BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

The EU's refusal to budge on what precisely? Perhaps you could summarise in 3 or 4 bullet points what it is the dUK GINO has requested, consistently and without fudge hesitation repetition or deviation of course, that the EU have refused to budge on?

Does it involve fairies, unicorns and sunny uplands for example?

They don't have to budge. They have already come to an agreement with the UK Government.
So why is there a problem? Oh!....

Which has been rejected 3 times by parliament. What can parliament now do in the absence of anything new to approve?

Change their minds? Some already have.

Enough to rescind A50?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

The EU's refusal to budge on what precisely? Perhaps you could summarise in 3 or 4 bullet points what it is the dUK GINO has requested, consistently and without fudge hesitation repetition or deviation of course, that the EU have refused to budge on?

Does it involve fairies, unicorns and sunny uplands for example?

They don't have to budge. They have already come to an agreement with the UK Government.
So why is there a problem? Oh!....

Which has been rejected 3 times by parliament. What can parliament now do in the absence of anything new to approve?

Come up with a plan beyond just saying rip up a key part of the agreement with nothing to replace it.

How will they negotiate that with another party that refuses any negotiation on any new plan?

That's not what the EU have said. It's only holding firm on the WA. Nothing to say you couldn't add things on top that render the backstop a thing left in the filing cabinet of history.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

The EU's refusal to budge on what precisely? Perhaps you could summarise in 3 or 4 bullet points what it is the dUK GINO has requested, consistently and without fudge hesitation repetition or deviation of course, that the EU have refused to budge on?

Does it involve fairies, unicorns and sunny uplands for example?

They don't have to budge. They have already come to an agreement with the UK Government.
So why is there a problem? Oh!....

Which has been rejected 3 times by parliament. What can parliament now do in the absence of anything new to approve?

Change their minds? Some already have.

Enough to rescind A50?

No, to vote for the WA, which bags us our transition period. I posted something yesterday about a group opposed to no deal but also a 2nd ref. They think they have 50, which cancel the 50 Tories who wouldn't vote for it and maybe get it over the line.

rick_chasey

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexi ... 82081.html

Germany is assuming no deal is happening and has passed 50 laws in anticipation to help mitigate.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexit-bundesregierung-geht-von-ungeordnetem-eu-ausstieg-grossritanniens-aus-a-1282081.html

Germany is assuming no deal is happening and has passed 50 laws in anticipation to help mitigate.

That action clearly implies that Germany expects a material negative impact on its economy from a no deal Brexit.

sungod

no one in their right mind would expect no deal to have a positive impact

cycleclinic

In brexit land the pound drops and exporters can sell more into europe the thinking goes.... We'll ignore the taffifs and paper work as that just gets in the way.

In brexit land thinking if the rest of the world did as we will do reduce tariff on import to nothing then there would be no problem. In brexit land were leading the way, sadly no one is likely to follow.

Canada has a said they see no need for a free trade deal as they get what they want while they can leave there import tarrifs in place. Brexit land thinking, it all buttoned up and a watertight.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexit-bundesregierung-geht-von-ungeordnetem-eu-ausstieg-grossritanniens-aus-a-1282081.html

Germany is assuming no deal is happening and has passed 50 laws in anticipation to help mitigate.

That action clearly implies that Germany expects a material negative impact on its economy from a no deal Brexit.

In related news, bears sh!t in the woods.

shirley_basso

sungod wrote:

no one in their right mind would expect no deal to have a positive impact

Oddly enough, I can see Stevo benefiting from the increase in paperwork

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

The EU's refusal to budge on what precisely? Perhaps you could summarise in 3 or 4 bullet points what it is the dUK GINO has requested, consistently and without fudge hesitation repetition or deviation of course, that the EU have refused to budge on?

Does it involve fairies, unicorns and sunny uplands for example?

Read back a few pages, CBA to repeat myself again :roll:

No, and ICBA to read it!

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

And how would they negotiate that with another party that refuses any negotiation on any new plan?

If they came up with an actual alternative for the back stop, then I think they would have more of a point about the EU refusing to negotiate.

