BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

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.

I don't want to suggest that you're clutching at straws, but do you really think that any new government formed from the existing members of the HoC after a motion of no confidence will be able to get the confidence of parliament?

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't want to suggest that you're clutching at straws, but do you really think that any new government formed from the existing members of the HoC after a motion of no confidence will be able to get the confidence of parliament?

I wouldn't rule anything out. It seems very unlikely but the no-deal lunacy that is government policy isn't supported by anywhere near a majority of MPs. If it does come down to a choice between no deal or no Brexit, then there's some MPs with very hard choices to make, on both sides.

robert88

The PM's objective is to leave the EU on 31 October. End of.

As he is an ardent fan of Maggie Thatcher I guess he can't do a U-turn and it seems parliament can't stop him.

He has no intention of calling an election.

It will be a no-deal Brexit.

rick_chasey

So for those who insist a new and different agreement should and could be made - what are they gonna be?

We all know in some detail what the sticking points are - has anyone actually come up with a solution?

So far it's a lot of "x needs to budge" - but how?

I would propose the UK attempt to enter a softer Brexit, (more closely aligned with what was campaigned on), staying in the single market, maintaining the 4 freedoms etc. They could later chose to leave that if they would like, but it was be materially less disruptive than no deal and likely garners more support from the general public, as it would satisfy a number of remainer types too.

If that is not palatable, what is the alternative?

TheBigBean

As posted upthread, ditch the phasing and work out a free trade agreement which renders the backstop irrelevant. Or agree a level of acceptable smuggling, where checks will take place, how cross border cooperation will continue etc. And do it with input from the political parties in NI.

shortfall

Rick Chasey wrote:

So for those who insist a new and different agreement should and could be made - what are they gonna be?

We all know in some detail what the sticking points are - has anyone actually come up with a solution?

So far it's a lot of "x needs to budge" - but how?

I would propose the UK attempt to enter a softer Brexit, (more closely aligned with what was campaigned on), staying in the single market, maintaining the 4 freedoms etc. They could later chose to leave that if they would like, but it was be materially less disruptive than no deal and likely garners more support from the general public, as it would satisfy a number of remainer types too.

If that is not palatable, what is the alternative?

Agree with this. My understanding is that they can just take a Norway style deal off the shelf and that will give everyone most of what they want with the minimum disruption and the option to leave it at a later point.

Stevo_666

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So for those who insist a new and different agreement should and could be made - what are they gonna be?

We all know in some detail what the sticking points are - has anyone actually come up with a solution?

So far it's a lot of "x needs to budge" - but how?

I would propose the UK attempt to enter a softer Brexit, (more closely aligned with what was campaigned on), staying in the single market, maintaining the 4 freedoms etc. They could later chose to leave that if they would like, but it was be materially less disruptive than no deal and likely garners more support from the general public, as it would satisfy a number of remainer types too.

If that is not palatable, what is the alternative?

Agree with this. My understanding is that they can just take a Norway style deal off the shelf and that will give everyone most of what they want with the minimum disruption and the option to leave it at a later point.

IIRC this was put forward as an option a while back and was pretty popular. The key issue here(as before) is whether current political situation would allow it to happen.

Whether it is quite as simple as off the shelf, not sure but it sounds feasible if the political will is there (and another A50 extension).

Jez mon

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted upthread, ditch the phasing and work out a free trade agreement which renders the backstop irrelevant. Or agree a level of acceptable smuggling, where checks will take place, how cross border cooperation will continue etc. And do it with input from the political parties in NI.

What would you have in place during the negotiation of the FTA?

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So for those who insist a new and different agreement should and could be made - what are they gonna be?

We all know in some detail what the sticking points are - has anyone actually come up with a solution?

So far it's a lot of "x needs to budge" - but how?

I would propose the UK attempt to enter a softer Brexit, (more closely aligned with what was campaigned on), staying in the single market, maintaining the 4 freedoms etc. They could later chose to leave that if they would like, but it was be materially less disruptive than no deal and likely garners more support from the general public, as it would satisfy a number of remainer types too.

If that is not palatable, what is the alternative?

Agree with this. My understanding is that they can just take a Norway style deal off the shelf and that will give everyone most of what they want with the minimum disruption and the option to leave it at a later point.

IIRC this was put forward as an option a while back and was pretty popular. The key issue here(as before) is whether current political situation would allow it to happen.

Whether it is quite as simple as off the shelf, not sure but it sounds feasible if the political will is there (and another A50 extension).

Norway doesn't quite solve the NI issue but probably goes close enough, such that some kind of fudge can be bashed out.

Of course, there is the possibility that Norway wouldn't want us in their club

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So for those who insist a new and different agreement should and could be made - what are they gonna be?

We all know in some detail what the sticking points are - has anyone actually come up with a solution?

So far it's a lot of "x needs to budge" - but how?

I would propose the UK attempt to enter a softer Brexit, (more closely aligned with what was campaigned on), staying in the single market, maintaining the 4 freedoms etc. They could later chose to leave that if they would like, but it was be materially less disruptive than no deal and likely garners more support from the general public, as it would satisfy a number of remainer types too.

If that is not palatable, what is the alternative?

Agree with this. My understanding is that they can just take a Norway style deal off the shelf and that will give everyone most of what they want with the minimum disruption and the option to leave it at a later point.

IIRC this was put forward as an option a while back and was pretty popular. The key issue here(as before) is whether current political situation would allow it to happen.

Whether it is quite as simple as off the shelf, not sure but it sounds feasible if the political will is there (and another A50 extension).

Surely the ERG will be all over that - keeps free movement, no?

