BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

antonyfromoz

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What happens to the border in a hard brexit scenario.

Hard border innit.

If the EU continue to reject all UK suggestions, this is what they will get...

First we need to make some suggestions. We've very specifically stated that we won't be making any formal suggestions until we are ready.

That is still what will happen if they reject all suggestions.

They haven’t.

Backstop was U.K. idea, remember.

We are talking about alternatives to the backstop now - in case you forgot, the deal with the backbackstop was rejected 3 times by parliament.

Yeah so it’s the U.K. rejecting everything. Glad that’s cleared up.

All the suggestions since the WA from the U.K. are nonesense as they require the EU to either fully undermine its entire premise, or don’t solve the problem.

Rock and a hard place really unless one side gives, which looks unlikely at present (unless there is some change on the UK political front) - as there's no real overlap between the EU and UK positions on the Irish issue. Hence my guess of a 50% chance of a no deal.

It seems to me that this is not really a matter of the EU agreeing to suggestions from the UK, if any have actually been made, because the cold, hard reality is that there is no solution to the Irish border situation in the event of any sort of brexit, deal or no deal, that involves the UK moving away from the regulatory structure of the EU. One of the main benefits of being in the EU has been that there are seamless borders due to the regulatory alignment + we don't want that any longer. The only solution is a hard border where goods and people's identities are checked. If there was a solution on the horizon then surely the backstop, either for the whole of the UK or for NI only, would be a very short term problem and therefore tolerable to most. What suggestion from the UK side has the EU rejected that would have solved this situation without creating more issues?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Stevo_666

SecretSam wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What happens to the border in a hard brexit scenario.

Hard border innit.

If the EU continue to reject all UK suggestions, this is what they will get...

I seem to recall it was us who wanted to leave.
They don't have to make it easy, or fair.
And they have their own citizens and interests to protect.
Plus... most of our proposals have been unworkable. Or destroyed the GFA, which the EU underwrote.

My point still stands - if nothing is agreed then we get a hard border by default. As Rick mentions above, the EU has effectively rejected the possibilities in the papers given to them and there is no overlap between the two positions unless one side shifts.

antonyfromoz

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

That'll be the non existent (AFAWK) alternatives to the UK proposal which was rejected by the UK parliament 3 times then? Yes, I can see why the EU is getting the blame.

So what's your idea?

If we are serious about protecting UK economy and Irish border then do a Norway with a view that it will either be permanent or a transition period (10 years) until we see an alternative that is beneficial to us.

This seems eminently sensible and would allow a sensible compromise giving both sides a lot of what they want. I don't understand why it's not even being considered?

Thsi is the solution that Nigel Farage kept on bringing up when trying to get the UK to have a referendum, although he has now done a u-turn (what a surprise!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... NCwcTu9U6U.

Stevo_666

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

That'll be the non existent (AFAWK) alternatives to the UK proposal which was rejected by the UK parliament 3 times then? Yes, I can see why the EU is getting the blame.

So what's your idea?

If we are serious about protecting UK economy and Irish border then do a Norway with a view that it will either be permanent or a transition period (10 years) until we see an alternative that is beneficial to us.

This seems eminently sensible and would allow a sensible compromise giving both sides a lot of what they want. I don't understand why it's not even being considered?

This was also something that I would have been OK with, although it's worth pointing out that the Norway arrangement entails a 'hard' border for goods with the EU (while being a 'soft' border for people).

Stevo_666

antonyfromoz wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What happens to the border in a hard brexit scenario.

Hard border innit.

If the EU continue to reject all UK suggestions, this is what they will get...

First we need to make some suggestions. We've very specifically stated that we won't be making any formal suggestions until we are ready.

That is still what will happen if they reject all suggestions.

They haven’t.

Backstop was U.K. idea, remember.

We are talking about alternatives to the backstop now - in case you forgot, the deal with the backbackstop was rejected 3 times by parliament.

Yeah so it’s the U.K. rejecting everything. Glad that’s cleared up.

All the suggestions since the WA from the U.K. are nonesense as they require the EU to either fully undermine its entire premise, or don’t solve the problem.

Rock and a hard place really unless one side gives, which looks unlikely at present (unless there is some change on the UK political front) - as there's no real overlap between the EU and UK positions on the Irish issue. Hence my guess of a 50% chance of a no deal.

It seems to me that this is not really a matter of the EU agreeing to suggestions from the UK, if any have actually been made, because the cold, hard reality is that there is no solution to the Irish border situation in the event of any sort of brexit, deal or no deal, that involves the UK moving away from the regulatory structure of the EU. One of the main benefits of being in the EU has been that there are seamless borders due to the regulatory alignment + we don't want that any longer. The only solution is a hard border where goods and people's identities are checked. If there was a solution on the horizon then surely the backstop, either for the whole of the UK or for NI only, would be a very short term problem and therefore tolerable to most. What suggestion from the UK side has the EU rejected that would have solved this situation without creating more issues?

