in power. Right now, the safest way of achieving that is to continue with the recess.

Taking a longer view, a no deal Brexit completely disarms the Brexit party, and possibly results in a parliamentary majority.

Taking a longer view, any party holding the can when no deal happens will be obliterated.

kingstongraham

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fint ... -1.3972121

Sinn Fein can stop a no-deal Brexit.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The primary objective for any government is presumably to stay in power. Right now, the safest way of achieving that is to continue with the recess.

Taking a longer view, a no deal Brexit completely disarms the Brexit party, and possibly results in a parliamentary majority.

Taking a longer view, any party holding the can when no deal happens will be obliterated.

I refer you to my earlier post.
It will all be the EU’s fault. Brexiteers don’t appear to have cottoned on to one of the biggest benefits of being in the EU for them was the ability to blame the EU. I wonder who will catch the flack once the ties are cut.
Ireland probably.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-can-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121

Sinn Fein can stop a no-deal Brexit.

I suspect given the methods they used previously to push for irish unification, I imagine they would see no-deal as a further step to Northern Ireland falling into their lap.....

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

You mean the governments objective?

Not sure that another 4-5 weeks in parliament will change much given past form. Also tricky given the other side will not renegotiate anything even if we could come to some magical cross party compromise.

robert88

PBlakeney wrote:

The narrative now is that those in charge not only want a no deal Brexit, they want to pin the blame on the EU.

That's nothing new tho' is it?

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

You mean the governments objective?

Not sure that another 4-5 weeks in parliament will change much given past form. Also tricky given the other side will not renegotiate anything even if we could come to some magical cross party compromise.

We have to face the fact and consequences of our inability to agree a deal with our neighbours. Remember that Cameron did agree a deal before the referendum. It was not a bad deal but it wasn't good enough for the disruptors.

Then we have to ask how likely it it that we agree a deal with any other bloc that does not cause further disharmony in an environment where living standards are in jeopardy for so many.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

You mean the governments objective?

Not sure that another 4-5 weeks in parliament will change much given past form. Also tricky given the other side will not renegotiate anything even if we could come to some magical cross party compromise.

Look, the EU agreed with the UK gov't a deal that they both gave some wiggle room on. The amount that was given probably reflects the balance of power.

The UK then rejected that, and then rejected all other alternatives. So the UK needs to tell the EU what they want, before the EU can know what to budge on.

What is the UK government actually proposing? Surely the last 3 years demonstrates it needs to get a mandate from parliament *first* before it goes back to the EU? Otherwise, why bother negotiating something the Brit Parliament will bin anyway?

The EU, FWIW, did do this. They agreed on a mandate with the EU27 and then went out and negotiated. So the EU negotiators can rely on the fact they know what they agree with the UK will be agreed in Brussels.

Why is the UK so incapable of doing this. It's like they want to conduct the entire negotiations with one hand behind it's back.

Triggering article 50 before deciding what they want, wasting a bunch of time they didn't have on a general election, then agreeing to a withdrawal agreement they couldn't get past parliament, and then when they were given an extension, after rejecting all other options, they then waste it with a leadership election and then a summer recess.

At what point is the UK going to help itself and conduct itself properly. Sort out what you want, stop f*cking around insulting the EU negotiators in the press (clue, they can read what you're writing, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... RCLAY.html), and get on with working out an achievable solution that works in the UK.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

You mean the governments objective?

Not sure that another 4-5 weeks in parliament will change much given past form. Also tricky given the other side will not renegotiate anything even if we could come to some magical cross party compromise.

But what are we going to ask the EU to compromise on?

This latest game of chicken sounds a bit more like the UK has thrown the steering wheel out of the window, but this time with the ambition of crashing rather than making the other side move out of the way.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

The UK may have requested the backstop but it has been rejected by parliament as part of the WA - three times.

Nothing new can be proposed if the EU refuses to budge. Pretty obvious really.

Where should we be asking them to move to? I have to say, I think the backstop seems a really bad thing to sign up to. But breaching the terms of the GFA seems bad as well, having a border between Britain and NI seems bad. At some point someone in the UK government has got to decide to accept one of these bad things and own the fact that they have consciously decided to go down a route that means something they don't want has to happen. At the moment it's all positive thinking and hoping it'll all be ok.

That's the next question.

Although do you agree with my logic of what will happen of they don't move?

KG, you asked me the same thing last week.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

You mean the governments objective?

Not sure that another 4-5 weeks in parliament will change much given past form. Also tricky given the other side will not renegotiate anything even if we could come to some magical cross party compromise.

Look, the EU agreed with the UK gov't a deal that they both gave some wiggle room on. The amount that was given probably reflects the balance of power.

The UK then rejected that, and then rejected all other alternatives. So the UK needs to tell the EU what they want, before the EU can know what to budge on.

