Brexit discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The principles are the same. Simple structures are better than overly complicated structures. A simpler union would have meant that the terms of its membership would have been easier to swallow, or even many different "unions" with the opportunity to opt in and out of particular forms of cooperation.

No they're not. Governments are complex, as are civil services, corporations, councils, companies etc...People make things complicated.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've discussed this already at length. Non-EU immigration is inherently different to EU immigration. We don't need to repeat ourselves.

I was repeating nothing. EU governments have limited welfare for EU migrants and regulated non-EU migration. EU immigrants have contributed to the British economy.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Binding your economic policy to the EU isn't sensible when there are clear economic opportunities to trade with the wider world.

Clear and yet you can't name a single one. Don't bother responding with your usual see above spiel. I know where asking that question leads.

solodeogloria wrote: »

No, I don't deny cooperation with other countries. I deny that being bound to a heavily restrictive bloc is the right way to deal with it.

Again, Brexit is a result of a desire to deal with the world, not to be chained to EU specific policy.

That's just your interpretation. I see no desire to deal with the rest of the world whatsoever. It's just empty waffle from people who either want immigration curbed or eliminated or who think the EU is stifling Britain but can't actually be specific.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Believe it or not, it's far less than the amount of control that the EU demand. At least NATO doesn't mandate that the UK has to accept free movement from all of it's members and trade with the trade partners that only they approve of.

In your opinion. NATO does mandate that the UK must make itself a target for Russian nuclear weapons if Putin invades Estonia but this is somehow preferable to free movement. I know which I prefer.

solodeogloria

mountaintop wrote: »

This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

That's very nice of you but excuse me, aren't you an immigrant yourself? Or have you forgotten that? Have you now morphed into believing you are British and someone has to remind you that you are not, that you are Irish. Your remarks, forgive me, smack of condescension. Remember where you came from, have some empathy for those who still 'take the boat' for a better life, like millions of your forebearers did.

Good afternoon!

I'm hugely thankful to the UK for the opportunities I've got here. I entered the UK as a citizen of the Common Travel Area which has existed since the early 1920's even if not by that exact title. If British immigration policy changed, I would be happy to comply with any measures that were applied.

The UK has every right to act on the basis of the concerns raised in the referendum, and that's why I think the Government needs to consider controls on immigration from the EU.

I find your continued undermining of my nationality a bit inappropriate. I don't question yours, so I don't see why you need to insist that I conform to your narrow minded definition of being Irish.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

mountaintop

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'm hugely thankful to the UK for the opportunities I've got here. I entered the UK as a citizen of the Common Travel Area which has existed since the early 1920's even if not by that exact title. If British immigration policy changed, I would be happy to comply with any measures that were applied.

The UK has every right to act on the basis of the concerns raised in the referendum, and that's why I think the Government needs to consider controls on immigration from the EU.

I find your continued undermining of my nationality a bit inappropriate. I don't question yours, so I don't see why you need to insist that I conform to your narrow minded definition of being Irish.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Another Frudean Slip: Continued undermining of MY nationality you say. What you really mean is your Britishness. Now, lest it be misunderstood, I've worked and lived in the U.K. myself. I admire Britain and have many British relatives and friends. That's not the issue.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

He presents this as a negative to Brexit, but the inherent complexity of the bureaucracy that is the Brussels political union machine is a problem with the European Union. It is a problem that has been pointed out time and time again.

As a software engineer - simple, clean solutions tend to be best. The European Union is no such solution. The answer it presents to every single problem is more unnecessary complexity in the name of further integration to God knows what. The answer is actually simplicity. It is always simplicity.

Hey, software engineer, quick question for you: speaking of inherently complex bureaucracies, how do your propose the UK government solves the conundrum of replicating 32 certifying bodies within 18 months simply and cleanly?

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

The cheek:

ambro25 wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)

To look at just one of your points, in the exact context you posit (EU economic migration): the maximum stay duration guaranteed by the EU in that context is 90 days if you can't support yourself independently. And that is enforced by many continental EU member states indeed. See e.g. here. That has been the situation for years and longer.

So, 2 questions to you:

(i) what has stopped the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, relevant new (and/or amendments to) immigration rules aimed at EU economic migrants and enforcing them -clearly in full compliance with EU law- for the past umpteen years?

