BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't the backstop only there untill an improved alternative solution is provided?

So if they're upset about it not being timed, are they not admitting that they don't expect an alternative solution to be agreed?

No doubt they will be taking the line that we will come up with all sorts of really great techno solutions that involve chipped cans of beans or whatever and the nasty EU beaurocrats will just reject them out of hand on the entirely illogical premise that fairy tale solutions based on non existent technology won't work.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's such an obvious game they're playing.

Do you think that if the EU came back and said "ok, we'll accept a commitment to alternative arrangements that prevent a hard border like you say", Cummings would go for the withdrawal agreement?

Yes. Perhaps subject to a couple of other tweaks. Why wouldn't he?

Because I don't believe he gives a shoot about NI. He either wants a no deal for some reason, or wants to open up negotiations again.

He believes (as much as you can deduce from his blog) in revolution. In knocking things down in order to rebuild them more perfectly. Compromise is not his thing. He sees leaving the EU as an opportunity to rip everything up - mainly in the civil service - so I don't see him being that bothered one way or the other.

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't the backstop only there untill an improved alternative solution is provided?

So if they're upset about it not being timed, are they not admitting that they don't expect an alternative solution to be agreed?

The backstop is there until both sides agree that the proposals put forward by the UK government are workable. The legal wording of this has been examined and basically the EU can reject all and every proposal put forward by the UK to essentially make the backstop last for ever. The UK government can then sue the EU in a rather protracted manner and try to prove that the EU is being unreasonable. This pitches the government into a rather complex and protracted legal battle and who would enter into an agreement where this is the logical end game for both sides. We want regulatory divergence the EU would rather we did not hence the current impasse. Those happy with the backstop would fall into the camp of not wanting to actually leave or embark on any regulatory divergence.

kingstongraham

John80, that misses the point that those politicians who want rid of the backstop are committed to "alternative arrangements" to keep from having border controls. The only difference is the EU have written down what that means in the absence of a solution that doesn't yet exist.

They should either admit they don't care about the border, or sign up, and put the alternative arrangements in place when they exist.

Even typing that made me realise how the debate is subtly shifting.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't the backstop only there untill an improved alternative solution is provided?

So if they're upset about it not being timed, are they not admitting that they don't expect an alternative solution to be agreed?

The backstop is there until both sides agree that the proposals put forward by the UK government are workable. The legal wording of this has been examined and basically the EU can reject all and every proposal put forward by the UK to essentially make the backstop last for ever. The UK government can then sue the EU in a rather protracted manner and try to prove that the EU is being unreasonable. This pitches the government into a rather complex and protracted legal battle and who would enter into an agreement where this is the logical end game for both sides. We want regulatory divergence the EU would rather we did not hence the current impasse. Those happy with the backstop would fall into the camp of not wanting to actually leave or embark on any regulatory divergence.

But it begs the question if they think that, how on earth do they expect to come to any arrangement? Backstop or not?

bompington

john80 wrote:

Those happy with the backstop would fall into the camp of not wanting to actually leave or embark on any regulatory divergence.

I think you'll find that those who are actually happy with the backstop are a pretty small minority.

There are those, like May, who think that a slightly polished turd is preferable to an entirely fresh steaming one.

Most sensible people recognise both of them for what they are.

And those of us with any kind of interest in Ireland, or for that matter anyone who has a preference for keeping the UK together, will recognise that Brexit with the backstop will be a disaster, and without the backstop will be an unmitigated disaster.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

John80, that misses the point that those politicians who want rid of the backstop are committed to "alternative arrangements" to keep from having border controls. The only difference is the EU have written down what that means in the absence of a solution that doesn't yet exist.

They should either admit they don't care about the border, or sign up, and put the alternative arrangements in place when they exist.

Even typing that made me realise how the debate is subtly shifting.

My assumption is that the alternative arrangements option will put more pressure on the EU to negotiate in good faith, but the devil of a legal agreement is always in the detail. And there's nothing worse to document than an agreement about how to agree something. For example, forcing the other side to commit to acting reasonably is a major win in English law, but is a foreign concept in other jurisdictions, so was rejected. Therefore the UK is looking for other ways to force the same concept.

rick_chasey

Thread from the sun's Brussels correspondent on the UK's intention to have regulatory divergence too, and how that impacts the Irish border; from the EU's perspective.

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/sta ... 5878022149

rick_chasey

In the meantime, although the UK is still a paid up member of the EU, it has still chosen to remove itself from decision making, which seems rather odd...

robert88

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's such an obvious game they're playing.

Do you think that if the EU came back and said "ok, we'll accept a commitment to alternative arrangements that prevent a hard border like you say", Cummings would go for the withdrawal agreement?

Yes. Perhaps subject to a couple of other tweaks. Why wouldn't he?

Ah! Other tweaks, eh. So that's a 'no' if you are honest.

