BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…13421343134513471348…2110

Comments

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    coopster_the_1st said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Can't they just pass another bill that makes it not illegal anymore when it gets to the crunch?

    Who is going to raise that bill?

    Parliamentary remoaners have been kicked out. This Boris majority means there is not going to be the under tactics in play that you've had for the last 3.5 years.

    The likes of Tony Bliar and Dominic 'Frenchie' Grieve are obselete and will be ignored by the EU going forward as their views have been rejected by the UK electorate.
    Erm... the government if they decide they need to? I thought that was obvious.

    I just mean that it's all for show to bind their own hands. If they don't need to ask for an extension, they can just not ask for one with or without a law. If they do need to ask for one, then ask for one, with or without a law. Just makes it more of a climbdown if they need to, for no benefit.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,227
    All talk, no walk, is the BloJo way.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Can we get back to the question of why Cummings is setting himself up to fail and weakening his own negotiating position?
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    It's just talk talk.

    I foresee a lot of bullishness to keep everyone on board, the WA passes early next year, a cabinet reshuffle to remove the window dressing morons (Raab, Patel, JRM,Truss, Barclay), a July extension to the deadline (with zero consequence for Boris) and a trade deal agreed by Dec 2021.

    As mentioned, this is the sort of delusional thinking that remoaners are pushing.

    It just proves you have no understanding of those leading the country and the electorate that voted for them
    Which bit do you disagree with?

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    It's just talk talk.

    I foresee a lot of bullishness to keep everyone on board, the WA passes early next year, a cabinet reshuffle to remove the window dressing morons (Raab, Patel, JRM,Truss, Barclay), a July extension to the deadline (with zero consequence for Boris) and a trade deal agreed by Dec 2021.

    As mentioned, this is the sort of delusional thinking that remoaners are pushing.

    It just proves you have no understanding of those leading the country and the electorate that voted for them
    I don't follow your logic, that looks like a fairly clear plan for leaving the EU so I'm not sure how that is a remainer plot?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    surrey_commuter said:

    Can we get back to the question of why Cummings is setting himself up to fail and weakening his own negotiating position?

    Cummings sees leaving as a means to his end of government reform. Not the end in itself.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    surrey_commuter said:

    Can we get back to the question of why Cummings is setting himself up to fail and weakening his own negotiating position?

    Maybe he wants to break British reliance on services? I haven't gone into his weird blogs in any great detail.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    surrey_commuter said:

    Can we get back to the question of why Cummings is setting himself up to fail and weakening his own negotiating position?

    Also it's a false deadline. Johnson has significant form for folding at the last minute and claiming a victory. "I renegotiated the WA!" No, you just agreed to the previous version that May rejected as cutting off NI, then lied about what you had agreed.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Can we get back to the question of why Cummings is setting himself up to fail and weakening his own negotiating position?

    Also it's a false deadline. Johnson has significant form for folding at the last minute and claiming a victory. "I renegotiated the WA!" No, you just agreed to the previous version that May rejected as cutting off NI, then lied about what you had agreed.
    Repeatedly stating this will not make it true. I know the approach is fashionable, and Boris does it all the time, but I would have thought you would want to hold yourself to higher standards especially as you are using it to critique him.
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    edited December 2019
    haydenm said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    It's just talk talk.

    I foresee a lot of bullishness to keep everyone on board, the WA passes early next year, a cabinet reshuffle to remove the window dressing morons (Raab, Patel, JRM,Truss, Barclay), a July extension to the deadline (with zero consequence for Boris) and a trade deal agreed by Dec 2021.

    As mentioned, this is the sort of delusional thinking that remoaners are pushing.

    It just proves you have no understanding of those leading the country and the electorate that voted for them
    I don't follow your logic, that looks like a fairly clear plan for leaving the EU so I'm not sure how that is a remainer plot?

    There is no logic, just the usual low grade trolling. Don't waste your breath.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    Ouch. :) I appreciate it's not exactly identical but it is similar enough to the thing he said he could never accept and has subsequently pretended that he still didn't accept.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    tailwindhome said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    It's just talk talk.

    I foresee a lot of bullishness to keep everyone on board, the WA passes early next year, a cabinet reshuffle to remove the window dressing morons (Raab, Patel, JRM,Truss, Barclay), a July extension to the deadline (with zero consequence for Boris) and a trade deal agreed by Dec 2021.

    As mentioned, this is the sort of delusional thinking that remoaners are pushing.

    It just proves you have no understanding of those leading the country and the electorate that voted for them
    Which bit do you disagree with?

    You.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    It's just talk talk.