(ii) given the prevalent Parliamentary majority, what is still stopping the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, such new (and/or amendments to) immigration rules aimed at EU economic migrants and enforcing them now?

Good morning!

Those are questions for the Cameron government and the Blair government and the Major government. I can't answer them because I don't know why they didn't do it. The May government is addressing Brexit.

These controls aren't sufficient post-Brexit to satisfy the referendum result. I think at a minimum there needs to be quotas on low skilled and low wage labour.

That is a fairly inelegant dodging of the issues raised.

Do you want to try again, or can we consider my point conceded?

Should have left you on ignore. My own fault.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surrendering the decision as to whether or not to go to war at the other side of the world sounds like a serious loss of control to me.

Something that isn't surrendered as part of being in NATO though

solodeogloria

mountaintop wrote: »

Another Frudean Slip: Continued undermining of MY nationality you say. What you really mean is your Britishness. Now, lest it be misunderstood, I've worked and lived in the U.K. myself. I admire Britain and have many British relatives and friends. That's not the issue.

Good afternoon!

This is inappropriate. If you want to have a respectful discussion then that entails respecting your interlocutor.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Solo...do you accept that Brexit will likely damage Ireland?

mountaintop

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is inappropriate. If you want to have a respectful discussion then that entails respecting your interlocutor.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Apologies, no wish to be disrespectful, all said in the heat of discussion, sitting around the table with pints of Guinness but without the Guinness. Here, will you have a small one with that? Arm around the shoulder, let's sing a rebel song!

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Please address the linked post in reply to you where I explain exactly why these exit talks DONT fit the strict definition of 'negotiation' and why a 'no-deal' is not something the UK should contemplate or threaten the EU with.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104742708&postcount=3313

Chips Lovell

Hi everyone,
Less of the personal stuff please. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

kingchess

mrs May will soon be giving her long awaited speech to clarify her "Brexit means Brexit" cliche, and to clear up what kind of deal that the UK actually wants,so we should have all the answers very soon,about the invisible border,freedom of movement,citizens rights etc.I expect that she will lay her cards on the table and use words like "imaginative","creative" and "flexible", And those pesky Europeans who have no sense of Humour whatsoever,I wonder will they be happy?

Nody

kingchess wrote: »

mrs May will soon be giving her long awaited speech to clarify her "Brexit means Brexit" cliche, and to clear up what kind of deal that the UK actually wants,so we should have all the answers very soon,about the invisible border,freedom of movement,citizens rights etc.I expect that she will lay her cards on the table and use words like "imaginative","creative" and "flexible", And those pesky Europeans who have no sense of Humour whatsoever,I wonder will they be happy?

Don't forget "legacy", "responsibility", "unique" and my personal favourite "fair deal" where the definition of fair means do what UK wants and ignore the legal and red lines of EU.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Don't forget "legacy", "responsibility", "unique" and my personal favourite "fair deal" where the definition of fair means do what UK wants and ignore the legal and red lines of EU.

I'll nominate:

ambition, aspiration, balance, challenge, opportunity, principles, reform, values, vision.

Contra-indicated:

Depression, devaluation, emigration, inflation, isolation, recession, unemployment.

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted. Raise the standard of posting please.

breatheme

Anyone following the speech? Theresa May just stated that no existing model (Norway, Switzerland OR Canada) is a viable option for the UK.

murphaph

breatheme wrote: »

Anyone following the speech? Theresa May just stated that no existing model (Norway, Switzerland OR Canada) is a viable option for the UK.

So the UK is asking the EU to create a special case for the UK. Too many years of being given opt out after opt out lead to this sort of mentality.

Perhaps the UK should have put more thought into what is viable for it before pulling the A50 trigger. Of course it'll all be the Europeans fault.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

No, I don't deny cooperation with other countries. I deny that being bound to a heavily restrictive bloc is the right way to deal with it.

Again, Brexit is a result of a desire to deal with the world, not to be chained to EU specific policy.

solodeogloria

This particular point has been exposed over and over again as false with factual survey information.

Why do you keep putting forward your opinion as fact ?

Just because you subscribe to the view that most voters for brexit wanted to free themselves from some economic shackles and rules so they could reach out to the wider world does not make it true.

It may be true for your immediate circle which appears to be echo chamber in terms of its source material but the fact remains.