What is the UK government actually proposing? Surely the last 3 years demonstrates it needs to get a mandate from parliament *first* before it goes back to the EU? Otherwise, why bother negotiating something the Brit Parliament will bin anyway?

The EU, FWIW, did do this. They agreed on a mandate with the EU27 and then went out and negotiated. So the EU negotiators can rely on the fact they know what they agree with the UK will be agreed in Brussels.

Why is the UK so incapable of doing this. It's like they want to conduct the entire negotiations with one hand behind it's back.

Triggering article 50 before deciding what they want, wasting a bunch of time they didn't have on a general election, then agreeing to a withdrawal agreement they couldn't get past parliament, and then when they were given an extension, after rejecting all other options, they then waste it with a leadership election and then a summer recess.

At what point is the UK going to help itself and conduct itself properly. Sort out what you want, stop f*cking around insulting the EU negotiators in the press (clue, they can read what you're writing, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... RCLAY.html), and get on with working out an achievable solution that works in the UK.

Of course if the EU doesn't budge at all then a no deal Brexit is very likely indeed. And even if it does, who knows. Lets face it, no deal now looks highly likely.

Trying to put 100% of the blame on the UK and none on the EU won't help either.

coopster_the_1st

The pips are squeaking today

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

The UK may have requested the backstop but it has been rejected by parliament as part of the WA - three times.

Nothing new can be proposed if the EU refuses to budge. Pretty obvious really.

Where should we be asking them to move to? I have to say, I think the backstop seems a really bad thing to sign up to. But breaching the terms of the GFA seems bad as well, having a border between Britain and NI seems bad. At some point someone in the UK government has got to decide to accept one of these bad things and own the fact that they have consciously decided to go down a route that means something they don't want has to happen. At the moment it's all positive thinking and hoping it'll all be ok.

That's the next question.

Although do you agree with my logic of what will happen of they don't move?

KG, you asked me the same thing last week.

And the logic is the same if there is no negotiation - we leave with no deal, we don't leave at all, or the UK decides to accept the compromise already on offer. The only one of these that doesn't have a backstop, doesn't breach the GFA and doesn't have a border between Britain and NI is staying in the EU.

If the UK government says they want the EU to move on something from the currently agreed compromise, then they need to spell out what that is. Then there is the opportunity for a negotiation. There really is no time for a full renegotiation of the entire deal, I think everyone can see that.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

You mean the governments objective?

Not sure that another 4-5 weeks in parliament will change much given past form. Also tricky given the other side will not renegotiate anything even if we could come to some magical cross party compromise.

Look, the EU agreed with the UK gov't a deal that they both gave some wiggle room on. The amount that was given probably reflects the balance of power.

The UK then rejected that, and then rejected all other alternatives. So the UK needs to tell the EU what they want, before the EU can know what to budge on.

What is the UK government actually proposing? Surely the last 3 years demonstrates it needs to get a mandate from parliament *first* before it goes back to the EU? Otherwise, why bother negotiating something the Brit Parliament will bin anyway?

The EU, FWIW, did do this. They agreed on a mandate with the EU27 and then went out and negotiated. So the EU negotiators can rely on the fact they know what they agree with the UK will be agreed in Brussels.

Why is the UK so incapable of doing this. It's like they want to conduct the entire negotiations with one hand behind it's back.

Triggering article 50 before deciding what they want, wasting a bunch of time they didn't have on a general election, then agreeing to a withdrawal agreement they couldn't get past parliament, and then when they were given an extension, after rejecting all other options, they then waste it with a leadership election and then a summer recess.

At what point is the UK going to help itself and conduct itself properly. Sort out what you want, stop f*cking around insulting the EU negotiators in the press (clue, they can read what you're writing, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... RCLAY.html), and get on with working out an achievable solution that works in the UK.

Of course if the EU doesn't budge at all then a no deal Brexit is very likely indeed. And even if it does, who knows. Lets face it, no deal now looks highly likely.

Trying to put 100% of the blame on the UK and none on the EU won't help either.

It's not about blame. It's about actually sorting it out.

I thought their criticism of the EU was the endless needless discussions, talks, and the slow pace of the institutional bureaucracy - yet it's them who are clear and quick with their negotiations and it is the UK that endlessly prevaricates and does not know what it wants.

What concession are you expecting the EU to make?

By the way, when you're negotiating as the smaller partner, do you too reject every request until the time for negotiations is almost up?

surrey_commuter

how about putting our feet in the Eu's shoes - what would you do if you were them?

Based on what they want from Brexit and the message they send for future negotiations with all parties I would sit on my hands.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

...

By the way, when you're negotiating as the smaller partner, do you too reject every request until the time for negotiations is almost up?

When you say 'smaller partner' do you mean the UK or the EU?

It seems to me that there is some difficulty in accepting which side has that role.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

And the logic is the same if there is no negotiation - we leave with no deal, we don't leave at all, or the UK decides to accept the compromise already on offer. The only one of these that doesn't have a backstop, doesn't breach the GFA and doesn't have a border between Britain and NI is staying in the EU.