If we came out and said: we appreciate the EU want the backstop because of x, but we don't feel like we can agree to it because of y, but we can give most of the benefits and keep x as much as possible, with our new wording of z. Then I might have some sympathy for the position.

At the moment we aren't doing that at all. We're just saying we don't like the backstop, get rid of it.

kingstongraham

Problem is, the alternative to the backstop is no backstop. With both sides trusting each other that there won't be anything done without careful consideration of the consequences.

We aren't going about it the right way to gain that trust so far.

john80

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And how would they negotiate that with another party that refuses any negotiation on any new plan?

If they came up with an actual alternative for the back stop, then I think they would have more of a point about the EU refusing to negotiate.

If we came out and said: we appreciate the EU want the backstop because of x, but we don't feel like we can agree to it because of y, but we can give most of the benefits and keep x as much as possible, with our new wording of z. Then I might have some sympathy for the position.

At the moment we aren't doing that at all. We're just saying we don't like the backstop, get rid of it.

It is somewhat irrelevant what the UK came up with as the EU would find fault in the proposal and reject it as unworkable. The EU want the UK to remain either as a member and failing that as a rule taker with no say in either the rules or when they can leave the arrangement. Remember the attorney general damning statements regarding when if ever the UK could leave the backstop. Everything else is just a smokescreen to deliver these two outcomes. The fact that people cannot see this after nearly 3 years is frankly mind blowing. The EU's position is a response to a UK parliament that is hell bent on short term minimisation of pain but complete lack of foresight as to the long term pain their position naturally leads. If I was the EU I would be doing exactly as they are and only consider changing at the moment the UK is definitely leaving with no deal which can't happen when we have had parliament actively seeking to stop us leaving for the last 3 years with seemingly no self awareness as to what that action does to a national negotiating position.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Seems to be a significant level of regret on the Labour benches that they didn't vote for the deal.

If they had voted for a motion that supported the WA with a timel limit/ break clause / whatever it would have been fairly compelling. I suspect there may even have been some movement from the EU.

I'm not sure that the backstop was their reason for not voting for it when they had the chance(s)

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And how would they negotiate that with another party that refuses any negotiation on any new plan?

If they came up with an actual alternative for the back stop, then I think they would have more of a point about the EU refusing to negotiate.

If we came out and said: we appreciate the EU want the backstop because of x, but we don't feel like we can agree to it because of y, but we can give most of the benefits and keep x as much as possible, with our new wording of z. Then I might have some sympathy for the position.

At the moment we aren't doing that at all. We're just saying we don't like the backstop, get rid of it.

u

It is somewhat irrelevant what the UK came up with as the EU would find fault in the proposal and reject it as unworkable. The EU want the UK to remain either as a member and failing that as a rule taker with no say in either the rules or when they can leave the arrangement. Remember the attorney general damning statements regarding when if ever the UK could leave the backstop. Everything else is just a smokescreen to deliver these two outcomes. The fact that people cannot see this after nearly 3 years is frankly mind blowing. The EU's position is a response to a UK parliament that is hell bent on short term minimisation of pain but complete lack of foresight as to the long term pain their position naturally leads. If I was the EU I would be doing exactly as they are and only consider changing at the moment the UK is definitely leaving with no deal which can't happen when we have had parliament actively seeking to stop us leaving for the last 3 years with seemingly no self awareness as to what that action does to a national negotiating position.

If we were being kicked out your diatribe would make more sense.

We chose to leave and then decided we wanted to have a trading relationship at least as frictionless as previously, whilst leaving CU, SM and ending FOM and respect the terms of the GFA.

I am not sure it is possible for the EU to respect all of these demands. So are we making them because we want somebody to blame or do we really not have a clue.

Alternatively float some ideas and test the water. Think how big a number you could write on bus if you promised to get rid of NI and Scotland.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Seems to be a significant level of regret on the Labour benches that they didn't vote for the deal.

If they had voted for a motion that supported the WA with a timel limit/ break clause / whatever it would have been fairly compelling. I suspect there may even have been some movement from the EU.