Immigration was top of the list for brexiters.

Then a avid dislike for the EU as supposedly it took all of the UKs money and gave nothing back in return....

Professor Moriarty

breatheme wrote: »

Anyone following the speech? Theresa May just stated that no existing model (Norway, Switzerland OR Canada) is a viable option for the UK.

We know what they don't want. Any chance they could say what exactly they do want? I'll answer my own question. No. Not one member of May's cabinet is in agreement with another member on a vision for Brexit. Is that a clock I hear ticking?

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

So the UK is asking the EU to create a special case for the UK. Too many years of being given opt out after opt out lead to this sort of mentality.

Perhaps the UK should have put more thought into what is viable for it before pulling the A50 trigger. Of course it'll all be the Europeans fault.

Good afternoon!

Obviously. The transition however, is going to be under EU law for 2 years. I'm not opposed to that. I agree some harder line Brexiteers will be raging though.

I'm happy with the consideration of ECJ judgements in British courts after Brexit. British judges will interpret laws that apply in Britain.

I'm also pretty happy with what she said about a separate arbitration mechanism and how the ECJ ruling directly isn't going to work.

I'm thankful that she's made movements where she can within the red lines set out in the referendum. I understand some might want her to push harder, but I think the tone was ideal and helpful.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We know what they don't want. Any chance they could say what exactly they do want? I'll answer my own question. No. Not one member of May's cabinet is in agreement with another member on a vision for Brexit. Is that a clock I hear ticking?

I'll disagree to a point; I think they very much know what they want which is all benefits of being in EU without having to pay or follow the legislation of EU such as freedom of movement etc. The problem is they know, and we know, that it's simply not going to happen no matter how they try to twist it. That leads to the second part of the problem if the dream scenario is vetoed (it is) then what to go for instead and that's where the whole range from EEA to "hard brexit" opinions come into play inc. how to "sell it" to the population in general as being better then being pat of EU.

Professor Moriarty

From the Guardian feed on her press conference:

Q: You have ruled out things in this negotiation only to have to concede them. Can you point to any areas where you have won concessions?

May says there are UK demands that have been agreed by Europe.

This is a negotiation, she says.

She says this is an opportunity for both sides to agree a new partnership.

This could provide a great future for both sides, she says


Yup. That just about sums it up.

Zubeneschamali

Transcript is up here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-florence-speech-a-new-era-of-cooperation-and-partnership-between-the-uk-and-the-eu

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

I'll disagree to a point; I think they very much know what they want which is all benefits of being in EU without having to pay or follow the legislation of EU such as freedom of movement etc. The problem is they know, and we know, that it's simply not going to happen no matter how they try to twist it. That leads to the second part of the problem if the dream scenario is vetoed (it is) then what to go for instead and that's where the whole range from EEA to "hard brexit" opinions come into play inc. how to "sell it" to the population in general as being better then being pat of EU.

Well, yes, they know what they want. I want a bright red Ferrari. I'm not going to get it. So I need to live in the real world and deal with reality. In doing that, I must decide what I want within the realms of possibility. They haven't done that either because they can't even agree amongst themselves.

An Ciarraioch

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From the Guardian feed on her press conference:

Q: You have ruled out things in this negotiation only to have to concede them. Can you point to any areas where you have won concessions?

May says there are UK demands that have been agreed by Europe.

This is a negotiation, she says.

She says this is an opportunity for both sides to agree a new partnership.

This could provide a great future for both sides, she says


Yup. That just about sums it up.

Indeed - if you're Varadkar, or an EU politician, you didn't hear much new today.

demfad

Re Barnier's speech she said she would honour UK's commitments which uses the language he used. (pay what they have agreed/signed u to pay)
She has requested a transition deal for 2 years accepting EU rules accepting ECJ, FOM etc (her proposal to register EU citizens is actually under EU rules).

Barnier said yesterday that a transition deal MUST be part of the A50 negotiation. So Citizens, Divorce Bill, Ireland would have to be sorted before transition.

He is due to respond around now....

