BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

This gov't isn't fascist, to be clear.

That does not mean they are not using tactics that would be very familiar to fascists.

Both like to erode scrutiny, the rule of law (as it gets in the way of their populist tendancies), and enraging the liberal left and far left to justify their own, illiberal, anti-foreigner, ends. This usually comes at the expense of prosperity, off the back of outsized nationalism, and a genuine belief their nation is somehow superior.

john80

Here is a prediction for you. The EU and Leo (not sure why he is still preaching) are going to hold the UK to a position that no sovereign state would accept then get all uppity when the UK does what is in its own best interests. The EU is blowing this with ridiculous demands such as fishing etc before they will talk about anything important. It is Ireland that is going to get screwed by this the most but they just have not figured this out yet. The UK can afford to subsidise all the effected businesses of NI for quite some time whereas I am not so sure that Ireland can afford it the other way. I expect we will find out in a year or two.

spatt77

rick_chasey said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836

In case it's not clear to the thickos.

Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'

More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!

rick_chasey

What is unreasonable about this position? Genuinely?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

What is unreasonable about this position? Genuinely?

You'll need to ask Barnier. That slide is now out of date as the UK is geographically closer to the EU than it used to be.

rjsterry

john80 said:

Here is a prediction for you. The EU and Leo (not sure why he is still preaching) are going to hold the UK to a position that no sovereign state would accept then get all uppity when the UK does what is in its own best interests. The EU is blowing this with ridiculous demands such as fishing etc before they will talk about anything important. It is Ireland that is going to get screwed by this the most but they just have not figured this out yet. The UK can afford to subsidise all the effected businesses of NI for quite some time whereas I am not so sure that Ireland can afford it the other way. I expect we will find out in a year or two.

I can think of at least 27 sovereign states that accept exactly this. Your also confusing Treaty commitments in the WA which have been ratified by this Parliament, with the aspirations in the PD.

rjsterry

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836

In case it's not clear to the thickos.

Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'

More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!

He didn't mention Brexiteers. Are you self-identifying as a thicko?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

What is unreasonable about this position? Genuinely?

You'll need to ask Barnier. That slide is now out of date as the UK is geographically closer to the EU than it used to be.

I don't understand the second half of that sentence.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

What is unreasonable about this position? Genuinely?

You'll need to ask Barnier. That slide is now out of date as the UK is geographically closer to the EU than it used to be.

I don't understand the second half of that sentence.

It's what was explicitly on offer from the EU by way of type of trade deals a while back, but isn't on offer now as apparently we are 'too close', geographically speaking. So logically for that to be the case, we must have been further away when it was on offer. The more likely explanation is that the EU is talking bollox.

Geddit?

Stevo_666

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836

In case it's not clear to the thickos.

Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'

More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!

My suggestion (a good while back) that this sort of condescending attitude in the run up to the referendum might have helped tip the balance to 'leave' didn't go down very well at the time.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

What is unreasonable about this position? Genuinely?

You'll need to ask Barnier. That slide is now out of date as the UK is geographically closer to the EU than it used to be.

I don't understand the second half of that sentence.

It's what was explicitly on offer from the EU by way of type of trade deals a while back, but isn't on offer now as apparently we are 'too close', geographically speaking. So logically for that to be the case, we must have been further away when it was on offer. The more likely explanation is that the EU is talking bollox.

Geddit?

Right.

Stevo, I see you're keen to pin this on the EU, but surely you can see that the UK government has lost all credibility on coming to an agreement in good faith when it says itself it plans to break the agreement it has literally just signed, thus breaking international law?

Does that not give you some indication that the UK government has been acting in bad faith, both to the electorate ("the WA doesn't man a border in the Irish see") and to the EU ("We are agreeing to the WA")?

The issues the gov't is now highlighting were discussed on this very thread - it was clear and obvious what those problems are.

Before you can accuse the other side of doing anything surely you need to get your own house in order?

Don't bother answering - not that you would anyway. It feels good to type it out.

It is safe to say the UK has lost any credibility on the issue of HK too, and indeed, any other foreign condemnation of breaking existing international laws and treaties.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

So was there an explanation behind the idea or was it just a hunch. I've read a number of accounts from people closely involved in the previous negotiations and they all seem to think we've blown it. No deal; no 'tunnel'; nothing.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

So was there an explanation behind the idea or was it just a hunch. I've read a number of accounts from people closely involved in the previous negotiations and they all seem to think we've blown it. No deal; no 'tunnel'; nothing.

Are you asking why the antagonistic approach? I don't know and it wouldn't be mine.