I'm not sure that the backstop was their reason for not voting for it when they had the chance(s)

That's true.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am not sure it is possible for the EU to respect all of these demands. So are we making them because we want somebody to blame or do we really not have a clue.

Yes. To both.

drhaggis

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Think how big a number you could write on bus if you promised to get rid of NI and Scotland.

Pretty sure Stevo worked that one out on his free time a while back, just for fun.

robert88

How are we with steel?

Turkish Steel, any one?

surrey_commuter

DrHaggis wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Think how big a number you could write on bus if you promised to get rid of NI and Scotland.

Pretty sure Stevo worked that one out on his free time a while back, just for fun.

I would be intrigued to see it.

Then all both sets on Nats need to do is swallow their pride and let the English vote in their referenda.

john80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

john80 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And how would they negotiate that with another party that refuses any negotiation on any new plan?

If they came up with an actual alternative for the back stop, then I think they would have more of a point about the EU refusing to negotiate.

If we came out and said: we appreciate the EU want the backstop because of x, but we don't feel like we can agree to it because of y, but we can give most of the benefits and keep x as much as possible, with our new wording of z. Then I might have some sympathy for the position.

At the moment we aren't doing that at all. We're just saying we don't like the backstop, get rid of it.

u

It is somewhat irrelevant what the UK came up with as the EU would find fault in the proposal and reject it as unworkable. The EU want the UK to remain either as a member and failing that as a rule taker with no say in either the rules or when they can leave the arrangement. Remember the attorney general damning statements regarding when if ever the UK could leave the backstop. Everything else is just a smokescreen to deliver these two outcomes. The fact that people cannot see this after nearly 3 years is frankly mind blowing. The EU's position is a response to a UK parliament that is hell bent on short term minimisation of pain but complete lack of foresight as to the long term pain their position naturally leads. If I was the EU I would be doing exactly as they are and only consider changing at the moment the UK is definitely leaving with no deal which can't happen when we have had parliament actively seeking to stop us leaving for the last 3 years with seemingly no self awareness as to what that action does to a national negotiating position.

If we were being kicked out your diatribe would make more sense.

We chose to leave and then decided we wanted to have a trading relationship at least as frictionless as previously, whilst leaving CU, SM and ending FOM and respect the terms of the GFA.

I am not sure it is possible for the EU to respect all of these demands. So are we making them because we want somebody to blame or do we really not have a clue.

Alternatively float some ideas and test the water. Think how big a number you could write on bus if you promised to get rid of NI and Scotland.

I see that we are over claiming on diatribe there so would suggest looking up the meaning of the word. You probably have the same grasp as to how having a border with reasonable border checks on businesses carried out away from the border would somehow breach the GFA. I guess in your head the GFA gets into the detail on product standards and rates of tariffs if any to be applied.

bobmcstuff

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And how would they negotiate that with another party that refuses any negotiation on any new plan?

If they came up with an actual alternative for the back stop, then I think they would have more of a point about the EU refusing to negotiate.

If we came out and said: we appreciate the EU want the backstop because of x, but we don't feel like we can agree to it because of y, but we can give most of the benefits and keep x as much as possible, with our new wording of z. Then I might have some sympathy for the position.

At the moment we aren't doing that at all. We're just saying we don't like the backstop, get rid of it.

Worse than that, the UK has said we won't even come to the table unless the backstop is unconditionally dropped.

I don't see how they can agree to that, there's no way they can agree to unconditionally drop the backstop without there being any credible or accepted alternatives on the table.

If the UK had said look we want to talk about alternatives to the backstop then that could be different. This is for me the big hole in the "it's the EU's fault for not negotiating" argument, the red lines make it impossible for them to really do anything.

The way I see it Boris has set this red line deliberately because he knows this is the case and it sets up a collision between government and parliament. Then we either leave with no deal or parliament stops him, at which point Boris can go "look it's not my fault we didn't leave on October 31st, it's these nasty other MPs". I assume he is after the second option but it's a pretty high risk strategy.

And if we leave with no deal he will try and blame the EU for not negotiating (because he set the preconditions deliberately to make a negotiation impossible)

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

john80 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And how would they negotiate that with another party that refuses any negotiation on any new plan?