Professor Moriarty

Again from the Guardian:

But, on the transition, May was specific. The UK will continue to pay into the EU budget, and it will continue to be bound by EU rules. It was telling that May refused to answer the question about whether this would amount to continued EEA (European economic area) membership, or whether this would involve having to obey new EU regulations passed by the EU27. Further briefing this afternoon from Number 10 may clarify the position, but from what May said it sounded very much as if the answer to both question is yes and yes. The government has always insisted that in March 2019 we will leave the single market and the customs union. Now that sounds like a semantic evasion. On the basis of what May said, it sounds as if we are staying in until March 2021.

Farage will go bananas. On the upside, if Boris accepts this without a whimper then he's yesterday's man.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Transcript is up here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-florence-speech-a-new-era-of-cooperation-and-partnership-between-the-uk-and-the-eu

Did she just criticise Brexit without realising it?

"the loss of popular support for the forces of liberalism and free trade that is driving moves towards protectionism."

The irony.

Professor Moriarty

A Tweet from Bojo:

PM speech was positive, optimistic & dynamic - and rightly disposes of the Norway option! Forwards!

He's nothing but a coward considering his bluff and bluster last weekend.

Zubeneschamali

Some awful stuff in there. On EU citizens rights:

I am clear that the guarantee I am giving on your rights is real. And I doubt anyone with real experience of the UK would doubt the independence of our courts or of the rigour with which they will uphold people’s legal rights.

In other words, f*ck you and your foreign Courts.

On the EEA: Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people.

So, no cake.

But on Canada: As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognise that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU. But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.
Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate.
We can do so much better than this.


Not just cake, but new, better, UK-only cake, by special delivery!


And on the transition: How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin that future partnership.

As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.


As I predicted, start out with a goal to finish in 2 years, but the real time limit is how long it takes to do the job, which will be a lot longer.

Jim2007

Nody wrote: »

That leads to the second part of the problem if the dream scenario is vetoed (it is) then what to go for instead and that's where the whole range from EEA to "hard brexit" opinions come into play inc. how to "sell it" to the population in general as being better then being pat of EU.

But are there any other options at the moment? EEA requires either EU/EFTA membership and in that respect Norway has at least some reservations about that. The EU have said that there will never be another Swiss style bilateral agreement because it is too complex and in fact would need to be renegotiated and voted on by the Swiss people before it could go ahead as the UK would need to be added to the mix.

If fact the only sure option that could be proposed in a referendum would be reapplication for membership...

Professor Moriarty

The Torygraph headline:

Brexit delayed until 2021 as the PM commits UK to two year transition period.

Let the games begin.

Huexotzingo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Torygraph headline:

Brexit delayed until 2021 as the PM commits UK to two year transition period.

Let the games begin.

She won't be PM by then so it'll be someone else sweeping up the mess.

Professor Moriarty

Huexotzingo wrote: »

She won't be PM by then so it'll be someone else sweeping up the mess.

To be honest, I don't think she'll last until Christmas. It's in the EU's interest to continue stonewalling the negotiations. Not least because stonewalling will sow further discontent within an already divided cabinet and a crumbling Tory party will suit the EU's agenda just fine.

A few weeks of the EU refusing to negotiate meaningfully (because the CTA, the exit bill and EU citizens' rights haven't been sorted) will see a heave by Brexiteers against her. Boris is the stalking horse but Davies is the bookies' favourite.

Nody

Jim2007 wrote: »

But are there any other options at the moment? EEA requires either EU/EFTA membership and in that respect Norway has at least some reservations about that. The EU have said that there will never be another Swiss style bilateral agreement because it is too complex and in fact would need to be renegotiated and voted on by the Swiss people before it could go ahead as the UK would need to be added to the mix.

If fact the only sure option that could be proposed in a referendum would be reapplication for membership...

The smart option would be to go for an Canadian deal with services and pay EU to run certification verification to allow UK goods to continue be certified by UK bodies but EU runs quality checks to allow them to maintain the standards. It would basically be an EEA in practice but not name and would come with a cost to keep paying for those services.

The other option which UK wanted but is highly unlikely to happen is that EU simply signs off all UK law and institutions as being strong enough to match EU law without EU oversight. There's still trade tariffs and quotas in play but on a limited level.

Third option is true third country status where there are approval for certain products/categories to be approved by UK and reduced spot check but not on all. It would be tied in to some form of FTA obviously.

Fourth forward simply goes down the list with less and less in the FTA, pre approved to the point of no FTA at all.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

The smart option would be to go for an Canadian deal with services and pay EU to run certification verification to allow UK goods to continue be certified by UK bodies but EU runs quality checks to allow them to maintain the standards. It would basically be an EEA in practice but not name and would come with a cost to keep paying for those services.

