BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

I think I've covered that with one of my replies above.

rick_chasey

I don’t think proposing something which compromises the integrity of the entire union is really a practical or legitimate demand.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t think proposing something which compromises the integrity of the entire union is really a practical or legitimate demand.

Possibly part of the engineered situation. Unfortunately if that was the plan it didn't work. Which is we are very likely headed for a no deal scenario, as mentioned above.

rick_chasey

But that is a cataclysmic outcome.

Why are people not frantically working to avoid this?

kingstongraham

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.

I honestly don't know what the outcome will be if we get close to leaving without a deal. A government with no majority, no mandate from the public and no mandate from parliament for no deal wouldn't necessarily survive a no confidence vote. What would PM Lucas do in her few days in charge? Nothing is too extraordinary to consider.

And yes, he has said he doesn't want a backstop, but no indication of an alternative to address this issue. I'd say this is somewhere that he actually does have leverage if there is an alternative, because without a deal, there's a hard border and no backstop obviously. Assuming that he doesn't care about NI, and the EU does, which I feel is fair.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

But that is a cataclysmic outcome.

Why are people not frantically working to avoid this?

Like a lot of things in the last 3.5 years, what is happening seems quite counter-intuitive. Or you could argue that quite a lot of time has been spent trying to avoid it and it didn't work.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham 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.

I honestly don't know what the outcome will be if we get close to leaving without a deal. A government with no majority, no mandate from the public and no mandate from parliament for no deal wouldn't necessarily survive a no confidence vote. What would PM Lucas do in her few days in charge? Nothing is too extraordinary to consider.

And yes, he has said he doesn't want a backstop, but no indication of an alternative to address this issue. I'd say this is somewhere that he actually does have leverage if there is an alternative, because without a deal, there's a hard border and no backstop obviously. Assuming that he doesn't care about NI, and the EU does, which I feel is fair.

Regarding mandates majorities etc. Well the argument about the referendum being a mandate has been fairly well debated on here already so let's not open that one up again. As for no confidence votes, as mentioned above - even if one is put forward and passed as soon as Parliament returns from recess, any new Govt would have max 1 week before 31 October.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham 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.

I honestly don't know what the outcome will be if we get close to leaving without a deal. A government with no majority, no mandate from the public and no mandate from parliament for no deal wouldn't necessarily survive a no confidence vote. What would PM Lucas do in her few days in charge? Nothing is too extraordinary to consider.

And yes, he has said he doesn't want a backstop, but no indication of an alternative to address this issue. I'd say this is somewhere that he actually does have leverage if there is an alternative, because without a deal, there's a hard border and no backstop obviously. Assuming that he doesn't care about NI, and the EU does, which I feel is fair.

Regarding mandates majorities etc. Well the argument about the referendum being a mandate has been fairly well debated on here already so let's not open that one up again. As for no confidence votes, as mentioned above - even if one is put forward and passed as soon as Parliament returns from recess, any new Govt would have max 1 week before 31 October.

Isn't that only if it needs an election to be formed?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t think proposing something which compromises the integrity of the entire union is really a practical or legitimate demand.

Which union?

robert88

How about we have a second referendum?

Very quickly so neither side has time to paint their buses?

Don't tell me the electorate aren't better informed by now than they were last time.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

And set a new timetable with another extension?

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

That's the sort of fresh thinking we need. As I mentioned above if the EU won't negotiate, it will end badly.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

I think I've covered that with one of my replies above.

Reading the view from France, you could say that their strategy has worked. Le Pen was agitating for a Frexit two years ago; since then idea has been shown to be somewhat sub-optimal and FN have quietly ditched the idea (along with their name). They know they'll have to help out Ireland and certain industries in Germany but one gets the sense that they've decided they're content to let us get on with it.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

What is the alternative solution to the WA?

coopster_the_1st

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t think proposing something which compromises the integrity of the entire union is really a practical or legitimate demand.

Possibly part of the engineered situation. Unfortunately if that was the plan it didn't work. Which is we are very likely headed for a no deal scenario, as mentioned above.

The EU still thinks the UK should be subordinate, where one of the reasons for voting to leave was to remove these shackles. The EU needs to change its mindset that it is dealing with a partner, not a subordinate.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

That's the sort of fresh thinking we need. As I mentioned above if the EU won't negotiate, it will end badly.

Bit late for that with the 'do or die' 31/10 deadline. Would need a consensus among the EU HoS on what the new position was.

From our perspective we have one minister implying it is just a matter of finding an alternative technical solution to the border and others suggesting the whole WA is up for grabs. It all comes back to us having no consensus - within government, let alone parliament - on what we want. The EU had one, so unsurprisingly, they 'won'.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

And set a new timetable with another extension?

I think they need to come up with a way to do that without any party being seen to have lost. They can then agree a free trade deal during the extension that renders the backstop unnecessary. Ultimately, the phasing of the negotiations has not worked and has simply created an impasse. All of this, can only start when the parties start to talk.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

The EU had one, so unsurprisingly, they 'won'.

You have a strange idea of what winning is.

pblakeney

Sometimes you keep busy reaching out for something
You don't care, there's always something there
Sometimes you can't see that all you need is one thing
If it's right you could sleep at night
But it can take some time
But at least I'm here in line

'Cause I'll tell you one thing
You can't get what you want
Till you know what you want
Said you can't get what you want
Till you know what you want

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

The thing is, the EU is fairly legalistic and quite rigid in what it can offer because of it's nature; you need 27 countries to agree things, so it become a rigid framework in which the 27 can operate. Without it it'd never get anything done.

This is a criticism that Brexiter types often level at the EU, so it should not be a surprise that is the case.