    I foresee a lot of bullishness to keep everyone on board, the WA passes early next year, a cabinet reshuffle to remove the window dressing morons (Raab, Patel, JRM,Truss, Barclay), a July extension to the deadline (with zero consequence for Boris) and a trade deal agreed by Dec 2021.

    As mentioned, this is the sort of delusional thinking that remoaners are pushing.

    It just proves you have no understanding of those leading the country and the electorate that voted for them
    Which bit do you disagree with?

    You.


    You won. Get over it.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661

    _
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    kingstongraham said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Can't they just pass another bill that makes it not illegal anymore when it gets to the crunch?

    Who is going to raise that bill?

    Parliamentary remoaners have been kicked out. This Boris majority means there is not going to be the under tactics in play that you've had for the last 3.5 years.

    The likes of Tony Bliar and Dominic 'Frenchie' Grieve are obselete and will be ignored by the EU going forward as their views have been rejected by the UK electorate.
    Erm... the government if they decide they need to? I thought that was obvious.

    I just mean that it's all for show to bind their own hands. If they don't need to ask for an extension, they can just not ask for one with or without a law. If they do need to ask for one, then ask for one, with or without a law. Just makes it more of a climbdown if they need to, for no benefit.
    You are still looking at this from a remoaner/blocking point of view.

    The benefit is the certainty this brings that it is going to happen on a date specified in law.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    edited December 2019
    rjsterry said:

    Ouch. :) I appreciate it's not exactly identical but it is similar enough to the thing he said he could never accept and has subsequently pretended that he still didn't accept.

    It has a consent mechanism which, if you ignore every other change in the agreement, should be considered a material change. The mechanism isn't perfect, but it changes the whole deal in my view and legitimises it.

    Boris compromised. As did the EU. It will happen again.

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    BB, I'm not really following you.

    Do you think that engineering an unnecessary "cliff edge" makes some sense? If so, in what way?
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    coopster_the_1st said:

    kingstongraham said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Can't they just pass another bill that makes it not illegal anymore when it gets to the crunch?

    Who is going to raise that bill?

    Parliamentary remoaners have been kicked out. This Boris majority means there is not going to be the under tactics in play that you've had for the last 3.5 years.

    The likes of Tony Bliar and Dominic 'Frenchie' Grieve are obselete and will be ignored by the EU going forward as their views have been rejected by the UK electorate.
    Erm... the government if they decide they need to? I thought that was obvious.

    I just mean that it's all for show to bind their own hands. If they don't need to ask for an extension, they can just not ask for one with or without a law. If they do need to ask for one, then ask for one, with or without a law. Just makes it more of a climbdown if they need to, for no benefit.
    You are still looking at this from a remoaner/blocking point of view.

    The benefit is the certainty this brings that it is going to happen on a date specified in law.
    Oh well if it is a date specified in law then it can't possibly change. :D
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    TheBlueBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Ouch. :) I appreciate it's not exactly identical but it is similar enough to the thing he said he could never accept and has subsequently pretended that he still didn't accept.

    It has a consent mechanism which, if you ignore every other change in the agreement, should be considered a material change. The mechanism isn't perfect, but it changes the whole deal in my view and legitimises it.

    Boris compromised. As did the EU. It will happen again.

    Agreed the consent mechanism is an improvement. It's an odd move for a supposed unionist, though.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    rick_chasey said:

    BB, I'm not really following you.

    Do you think that engineering an unnecessary "cliff edge" makes some sense? If so, in what way?

    I think I quoted you by mistake above.

    Putting it into law is just for show although it may mean it shifts from being a prerogative power to one of parliament. That was certainly considered a good thing recently.

    Otherwise, negotiations often expand to fill the time available, so agreeing to a three year timetable would guarantee it would take at least three years. Having been elected on a platform of doing Brexit, that might be a big vote loser. Therefore, I can see the logic of a one year timetable even if it is the sort of thing I would label at work "challenging, but achievable" i.e. no chance, but everyone pretends.

    If I were Boris and wanted to play the political game, I would task some lawyers with the job of converting the heads of terms to a fully fledged free trade agreement with a view to sending it over in January for comment.




  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    TheBlueBean said:

    I would task some lawyers with the job of converting the heads of terms to a fully fledged free trade agreement with a view to sending it over in January for comment.

    Yeah, shouldn't take long.

    Unless, of course, you mean "draft a fantasy deal".
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    coopster_the_1st said:

    kingstongraham said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Can't they just pass another bill that makes it not illegal anymore when it gets to the crunch?

    Who is going to raise that bill?

    Parliamentary remoaners have been kicked out. This Boris majority means there is not going to be the under tactics in play that you've had for the last 3.5 years.