If the UK government says they want the EU to move on something from the currently agreed compromise, then they need to spell out what that is. Then there is the opportunity for a negotiation. There really is no time for a full renegotiation of the entire deal, I think everyone can see that.

On your first point, agree. So if the EU refuse to budge on anything, then we know the outcome will very likely be no deal as the chances of revocation are very low.

As for your second point about spelling out the key issue, I thought Boris said that he didn't want the backstop? Which the EU refused to budge on...see my point above.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

And the logic is the same if there is no negotiation - we leave with no deal, we don't leave at all, or the UK decides to accept the compromise already on offer. The only one of these that doesn't have a backstop, doesn't breach the GFA and doesn't have a border between Britain and NI is staying in the EU.

If the UK government says they want the EU to move on something from the currently agreed compromise, then they need to spell out what that is. Then there is the opportunity for a negotiation. There really is no time for a full renegotiation of the entire deal, I think everyone can see that.

On your first point, agree. So if the EU refuse to budge on anything, then we know the outcome will very likely be no deal as the chances of revocation are very low.

As for your second point about spelling out the key issue, I thought Boris said that he didn't want the backstop? Which the EU refused to budge on...see my point above.

But that is fully cakeism and fundamentally incompatible with the entire premise of having a European Union. It is entirely unworkable.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t I honestly don’t know unless no deal is your objective.

Surely it makes sense for the U.K. to thrash out what if actually *does* want.

So far it has only managed to say what it doesn’t want.

You mean the governments objective?

Not sure that another 4-5 weeks in parliament will change much given past form. Also tricky given the other side will not renegotiate anything even if we could come to some magical cross party compromise.

Look, the EU agreed with the UK gov't a deal that they both gave some wiggle room on. The amount that was given probably reflects the balance of power.

The UK then rejected that, and then rejected all other alternatives. So the UK needs to tell the EU what they want, before the EU can know what to budge on.

What is the UK government actually proposing? Surely the last 3 years demonstrates it needs to get a mandate from parliament *first* before it goes back to the EU? Otherwise, why bother negotiating something the Brit Parliament will bin anyway?

The EU, FWIW, did do this. They agreed on a mandate with the EU27 and then went out and negotiated. So the EU negotiators can rely on the fact they know what they agree with the UK will be agreed in Brussels.

Why is the UK so incapable of doing this. It's like they want to conduct the entire negotiations with one hand behind it's back.

Triggering article 50 before deciding what they want, wasting a bunch of time they didn't have on a general election, then agreeing to a withdrawal agreement they couldn't get past parliament, and then when they were given an extension, after rejecting all other options, they then waste it with a leadership election and then a summer recess.

At what point is the UK going to help itself and conduct itself properly. Sort out what you want, stop f*cking around insulting the EU negotiators in the press (clue, they can read what you're writing, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... RCLAY.html), and get on with working out an achievable solution that works in the UK.

Of course if the EU doesn't budge at all then a no deal Brexit is very likely indeed. And even if it does, who knows. Lets face it, no deal now looks highly likely.

Trying to put 100% of the blame on the UK and none on the EU won't help either.

It's not about blame. It's about actually sorting it out.

I thought their criticism of the EU was the endless needless discussions, talks, and the slow pace of the institutional bureaucracy - yet it's them who are clear and quick with their negotiations and it is the UK that endlessly prevaricates and does not know what it wants.

What concession are you expecting the EU to make?

By the way, when you're negotiating as the smaller partner, do you too reject every request until the time for negotiations is almost up?

To be fair, you did spend a lot of your post above trying to blame the UK government.

The question about what the EU might concede on has already been asked twice above. Key point is the backstop but I can't see them doing that. Or for that matter moving on anything. So we know what will very likely happen. Fasten your seat belts...looks like I'll be in for a busy Autumn.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

And the logic is the same if there is no negotiation - we leave with no deal, we don't leave at all, or the UK decides to accept the compromise already on offer. The only one of these that doesn't have a backstop, doesn't breach the GFA and doesn't have a border between Britain and NI is staying in the EU.

If the UK government says they want the EU to move on something from the currently agreed compromise, then they need to spell out what that is. Then there is the opportunity for a negotiation. There really is no time for a full renegotiation of the entire deal, I think everyone can see that.

On your first point, agree. So if the EU refuse to budge on anything, then we know the outcome will very likely be no deal as the chances of revocation are very low.

As for your second point about spelling out the key issue, I thought Boris said that he didn't want the backstop? Which the EU refused to budge on...see my point above.

But that is fully cakeism and fundamentally incompatible with the entire premise of having a European Union. It is entirely unworkable.

That's why they won't budge.

We're in an impasse and there appears to be only one way out. Maybe the EU tried to engineer this situation so we would change our minds and stay? If so, it hasn't really worked.