As mentioned, I don't think there is a mutually agreeable solution with both sides having their current positions. If this is the case then it doesn't really matter what the UK suggests as it will be rejected.

The EU may be secretly banking on a political change creating a shift in the UK position: clearly the risk is that if this doesn't happen then we get a no deal and a hard border.

antonyfromoz

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

That'll be the non existent (AFAWK) alternatives to the UK proposal which was rejected by the UK parliament 3 times then? Yes, I can see why the EU is getting the blame.

So what's your idea?

If we are serious about protecting UK economy and Irish border then do a Norway with a view that it will either be permanent or a transition period (10 years) until we see an alternative that is beneficial to us.

This seems eminently sensible and would allow a sensible compromise giving both sides a lot of what they want. I don't understand why it's not even being considered?

This was also something that I would have been OK with, although it's worth pointing out that the Norway arrangement entails a 'hard' border for goods with the EU (while being a 'soft' border for people).

Norway does pretty much also have freedom of movement, being in the Schengen area (unlike the UK), and has a high degree of regulatory alignment with the EU while having no say in the formation of the regulations. I understand that they also contribute as much or more money per capita than the UK.

antonyfromoz

Stevo 666 wrote:

antonyfromoz wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What happens to the border in a hard brexit scenario.

Hard border innit.

If the EU continue to reject all UK suggestions, this is what they will get...

First we need to make some suggestions. We've very specifically stated that we won't be making any formal suggestions until we are ready.

That is still what will happen if they reject all suggestions.

They haven’t.

Backstop was U.K. idea, remember.

We are talking about alternatives to the backstop now - in case you forgot, the deal with the backbackstop was rejected 3 times by parliament.

Yeah so it’s the U.K. rejecting everything. Glad that’s cleared up.

All the suggestions since the WA from the U.K. are nonesense as they require the EU to either fully undermine its entire premise, or don’t solve the problem.

Rock and a hard place really unless one side gives, which looks unlikely at present (unless there is some change on the UK political front) - as there's no real overlap between the EU and UK positions on the Irish issue. Hence my guess of a 50% chance of a no deal.

It seems to me that this is not really a matter of the EU agreeing to suggestions from the UK, if any have actually been made, because the cold, hard reality is that there is no solution to the Irish border situation in the event of any sort of brexit, deal or no deal, that involves the UK moving away from the regulatory structure of the EU. One of the main benefits of being in the EU has been that there are seamless borders due to the regulatory alignment + we don't want that any longer. The only solution is a hard border where goods and people's identities are checked. If there was a solution on the horizon then surely the backstop, either for the whole of the UK or for NI only, would be a very short term problem and therefore tolerable to most. What suggestion from the UK side has the EU rejected that would have solved this situation without creating more issues?

As mentioned, I don't think there is a mutually agreeable solution with both sides having their current positions. If this is the case then it doesn't really matter what the UK suggests as it will be rejected.

The EU may be secretly banking on a political change creating a shift in the UK position: clearly the risk is that if this doesn't happen then we get a no deal and a hard border.

But Stevo, is there a solution that would work? I cannot think of another pair of countries that share a land border that could serve as a model we could adapt.

Stevo_666

antonyfromoz wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

That'll be the non existent (AFAWK) alternatives to the UK proposal which was rejected by the UK parliament 3 times then? Yes, I can see why the EU is getting the blame.

So what's your idea?

If we are serious about protecting UK economy and Irish border then do a Norway with a view that it will either be permanent or a transition period (10 years) until we see an alternative that is beneficial to us.

This seems eminently sensible and would allow a sensible compromise giving both sides a lot of what they want. I don't understand why it's not even being considered?

This was also something that I would have been OK with, although it's worth pointing out that the Norway arrangement entails a 'hard' border for goods with the EU (while being a 'soft' border for people).

Norway does pretty much also have freedom of movement, being in the Schengen area (unlike the UK), and has a high degree of regulatory alignment with the EU while having no say in the formation of the regulations. I understand that they also contribute as much or more money per capita than the UK.

That is what I'm saying about movement of people. Unfortunately the hard border for goods means that this would not appear to be a solution for our Irish border issue.

At the risk of reposting it ad nauseam, here's where Norway sits in the EU domain:



The contribution per capita and lack of say in rule making are different issues, but unlikely to make it popular with everyone.

Stevo_666

antonyfromoz wrote:

But Stevo, is there a solution that would work? I cannot think of another pair of countries that share a land border that could serve as a model we could adapt.

I'm not sure. The only other current comparative is Turkey which is soft border for goods and hard border for people (opposite of the Norway model).

If push came to shove in the current situation I would go for the border down the Irish Sea. Not perfect I know but feasible. Norway and A50 revocation have both been mentioned, but for different reasons are not realistic current prospects (rightly or wrongly).

robert88

Thomas Cook attempts to model Brexit.

Should you stay or should you go?

surrey_commuter

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

That'll be the non existent (AFAWK) alternatives to the UK proposal which was rejected by the UK parliament 3 times then? Yes, I can see why the EU is getting the blame.