TheBigBean

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted upthread, ditch the phasing and work out a free trade agreement which renders the backstop irrelevant. Or agree a level of acceptable smuggling, where checks will take place, how cross border cooperation will continue etc. And do it with input from the political parties in NI.

What would you have in place during the negotiation of the FTA?

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

TheBigBean

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

Again, the question has to be repeated. What do the UK Government want changed?
You cannot go into negotiations without a clear objective.
Tick tock...

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted upthread, ditch the phasing and work out a free trade agreement which renders the backstop irrelevant. Or agree a level of acceptable smuggling, where checks will take place, how cross border cooperation will continue etc. And do it with input from the political parties in NI.

What would you have in place during the negotiation of the FTA?

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

It seems the idea that Johnson has no intention of attempting to get a deal by 31/10 is becoming less of a working assumption and more of a certainty.

“It was clear UK does not have another plan,” a senior EU diplomat said of the meetings with Frost. “No intention to negotiate, which would require a plan. A no deal now appears to be the UK government’s central scenario.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... io-eu-told

The strategy seems to be to sort it all out after we've left. So much for them needing to show flexibility.

TheBigBean

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

Again, the question has to be repeated. What do the UK Government want changed?
You cannot go into negotiations without a clear objective.
Tick tock...

The backstop. The clear objective is to find a solution where the previous lot failed. That can only be done through discussion.

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

Again, the question has to be repeated. What do the UK Government want changed?
You cannot go into negotiations without a clear objective.
Tick tock...

The backstop. The clear objective is to find a solution where the previous lot failed. That can only be done through discussion.

Exactly.
And for the solution to be found this discussion needs to begin now.
Tick tock...

rjsterry

A few days old, but this is quite a good read on the idea of Johnson using his first day back to call an election.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/07/ ... ower-play/

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So for those who insist a new and different agreement should and could be made - what are they gonna be?

We all know in some detail what the sticking points are - has anyone actually come up with a solution?

So far it's a lot of "x needs to budge" - but how?

I would propose the UK attempt to enter a softer Brexit, (more closely aligned with what was campaigned on), staying in the single market, maintaining the 4 freedoms etc. They could later chose to leave that if they would like, but it was be materially less disruptive than no deal and likely garners more support from the general public, as it would satisfy a number of remainer types too.

If that is not palatable, what is the alternative?

Agree with this. My understanding is that they can just take a Norway style deal off the shelf and that will give everyone most of what they want with the minimum disruption and the option to leave it at a later point.

IIRC this was put forward as an option a while back and was pretty popular. The key issue here(as before) is whether current political situation would allow it to happen.

Whether it is quite as simple as off the shelf, not sure but it sounds feasible if the political will is there (and another A50 extension).

Surely the ERG will be all over that - keeps free movement, no?

Very likely. I meant popular on here.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

Again, the question has to be repeated. What do the UK Government want changed?
You cannot go into negotiations without a clear objective.
Tick tock...

The backstop. The clear objective is to find a solution where the previous lot failed. That can only be done through discussion.

Exactly.
And for the solution to be found this discussion needs to begin now.
Tick tock...

Try telling that to the EU.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

Again, the question has to be repeated. What do the UK Government want changed?
You cannot go into negotiations without a clear objective.
Tick tock...

The backstop. The clear objective is to find a solution where the previous lot failed. That can only be done through discussion.

*How*

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

Again, the question has to be repeated. What do the UK Government want changed?
You cannot go into negotiations without a clear objective.
Tick tock...

The backstop. The clear objective is to find a solution where the previous lot failed. That can only be done through discussion.

Exactly.
And for the solution to be found this discussion needs to begin now.
Tick tock...

Try telling that to the EU.

Why what concession do you think they should be making?

darkhairedlord

Maybe BJ has just watched Blazing Saddles. The bit where the sherrif threatens to shoot the sherrif (himself) unless he he gets his way.

bobmcstuff

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

pblakeney

bobmcstuff wrote:

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Very much my conclusion.

bobmcstuff

I suppose the EU would have to come up with their own preconditions - we agree to drop the backstop so long as X Y Z - and hope that was enough for Boris.

But if the assumption is that Boris is angling for no deal, then it wouldn't be, so why bother.

rick_chasey

The impasse is not hugely complex. It's a matter of logic. So again, how is the logical impasse of having regulatory divergence but without any border infrastructure to check what comes in and out (to avoid smuggling or lack of adherence to regulations)?

Big Bean thinks people should volunteer their information like a self-service check out, and that the smugglers would still not be incentivised to smuggle. Judging on what the police have said, they would expect smuggling to increase to the point where it became intolerable and so some physical infrastructure would need to be put in place.

I don't really know where the quid pro quo options are with this. It's just logic.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Some face saving transition / A50 extension fudge. It's obviously not easy, but it all starts with actual discussion between the parties.

Some might say it would be worth cancelling holidays for. It is that important.
Only some though.

At the moment, the EU is not willing to to discuss the WA, so they may as well go on holiday as the choices available haven't changed.

Again, the question has to be repeated. What do the UK Government want changed?
You cannot go into negotiations without a clear objective.
Tick tock...

The backstop. The clear objective is to find a solution where the previous lot failed. That can only be done through discussion.

Exactly.
And for the solution to be found this discussion needs to begin now.
Tick tock...

Try telling that to the EU.

Why what concession do you think they should be making?

Why don't we try asking them as that's what matters - if only we could...

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Why don't we try asking them as that's what matters - if only we could...

This is just rhetoric.

Think about the actual problem and think about how to solve it.

if the UK wants to depart from EU regulations, somewhere there will be a border.

If they want NI to stick with UK regs, the border will be there with Ireland. If not, they can stick it in the Irish sea.