The other option which UK wanted but is highly unlikely to happen is that EU simply signs off all UK law and institutions as being strong enough to match EU law without EU oversight. There's still trade tariffs and quotas in play but on a limited level.

Third option is true third country status where there are approval for certain products/categories to be approved by UK and reduced spot check but not on all. It would be tied in to some form of FTA obviously.

Fourth forward simply goes down the list with less and less in the FTA, pre approved to the point of no FTA at all.

Why would the EU agree to any of those options (other than no FTA)? They allow Britain to have it's cake and eat it by trading relatively freely with the EU while simultaneously forging new trade agreements with other countries. Remember, the EU is adamant that Britain's trading position with the EU post Brexit must be less advantageous than their current status.

ancapailldorcha

I'm not really sure how Theresa May will be able to get any Brexit deal through Parliament. Her majority (including the DUP MP's) is paper thin. UKIP have no MP's to support any kind of deal while the Lib Dems will vote against anything less than full single market membership as will certain Tories like Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. Labour know they have a solid chance in the next election and will do everything they can to sink May's government.

Chips Lovell

I don't know. Who'd want to be PM at the moment? Whoever signs off on the Brexit deal is going to get it in the neck, from their party and from the electorate. Why be the patsy when there's already one sitting in Downing St?

Professor Moriarty

Unsurprisingly, Manfred Weber is unimpressed. Two tweets:

The clock is ticking and time is running faster than the government believes in London

In substance PM May is bringing no more clarity to London's positions. I am even more concerned now

Weber is leader of the European People's Party in the European Parliament.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not really sure how Theresa May will be able to get any Brexit deal through Parliament. Her majority (including the DUP MP's) is paper thin. UKIP have no MP's to support any kind of deal while the Lib Dems will vote against anything less than full single market membership as will certain Tories like Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. Labour know they have a solid chance in the next election and will do everything they can to sink May's government.

If I was a Labour strategist, I would wait a while longer before trying to force an election. The Tories are beginning to turn on each other like rats in a barrel. They could implode in a very permanent way.

Snickers Man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Transcript is up here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-florence-speech-a-new-era-of-cooperation-and-partnership-between-the-uk-and-the-eu

Hmm. No mention of NATO. Despite a section on security co-operation.

A new "NATO-light" organisation within five years or less: Britain, US, possibly Norway and Turkey with a tentative arms-length alliance with Russia. And the rest of Europe in a new alliance which we might call a "Euro army" for convenience.

Which side will Ireland join? Or will it try to stay neutral again?

And from whom will the bigger threat come?

ancapailldorcha

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't know. Who'd want to be PM at the moment? Whoever signs off on the Brexit deal is going to get it in the neck, from their party and from the electorate. Why be the patsy when there's already one sitting in Downing St?

Vince Cable seems to be quite keen on the position going so far as to say that his winning an election is a possibility. His party are enthusiastically opposed to Brexit and winning is the only way they can stop it.

Jeremy Corbyn would likely be pressured into single market membership by the unions and his predominantly young backers. The young tend to be more favorable towards the EU while the unions aren't going to want to see any more austerity and job losses.

A Little Pony

The establishment in the government can try and delay and delay all they like, it's not going to work in the long run.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why would the EU agree to any of those options (other than no FTA)? They allow Britain to have it's cake and eat it by trading relatively freely with the EU while simultaneously forging new trade agreements with other countries. Remember, the EU is adamant that Britain's trading position with the EU post Brexit must be less advantageous than their current status.

In so many words; healthy yearly donations to the EU budget would be my guess but I'm not an EU negotiator

Also Independent.co.uk put a fun spin on May's speech; the only new information to resolve the current lock is to request 2 more years to negotiate... How is that suppose to resolve any of the current issues?

A Little Pony

Nody wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why would the EU agree to any of those options (other than no FTA)? They allow Britain to have it's cake and eat it by trading relatively freely with the EU while simultaneously forging new trade agreements with other countries. Remember, the EU is adamant that Britain's trading position with the EU post Brexit must be less advantageous than their current status.