TheBigBean

I thought here might be an appropriate place to rant. Cost of settled status for EU citizen £0. Cost for non-EU citizen £3,200 or £2,400 if you are happy to wait six months. Cost to the home office is around £400 as per freedom of information requests.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

I thought here might be an appropriate place to rant. Cost of settled status for EU citizen £0. Cost for non-EU citizen £3,200 or £2,400 if you are happy to wait six months. Cost to the home office is around £400 as per freedom of information requests.

In fairness, you can't really change the rules and then demand people pay for the privilege.

The rant should be about the cost, not the cost in comparison - particularly as you're not comparing like with like. I doubt the cost to the home office for settled status is £400 per head either.

For a start, the EU citizens are doing the home office a favour as currently the home office has no idea how many EU citizens there are in the UK...!

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I thought here might be an appropriate place to rant. Cost of settled status for EU citizen £0. Cost for non-EU citizen £3,200 or £2,400 if you are happy to wait six months. Cost to the home office is around £400 as per freedom of information requests.

In fairness, you can't really change the rules and then demand people pay for the privilege.

The rant should be about the cost, not the cost in comparison - particularly as you're not comparing like with like. I doubt the cost to the home office for settled status is £400 per head either.

For a start, the EU citizens are doing the home office a favour as currently the home office has no idea how many EU citizens there are in the UK...!

At least 60m of us.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I thought here might be an appropriate place to rant. Cost of settled status for EU citizen £0. Cost for non-EU citizen £3,200 or £2,400 if you are happy to wait six months. Cost to the home office is around £400 as per freedom of information requests.

In fairness, you can't really change the rules and then demand people pay for the privilege.

The rant should be about the cost, not the cost in comparison - particularly as you're not comparing like with like. I doubt the cost to the home office for settled status is £400 per head either.

For a start, the EU citizens are doing the home office a favour as currently the home office has no idea how many EU citizens there are in the UK...!

At least 60m of us.

For the next 10 weeks at least.

briantrumpet

Not surprised to see Johnson blaming others for the clusterf.

Johnson says MPs who claim they can prevent no deal are to blame for hardline EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... top-brexit

john80

briantrumpet wrote:

Not surprised to see Johnson blaming others for the clusterf.

Johnson says MPs who claim they can prevent no deal are to blame for hardline EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... top-brexit

In all fairness he is just pointing out the obvious. I am starting to question whether any of the remain MPs of which they are the majority have any self awareness and how their repeated actions may hamper the course of action they overwhelming voted for by triggering article 50.

john80

KingstonGraham wrote:

John80, that misses the point that those politicians who want rid of the backstop are committed to "alternative arrangements" to keep from having border controls. The only difference is the EU have written down what that means in the absence of a solution that doesn't yet exist.

They should either admit they don't care about the border, or sign up, and put the alternative arrangements in place when they exist.

Even typing that made me realise how the debate is subtly shifting.

You are assuming the eu are reasonable when history suggests that it is a collection of nations where self interest is the overiding decision maker. Good luck getting out of the backstop as you will need it.

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't the backstop only there untill an improved alternative solution is provided?

So if they're upset about it not being timed, are they not admitting that they don't expect an alternative solution to be agreed?

The backstop is there until both sides agree that the proposals put forward by the UK government are workable. The legal wording of this has been examined and basically the EU can reject all and every proposal put forward by the UK to essentially make the backstop last for ever. The UK government can then sue the EU in a rather protracted manner and try to prove that the EU is being unreasonable. This pitches the government into a rather complex and protracted legal battle and who would enter into an agreement where this is the logical end game for both sides. We want regulatory divergence the EU would rather we did not hence the current impasse. Those happy with the backstop would fall into the camp of not wanting to actually leave or embark on any regulatory divergence.

But it begs the question if they think that, how on earth do they expect to come to any arrangement? Backstop or not?

The backstop is a bit like paying the money for a house but not agreeing an exchange date. Surely the other side would be wanting to move so you write the contract with words like reasonable in it. After 6 years or trying to get into the house you paid for you are in court claiming the other side is unreasonable. Was not the smartest contract you ever signed. Ironically the eu have negotiated such a cracking deal that either status quo or the harsh break of no deal are better options.

pblakeney

john80 wrote:

You are assuming the eu are reasonable when history suggests that it is a collection of nations where self interest is the overiding decision maker.

I am surprised by your surprise.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't the backstop only there untill an improved alternative solution is provided?

So if they're upset about it not being timed, are they not admitting that they don't expect an alternative solution to be agreed?

The backstop is there until both sides agree that the proposals put forward by the UK government are workable. The legal wording of this has been examined and basically the EU can reject all and every proposal put forward by the UK to essentially make the backstop last for ever. The UK government can then sue the EU in a rather protracted manner and try to prove that the EU is being unreasonable. This pitches the government into a rather complex and protracted legal battle and who would enter into an agreement where this is the logical end game for both sides. We want regulatory divergence the EU would rather we did not hence the current impasse. Those happy with the backstop would fall into the camp of not wanting to actually leave or embark on any regulatory divergence.

But it begs the question if they think that, how on earth do they expect to come to any arrangement? Backstop or not?