So what's your idea?

If we are serious about protecting UK economy and Irish border then do a Norway with a view that it will either be permanent or a transition period (10 years) until we see an alternative that is beneficial to us.

This seems eminently sensible and would allow a resonable compromise giving both sides a lot of what they want. I don't understand why it's not even being considered?

I think the awkward squad did a good job of stringing TM along. If she had figured out earlier that they would never compromise she could have sought cross party census.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

That'll be the non existent (AFAWK) alternatives to the UK proposal which was rejected by the UK parliament 3 times then? Yes, I can see why the EU is getting the blame.

So what's your idea?

If we are serious about protecting UK economy and Irish border then do a Norway with a view that it will either be permanent or a transition period (10 years) until we see an alternative that is beneficial to us.

This seems eminently sensible and would allow a resonable compromise giving both sides a lot of what they want. I don't understand why it's not even being considered?

I think the awkward squad did a good job of stringing TM along. If she had figured out earlier that they would never compromise she could have sought cross party census.

I think TM viewed the Brexit vote as primarily a rejection of freedom of movement. From that point on, she was always going to end up with a deal that was more tied towards pleasing the hardcore brexiters, and less about bringing the remainers along for the ride.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Which takes us back to hard brexit/no deal. Which is what I predicted over 3 years ago due to my lack of confidence in Westminster.

Pross

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

If they revoke the A30 how will Londoners get to their Cornish holiday homes?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Which takes us back to hard brexit/no deal. Which is what I predicted over 3 years ago due to my lack of confidence in Westminster.

Not necessarily. There are other possible outcomes, although no deal does have a fairly high probability IMO.

Stevo_666

Pross wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

If they revoke the A30 how will Londoners get to their Cornish holiday homes?

It's a lot more important than the traffic between Leicester and Warrington.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Which takes us back to hard brexit/no deal. Which is what I predicted over 3 years ago due to my lack of confidence in Westminster.

Not necessarily. There are other possible outcomes, although no deal does have a fairly high probability IMO.

That chart I posted previously has been updated.

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23 ... htag_click

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Which takes us back to hard brexit/no deal. Which is what I predicted over 3 years ago due to my lack of confidence in Westminster.

Not necessarily. There are other possible outcomes, although no deal does have a fairly high probability IMO.

Please do list the alternative realistic possible outcomes at your leisure.
I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Which takes us back to hard brexit/no deal. Which is what I predicted over 3 years ago due to my lack of confidence in Westminster.

Not necessarily. There are other possible outcomes, although no deal does have a fairly high probability IMO.

Please do list the alternative realistic possible outcomes at your leisure.
I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

Jez mon

So basically, the most probable outcome is that this is not over any time soon...

If we go back to the election poll predictions, that suggested the (only?) party with a realistic chance to form a working majority would be the Tories.

It'll be interesting to see what they campaign for in an election.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

So basically, the most probable outcome is that this is not over any time soon...

WHO KNEW

darkhairedlord

All this cum-ex stuff, is that why Reece mogg and the erg lot are desperate for no deal? European arrest warrants and all that?

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

So basically, the most probable outcome is that this is not over any time soon...

WHO KNEW

Still, nice to see it laid out in an event tree like that.

Also if I go by "feel" I'd have put no deal as far more probable than the chart, so actually laying down the steps that have to be taken for no deal is an interesting exercise.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

A chart.

An election simply gives us more of the same sh!t for longer, another referendum through a party who couldn't arrange a party in a brewery, or an unlikely LibDem win. More likely a coalition of people who can't agree on which boat, far less the direction. My optimism abounds, as you already know.

cruff

darkhairedlord wrote:

All this cum-ex stuff, is that why Reece mogg and the erg lot are desperate for no deal? European arrest warrants and all that?

It's one of the reasons. Not 'the' reason. Lack of regulatory control in a post-Brexit Britain is another. Along with the massive amount of cash they stand to make in the chaos that ensues.

darkhairedlord

Cruff wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

All this cum-ex stuff, is that why Reece mogg and the erg lot are desperate for no deal? European arrest warrants and all that?

It's one of the reasons. Not 'the' reason. Lack of regulatory control in a post-Brexit Britain is another. Along with the massive amount of cash they stand to make in the chaos that ensues.

Its going to be straw that breaks the camels back. The eu will be less inclined to be reliant upon uk financial services, less inclined to do a deal and less inclined to give yet another extension.

Pross

Why is the Turkey model unacceptable? I lose track of it all. There's be a certain irony if we went on a par with them when the potential of Turkey joining the EU was one of the leave campaign's pet scare tactics.

verylonglegs

All this talk of deals or Norway style agreements...if Johnson can't control the ERG vote then it's a waste of time isn't it? Or are we counting on Lab/Lib dem MP's to vote it through in spite of that group?

cycleclinic

I think everyone's lost track of it all or has stopped caring. Brexit is proof if it was needed that poltical circles exist.