    The likes of Tony Bliar and Dominic 'Frenchie' Grieve are obselete and will be ignored by the EU going forward as their views have been rejected by the UK electorate.
    Erm... the government if they decide they need to? I thought that was obvious.

    I just mean that it's all for show to bind their own hands. If they don't need to ask for an extension, they can just not ask for one with or without a law. If they do need to ask for one, then ask for one, with or without a law. Just makes it more of a climbdown if they need to, for no benefit.
    You are still looking at this from a remoaner/blocking point of view.

    The benefit is the certainty this brings that it is going to happen on a date specified in law.
    You're still looking at this from a "haven't already won" point of view.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    bompington said:

    TheBlueBean said:

    I would task some lawyers with the job of converting the heads of terms to a fully fledged free trade agreement with a view to sending it over in January for comment.

    Yeah, shouldn't take long.

    Unless, of course, you mean "draft a fantasy deal".
    Do you think that the current heads of terms are a fantasy, or that it is not possible to convert heads of terms into a fully fledged document? Or are you arguing [tempted by a full stop here] that the current heads of terms contain significant omissions? That is most likely true, but the only way to make progress is to start of process and get them all documented.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Zac Goldsmith to become a Lord and keep his cabinet job. Fair play, he's dragged himself to success from such deprived beginnings to only lose his seat twice. Deserves a helping hand up.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    kingstongraham said:

    Zac Goldsmith to become a Lord and keep his cabinet job. Fair play, he's dragged himself to success from such deprived beginnings to only lose his seat twice. Deserves a helping hand up.

    I always like the way that every successive government promises to stop bumping everyone up to the Lords and knighting their staff, and then they carrying on doing it.
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    TheBlueBean said:

    bompington said:

    TheBlueBean said:

    I would task some lawyers with the job of converting the heads of terms to a fully fledged free trade agreement with a view to sending it over in January for comment.

    Yeah, shouldn't take long.

    Unless, of course, you mean "draft a fantasy deal".
    Do you think that the current heads of terms are a fantasy, or that it is not possible to convert heads of terms into a fully fledged document? Or are you arguing [tempted by a full stop here] that the current heads of terms contain significant omissions? That is most likely true, but the only way to make progress is to start of process and get them all documented.
    Yep, you're right. There's two ways to do this:

    1. Do high level HOTs detailing the principal intentions of the parties then spend ages while the lawyers and technicians argue over the details.
    2. Spend ages doing detailed HOTs then spend ages while the lawyers and technicians argue over the details.

    The first makes more sense as you get the same result with less frustration.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    tailwindhome said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    It's just talk talk.

    I foresee a lot of bullishness to keep everyone on board, the WA passes early next year, a cabinet reshuffle to remove the window dressing morons (Raab, Patel, JRM,Truss, Barclay), a July extension to the deadline (with zero consequence for Boris) and a trade deal agreed by Dec 2021.

    As mentioned, this is the sort of delusional thinking that remoaners are pushing.

    It just proves you have no understanding of those leading the country and the electorate that voted for them
    Which bit do you disagree with?

    You.


    You won. Get over it.
    I won in June 2016. You have still not got over it
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    It's just talk talk.

    I foresee a lot of bullishness to keep everyone on board, the WA passes early next year, a cabinet reshuffle to remove the window dressing morons (Raab, Patel, JRM,Truss, Barclay), a July extension to the deadline (with zero consequence for Boris) and a trade deal agreed by Dec 2021.

    As mentioned, this is the sort of delusional thinking that remoaners are pushing.

    It just proves you have no understanding of those leading the country and the electorate that voted for them
    Which bit do you disagree with?

    You.


    You won. Get over it.
    I won in June 2016. You have still not got over it
    Which part of my post do you disagree with?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBlueBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    BB, I'm not really following you.

    Do you think that engineering an unnecessary "cliff edge" makes some sense? If so, in what way?

    I think I quoted you by mistake above.

    Putting it into law is just for show although it may mean it shifts from being a prerogative power to one of parliament. That was certainly considered a good thing recently.

    Otherwise, negotiations often expand to fill the time available, so agreeing to a three year timetable would guarantee it would take at least three years. Having been elected on a platform of doing Brexit, that might be a big vote loser. Therefore, I can see the logic of a one year timetable even if it is the sort of thing I would label at work "challenging, but achievable" i.e. no chance, but everyone pretends.

    If I were Boris and wanted to play the political game, I would task some lawyers with the job of converting the heads of terms to a fully fledged free trade agreement with a view to sending it over in January for comment.




    The deadline is June 30th, so does 5 months still count as "challenging but achievable"?

Categories