The backstop is a bit like paying the money for a house but not agreeing an exchange date. Surely the other side would be wanting to move so you write the contract with words like reasonable in it. After 6 years or trying to get into the house you paid for you are in court claiming the other side is unreasonable. Was not the smartest contract you ever signed. Ironically the eu have negotiated such a cracking deal that either status quo or the harsh break of no deal are better options.

Bluntly you can’t have regulatory divergence and no border infrastructure.

The bigger the divergence the more that is the case.

You said yourself you don’t expect the EU to agree at a later date to agree to a backstop alternative, so what makes you think they will agree now?

Once no deal Brexit happens Europe doesn’t disappear. U.K. will still have to negotiate what the future relationship will look like but will do so under the cloud of disruption, which, we all know, hurts the UK significantly more.


The integrity of the EU single market is a higher priority to the EU27 than the cost of Brexit to them; perhaps this is something some Brits overlook. They don’t care about the U.K. as much as you think they do.

The more the far right do well the more it makes sense to make an example of Britain too.

rick_chasey

All this backstop criticism and still no alternative solution.

What else you gonna do?

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Not surprised to see Johnson blaming others for the clusterf.

Johnson says MPs who claim they can prevent no deal are to blame for hardline EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... top-brexit

In all fairness he is just pointing out the obvious. I am starting to question whether any of the remain MPs of which they are the majority have any self awareness and how their repeated actions may hamper the course of action they overwhelming voted for by triggering article 50.

No deal hurts the U.K. more than the EU so it is not the negotiating position you are assuming it is.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU priorities are.

Do I need to start talking about proportions again?

tailwindhome

UK: "No deal also hurts the EU and especially Ireland"
EU: "We know, dickheads"

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

All this backstop criticism and still no alternative solution.

What else you gonna do?

I still see the problem as being our contradictory demands. It is up to us to make some tough decisions and then go back and negotiate a deal that reflects those decisions.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

All this backstop criticism and still no alternative solution.

What else you gonna do?

I still see the problem as being our contradictory demands. It is up to us to make some tough decisions and then go back and negotiate a deal that reflects those decisions.

Well yes, that’s what the question “what is the solution” is trying to elicit.

pblakeney

Solution? Cakes and unicorns apparently.
Tick tock...

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

All this backstop criticism and still no alternative solution.

What else you gonna do?

I still see the problem as being our contradictory demands. It is up to us to make some tough decisions and then go back and negotiate a deal that reflects those decisions.

Well yes, that’s what the question “what is the solution” is trying to elicit.

Well first up truthfully answer the NI question- I would love Boris offer to give it to the RoI and promise to spend the £350m a week he was sending there on improving the NHS.

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Not surprised to see Johnson blaming others for the clusterf.

Johnson says MPs who claim they can prevent no deal are to blame for hardline EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... top-brexit

In all fairness he is just pointing out the obvious. I am starting to question whether any of the remain MPs of which they are the majority have any self awareness and how their repeated actions may hamper the course of action they overwhelming voted for by triggering article 50.

No deal hurts the U.K. more than the EU so it is not the negotiating position you are assuming it is.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU priorities are.

Do I need to start talking about proportions again?

If the eu cannot agree an ongoing relationship with a currently compliant nation. Makes you wonder who they can agree a relationship with. Yet again you conveniently ignore the impact having the bulk of our politicians openly attempting to prevent brexit. Can i come with you to savotage your next negotiation.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I thought here might be an appropriate place to rant. Cost of settled status for EU citizen £0. Cost for non-EU citizen £3,200 or £2,400 if you are happy to wait six months. Cost to the home office is around £400 as per freedom of information requests.

In fairness, you can't really change the rules and then demand people pay for the privilege.

The rant should be about the cost, not the cost in comparison - particularly as you're not comparing like with like. I doubt the cost to the home office for settled status is £400 per head either.

For a start, the EU citizens are doing the home office a favour as currently the home office has no idea how many EU citizens there are in the UK...!

At least 60m of us.

For the next 10 weeks at least.

And while you're at it do you mind popping up to Glasgow and telling the folk there that they aren't Scottish?

I'll always be a European. Right now I feel a lot more European than British.

Meanwhile, Corbyn and Johnson seem to be having a competition as to who can do least to resolve this mess.

rolf_f

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Not surprised to see Johnson blaming others for the clusterf.

Johnson says MPs who claim they can prevent no deal are to blame for hardline EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... top-brexit

In all fairness he is just pointing out the obvious. I am starting to question whether any of the remain MPs of which they are the majority have any self awareness and how their repeated actions may hamper the course of action they overwhelming voted for by triggering article 50.

No deal hurts the U.K. more than the EU so it is not the negotiating position you are assuming it is.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU priorities are.

Do I need to start talking about proportions again?

If the eu cannot agree an ongoing relationship with a currently compliant nation. Makes you wonder who they can agree a relationship with. Yet again you conveniently ignore the impact having the bulk of our politicians openly attempting to prevent brexit. Can i come with you to savotage your next negotiation.

They did - don't you remember? The EU and TM spent two years negotiating it.