If they came up with an actual alternative for the back stop, then I think they would have more of a point about the EU refusing to negotiate.

If we came out and said: we appreciate the EU want the backstop because of x, but we don't feel like we can agree to it because of y, but we can give most of the benefits and keep x as much as possible, with our new wording of z. Then I might have some sympathy for the position.

At the moment we aren't doing that at all. We're just saying we don't like the backstop, get rid of it.

u

It is somewhat irrelevant what the UK came up with as the EU would find fault in the proposal and reject it as unworkable. The EU want the UK to remain either as a member and failing that as a rule taker with no say in either the rules or when they can leave the arrangement. Remember the attorney general damning statements regarding when if ever the UK could leave the backstop. Everything else is just a smokescreen to deliver these two outcomes. The fact that people cannot see this after nearly 3 years is frankly mind blowing. The EU's position is a response to a UK parliament that is hell bent on short term minimisation of pain but complete lack of foresight as to the long term pain their position naturally leads. If I was the EU I would be doing exactly as they are and only consider changing at the moment the UK is definitely leaving with no deal which can't happen when we have had parliament actively seeking to stop us leaving for the last 3 years with seemingly no self awareness as to what that action does to a national negotiating position.

If we were being kicked out your diatribe would make more sense.

We chose to leave and then decided we wanted to have a trading relationship at least as frictionless as previously, whilst leaving CU, SM and ending FOM and respect the terms of the GFA.

I am not sure it is possible for the EU to respect all of these demands. So are we making them because we want somebody to blame or do we really not have a clue.

Alternatively float some ideas and test the water. Think how big a number you could write on bus if you promised to get rid of NI and Scotland.

I see that we are over claiming on diatribe there so would suggest looking up the meaning of the word. You probably have the same grasp as to how having a border with reasonable border checks on businesses carried out away from the border would somehow breach the GFA. I guess in your head the GFA gets into the detail on product standards and rates of tariffs if any to be applied.

You should write them a letter and let them know that you have found a solution

I am more than happy with my use of the word diatribe

rjsterry

Given Rick's post on German preparations for a no deal exit, I think it's more likely that the EU have given us up as a lost cause.
The troubled relative who keeps threatening to self-harm if he doesn't get what he wants.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Given Rick's post on German preparations for a no deal exit, I think it's more likely that the EU have given us up as a lost cause.
The troubled relative who keeps threatening to self-harm if he doesn't get what he wants.

Funny you should put it like that. It did occur to me earlier that the UK leadership has been acting bit like someone with early-stage dementia.

TheBigBean

TheBigBean wrote:

The global economy seems to be looking a bit wobbly. Gilt rates / interest rate swaps are completely absurd at the moment.

Even more bonkers now.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Given Rick's post on German preparations for a no deal exit, I think it's more likely that the EU have given us up as a lost cause.
The troubled relative who keeps threatening to self-harm if he doesn't get what he wants.

At some point the EU will surely just say "Are you still here, why don't you just **** off?"
We are increasingly becoming the guest who is overstaying their welcome.

darkhairedlord

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Given Rick's post on German preparations for a no deal exit, I think it's more likely that the EU have given us up as a lost cause.
The troubled relative who keeps threatening to self-harm if he doesn't get what he wants.

At some point the EU will surely just say "Are you still here, why don't you just **** off?"
We are increasingly becoming the guest who is overstaying their welcome.

Once they have wound down their liabilities.

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

sungod wrote:

no one in their right mind would expect no deal to have a positive impact

Oddly enough, I can see Stevo benefiting from the increase in paperwork

Actually I don't benefit from increased volumes of paperwork as I'm not an advisor. Although my adopted role as Brexit planning coordinator for the Group has not done me any harm

Stevo_666

darkhairedlord wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Given Rick's post on German preparations for a no deal exit, I think it's more likely that the EU have given us up as a lost cause.
The troubled relative who keeps threatening to self-harm if he doesn't get what he wants.

At some point the EU will surely just say "Are you still here, why don't you just **** off?"
We are increasingly becoming the guest who is overstaying their welcome.

Once they have wound down their liabilities.

How much do they owe us?