In so many words; healthy yearly donations to the EU budget would be my guess but I'm not an EU negotiator

Also Independent.co.uk put a fun spin on May's speech; the only new information to resolve the current lock is to request 2 more years to negotiate... How is that suppose to resolve any of the current issues?

She and her ilk don't want Brexit, so it's delay tactics but it's ultimately not going to work. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave, it's eventually going to happen. The country is governed by morons with no spine and no conviction.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

In so many words; healthy yearly donations to the EU budget would be my guess but I'm not an EU negotiator

Also Independent.co.uk put a fun spin on May's speech; the only new information to resolve the current lock is to request 2 more years to negotiate... How is that suppose to resolve any of the current issues?

Britain outside the decision making process but paying truck loads of money to trade? I'd be ok with that!

They nailed it. It's unresolvable, but the Tories' desperate need to cling to power means they can't admit it. So they fudge and fudge and fudge. All the while, they squander whatever goodwill and respect the rest of the EU has left towards Britain. It's actually traitorous.

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

She and her ilk don't want Brexit, so it's delay tactics but it's ultimately not going to work. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave, it's eventually going to happen. The country is governed by morons with no spine and no conviction.

On that we can agree. We can also agree that Brexit will happen. However, I suspect you see it as being a glorious future whereas I see it as being an inglorious clusterfúck.

Nody

A Little Pony wrote: »

She and her ilk don't want Brexit, so it's delay tactics but it's ultimately not going to work. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave, it's eventually going to happen. The country is governed by morons with no spine and no conviction.

Dependent who you see as her ilk; there's definitely a big group of Tories that's all for Brexit for reasons related to donations etc. May herself has about as much care for Brexit or remaining as it determines if she gets to remain PM or not; she'd start singing Kim praises if she thought it would buy her another year as PM... That's the part which makes the speech seem odd; what exactly was the point of the speech which in summary delivers no new information/push to resolve current issues, request an expected extension that's already tied to resolving said issues and coming from a government that mainly wants to leave early as possible. The only real reason I can see is to try to placate the business at home etc. but as there appear to be no real progress to resolve the issues (and hence get an extension) I don't really see how much that will work in practice.

A Little Pony

Nody wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

She and her ilk don't want Brexit, so it's delay tactics but it's ultimately not going to work. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave, it's eventually going to happen. The country is governed by morons with no spine and no conviction.

Dependent who you see as her ilk; there's definitely a big group of Tories that's all for Brexit for reasons related to donations etc. May herself has about as much care for Brexit or remaining as it determines if she gets to remain PM or not; she'd start singing Kim praises if she thought it would buy her another year as PM... That's the part which makes the speech seem odd; what exactly was the point of the speech which in summary delivers no new information/push to resolve current issues, request an expected extension that's already tied to resolving said issues and coming from a government that mainly wants to leave early as possible. The only real reason I can see is to try to placate the business at home etc. but as there appear to be no real progress to resolve the issues (and hence get an extension) I don't really see how much that will work in practice.

Theresa May is a dead woman walking, she might as well prepare herself for leaving office soon and take her buddies with her. I have no problem with honest and genuine people who supported remain, I have family members in that bracket but at least be honest about it. She has no credibility to remain as Prime Minister or authority.

Professor Moriarty

Barnier has released a statement on May's speech. Some key extracts:

The EU will continue to insist on sufficient progress in the key areas of the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom before opening discussions on the future relationship. Agreeing on the essential principles in these areas will create the trust that is needed for us to build a future relationship together.

The fact that the government of the United Kingdom recognises that leaving the European Union means that it cannot keep all the benefits of membership with fewer obligations than the other Member States is welcome.

Today, for the first time, the United Kingdom government has requested to continue to benefit from access to the Single Market, on current terms, and to continue to benefit from existing cooperation in security. This is for a limited period of up to two years, beyond its withdrawal date, and therefore beyond its departure from the EU institutions. If the European Union so wishes, this new request could be taken into account. It should be examined in light of the European Council guidelines of 29 April 2017: "Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."

Prime Minister May's statements are a step forward but they must now be translated into a precise negotiating position of the UK government.

We look forward to the United Kingdom's negotiators explaining the concrete implications of Prime Minister Theresa May's speech.

Junkyard Tom

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."

In layman's terms:

Okay you can probably stay in the EU for a while but you'e going to follow our rules and that's that.