But therefore, it's quite binary and quite easy to identify where the EU can give and where it can't.

So, it begs the question, in what way will a new negotiation return a materially different agreement? I mean specifics.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

That's the sort of fresh thinking we need. As I mentioned above if the EU won't negotiate, it will end badly.

Bit late for that with the 'do or die' 31/10 deadline. Would need a consensus among the EU HoS on what the new position was.

From our perspective we have one minister implying it is just a matter of finding an alternative technical solution to the border and others suggesting the whole WA is up for grabs. It all comes back to us having no consensus - within government, let alone parliament - on what we want. The EU had one, so unsurprisingly, they 'won'.

The EU recognises that no deal is a win for nobody so I don't count that as a win.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham 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.

I honestly don't know what the outcome will be if we get close to leaving without a deal. A government with no majority, no mandate from the public and no mandate from parliament for no deal wouldn't necessarily survive a no confidence vote. What would PM Lucas do in her few days in charge? Nothing is too extraordinary to consider.

And yes, he has said he doesn't want a backstop, but no indication of an alternative to address this issue. I'd say this is somewhere that he actually does have leverage if there is an alternative, because without a deal, there's a hard border and no backstop obviously. Assuming that he doesn't care about NI, and the EU does, which I feel is fair.

Regarding mandates majorities etc. Well the argument about the referendum being a mandate has been fairly well debated on here already so let's not open that one up again. As for no confidence votes, as mentioned above - even if one is put forward and passed as soon as Parliament returns from recess, any new Govt would have max 1 week before 31 October.

Isn't that only if it needs an election to be formed?

Yes, but it will almost certainly need one.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

That's the sort of fresh thinking we need. As I mentioned above if the EU won't negotiate, it will end badly.

The EU has negotiated. It's not their fault that Ireland is divided, it was entirely the doing of English governments.

Having divided Ireland thus, the English government should be responsible for providing a proper border between the parts. If this requires negotiations between the governments of both parts then they need to get on with it and then if the UK wishes to leave the EU it will be much simpler.

Our failure to leave is mainly due the fact that we have failed to resolve the Irish issue ourselves and instead depended on the agreement with the EU to paper over the cracks. If we wish to be independent of the EU we to achieve a genuine solution and negotiate proper borders with the parties directly concerned and not Brussels.

If we are unable to do that (as we probably are) then it is our own fault not that of the other European countries who have themselves resolved their own border issues.

Ironically the situation in Ireland is entirely due to our long-standing fear of the European mainland (and lack of respect for our neighbours) just as Brexit itself is.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

Fire Barnier and bring in a new negotiator, so everyone around the table is new. Start negotiations of the withdrawal agreement again. Refusing to negotiate isn't a great look.

That's the sort of fresh thinking we need. As I mentioned above if the EU won't negotiate, it will end badly.

The EU has negotiated. It's not their fault that Ireland is divided, it was entirely the doing of English governments.

Having divided Ireland thus, the English government should be responsible for providing a proper border between the parts. If this requires negotiations between the governments of both parts then they need to get on with it and then if the UK wishes to leave the EU it will be much simpler.

Our failure to leave is mainly due the fact that we have failed to resolve the Irish issue ourselves and instead depended on the agreement with the EU to paper over the cracks. If we wish to be independent of the EU we to achieve a genuine solution and negotiate proper borders with the parties directly concerned and not Brussels.

If we are unable to do that (as we probably are) then it is our own fault not that of the other European countries who have themselves resolved their own border issues.

Ironically the situation in Ireland is entirely due to our long-standing fear of the European mainland (and lack of respect for our neighbours) just as Brexit itself is.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of your argument, without the benefit of a time machine there's not a lot we can do about that.

In the meantime, the EU won't negotiate anything and the likely consequence is a no deal Brexit.

Jez mon

As far as the sequencing on the negotiations goes, we could talk about whatever we wanted in whatever order, it would still have to go through our parliament, and that part isn't straightforward.

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

As far as the sequencing on the negotiations goes, we could talk about whatever we wanted in whatever order, it would still have to go through our parliament, and that part isn't straightforward.

True, that's part of the complication. Parliament has shown itself to be unwilling or unable to agree on any proposals so far.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The EU had one, so unsurprisingly, they 'won'.

You have a strange idea of what winning is.

@ Stevo and TBB: Note the inverted commas. It's obviously not a great result for them, but they will have maintained the integrity of the SM, and either way it will be a result that was agreed to by all the member heads of state.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham 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.

I honestly don't know what the outcome will be if we get close to leaving without a deal. A government with no majority, no mandate from the public and no mandate from parliament for no deal wouldn't necessarily survive a no confidence vote. What would PM Lucas do in her few days in charge? Nothing is too extraordinary to consider.

And yes, he has said he doesn't want a backstop, but no indication of an alternative to address this issue. I'd say this is somewhere that he actually does have leverage if there is an alternative, because without a deal, there's a hard border and no backstop obviously. Assuming that he doesn't care about NI, and the EU does, which I feel is fair.

Regarding mandates majorities etc. Well the argument about the referendum being a mandate has been fairly well debated on here already so let's not open that one up again. As for no confidence votes, as mentioned above - even if one is put forward and passed as soon as Parliament returns from recess, any new Govt would have max 1 week before 31 October.

Isn't that only if it needs an election to be formed?

Yes, but it will almost certainly need one.

Almost.

tailwindhome

Brexiteers were fond of the car buying analogy

Well, the dealer has given you his best price, you're either buying the car or walking home, he may not make a sale today but he's content his dealership will still be standing tomorrow.