At the moment, the EU is currently waiting patiently for the UK to accept its offer. The offer is unacceptable to the UK, but every time the UK says that, the EU thinks that the UK will change its mind.

My guess is that the hostile approach is designed to enforce the seriousness of the UK's current position and to emphasise that the EU has commitments too. To make some sweeping generalisations it is not a very British way of doing things, but it may be more successful than you think in continental Europe. Or it may not.

One point to note is that Japan and Korea are currently engaged in a trade war, but none of this stops the UK signing trade deals with them. So whilst everyone thinks it looks terrible to the outside world, it actually probably just looks like divorce bickering.

rjsterry

We could be antagonistic without breaking the law. All this just so that - if reports are to be believed - a SPAD who is all dewey-eyed about tech (only about 30 years too late to that train) and fantasises about recreating ARPA is worried he won't be able to fund his pet projects with public money? It's just so f***ing low rent.

Pross

I haven't followed this thread for months but is the current situation basically the Government accepted what was on offer in January so that they could say 'we got Brexit done, told you so' and have a bit of a patriotic party in Parliament Square but basically never intended delivering some of the concessions they'd agreed to?

spatt77

Stevo_666 said:

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836

In case it's not clear to the thickos.

Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'

More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!

My suggestion (a good while back) that this sort of condescending attitude in the run up to the referendum might have helped tip the balance to 'leave' didn't go down very well at the time.

Yes indeed, thats because me and you have our finger on the pulse, whilst Rick spoils his soya latte with his salty remainer tears!;)

rick_chasey

Pross said:

I haven't followed this thread for months but is the current situation basically the Government accepted what was on offer in January so that they could say 'we got Brexit done, told you so' and have a bit of a patriotic party in Parliament Square but basically never intended delivering some of the concessions they'd agreed to?

Yes, with the obvious problems of what breaking international law entails - hence various senior legal advisors resigning.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

It is safe to say the UK has lost any credibility on the issue of HK too, and indeed, any other foreign condemnation of breaking existing international laws and treaties.

The UK has effectively also broken the HK treaty with China too. Although in that case "you started it" has more merit.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

I haven't followed this thread for months but is the current situation basically the Government accepted what was on offer in January so that they could say 'we got Brexit done, told you so' and have a bit of a patriotic party in Parliament Square but basically never intended delivering some of the concessions they'd agreed to?

Yes, and announced it in the middle of more negotiations with the same people.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.

This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.

This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.

the WA also requires us to respect geographical food trademarks which will be a hindrance to other trade deals. Though as we seem to be more than capable of building our own hindrances out of insignificant molehills this should not be a major concern other than the fact that we gave JF back control.

rick_chasey

What’s most depressing about the whole thing is how so many people are blindly going along with it.

The govt is reneging on a deal they proclaimed as fantastic less than a year ago and they just nod and go “ah well, foreigners’ fault”.

There are so many things wrong with the behaviour and you still get people like Stevo or whoever thinking that this behaviour is fine.

I honestly thought it required more well formed and articulated propoganda and deceitful behaviour.

SC is right - what did we expect, but I am disappointed at how easy it seems to be to hoodwink people.

No doubt people will disagree because it’s us and them but the govt breaking international law is nothing to do with that. That’s just bad behaviour, end of.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.

What does the agreement say?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.

This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.

I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

What’s most depressing about the whole thing is how so many people are blindly going along with it.

The govt is reneging on a deal they proclaimed as fantastic less than a year ago and they just nod and go “ah well, foreigners’ fault”.

There are so many things wrong with the behaviour and you still get people like Stevo or whoever thinking that this behaviour is fine.

I honestly thought it required more well formed and articulated propoganda and deceitful behaviour.

SC is right - what did we expect, but I am disappointed at how easy it seems to be to hoodwink people.

No doubt people will disagree because it’s us and them but the govt breaking international law is nothing to do with that. That’s just bad behaviour, end of.

Sounds like you're not a very good negotiator.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.

This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.

I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.

When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.

They will not trade sovereignty for £££££

I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.

It's a terrible situation to get into.

But I'm not shocked.

When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?

That's how they get you, seriously.

It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.

Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.

Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.

How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?

Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.

If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.

This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.

I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.

When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.

They will not trade sovereignty for £££££

I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.

More remoaner hyperbole and fake news.

Baked Beans (Heinz) are canned in Wigan, in the largest baked bean factory in the world.

The beans are shipped from North America.

I'm guessing you are stupid enough to think the EU will blockage our ports hence stopping the beans arrival.

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.

What does the agreement say?

We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.

There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.