Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Isn't Trump the guy who's happy about slapping a 220% tariff on products from their closest neighbour that they have a free trade deal with ?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are they not the industries closed by Margaret Thatcher - ship building, coal, steel, and car building.

Cars are now assembled by foreign owned companies. Steel is owned by Tata, an Indian owned company. Ship building is only carried out for the British Government for their very expensive aircraft carriers.

So what's left?

I dunno, are they? That's what I'm asking

I'll take that as a yes though, in which case, that does indicate that the UK is somewhat screwed in terms of competition. They were rather relying on the US being in solidarity with their political goals and giving them nice deals in recognition of that. However, since Trump has the loyalty and foresight of an oyster in a hurricane...yeah, May should have seen this coming.

I think she did, tbh. She was being very, very cautious in not criticizing Trump when it was possible to get around it by being quiet. Don't think it worked, although it would probably have just happened sooner if she had.

Nate--IRL--

solodeogloria wrote: »

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

So be it.

Nate

Water John

All eyes on the nuances and conniving in Manchester, for the week.

Boris and Mogg will be looking as to have they got any real traction.
Sadly it seems the Conservatives have no heavy thinker, in their midst. Some one may pop up during the week.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

You mean like Corbyn? Labour have revitalised behind him.

Yes but I think they need to go through the Brexit and crash out badly from the fall out from the electorate for that to happen to ensure the hard wing Brexiteers can be properly neutered and ignored going forward.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You asked why I don't think you believe your posts.

One good example is that you list things like:

"The UK have made a lot of comprimises"

Then change your mind when prompted to name some by other posters.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Oh just go then. On Brexit day when you can't get a flight out of the UK don't say you weren't warned. By then Ireland will have battened down the hatches as much as possible, with assistance from our EU partners. We'll have to see how we ride this nonsense out. I expect relocation agents will be the only ones doing a good trade in the UK at that stage.

flatty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

I can't recall who said it in regards to the leadership battle but it's not the candidates we know today that will sweep it but one of the 50:1 candidates and I tend to agree. You've exactly pointed out why that has to be the case; none of the current "short list" candidates are up to scrap; they need someone new at the top with a new vision or they will face a harsh response at the next election.

You mean like Corbyn? Labour have revitalised behind him.

They haven't really. Their main vote winner was the scrapping of tuition fees, and it's easily mimicked. The tories are in disarray, there are enough voters opposed to brexit, that anyone other than the tories would do, and the lib dems have managed, somehow, to become so irrelevant, mainly through their leadership choices, that a swathe of the country held their noses and voted Labour in the likely vain hope that might avert a tory driven brexit.
If a centre party formed the non hard left labour, and non hard right tory, with a mandate of a revote on brexit now that the ramifications are slightly more exposed, if they had a credible leader (David miliband perhaps, or Ken Clarke or Vince Cable even), they would have a huge broad based support.
It would need big names from the centre of both parties to sign up, and lots of them, but I think they could take power and hold it, and avert needless recession for this generation at least.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

You asked why I don't think you believe your posts.

One good example is that you list things like:

"The UK have made a lot of comprimises"

Then change your mind when prompted to name some by other posters.

Good afternoon!

If we want to have a good discussion we need to read posts and we need to stop lying about other posters.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've seen a lot of reasonable compromises proposed by the British government. I've seen movement on all three issues from Davis. For example continuing contributions for transition, joint arbitration, rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon, customs partnership in the border, free travel for EU citizens into the UK. I could probably even list more.

We need to be honest.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If we want to have a good discussion we need to read posts and we need to stop lying about other posters.



We need to be honest.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't think you understand what comprimise means. These were offers made by Davis, not comprimise based on the EU's position.

Water John

May not need a new political party, just those who don't support Brexit to tell the respective whips, go jump.
For once do your job as an MP and vote with your beliefs and conscience.

Inquitus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If we want to have a good discussion we need to read posts and we need to stop lying about other posters.



We need to be honest.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Everything you say is utterly dishonest, the UK hasn't compromised one jot on the key areas, and unless they do, nothing is going to come of this charade. The Tory cabinet are at each others throats, they can't even agree between them what a Brexit should look like, how can the EU negotiate with them in good faith when their position changes on a weekly basis.

The Rape of Lucretia

Water John wrote: »

May not need a new political party, just those who don't support Brexit to tell the respective whips, go jump.
For once do your job as an MP and vote with your beliefs and conscience.

There is an absence of democratic honesty in that though. The referendum wasa democratic vote - spin, lies, jongoism, etc notwithstanding.
MPs must go with it.

The chance to vote as you say was at the last general election - any MP or candidate would have to say they were going to vote against Brexit in all forms tell the whips to go whistle if elected.

They cannot do so now without another election and stating their position.

If all did so - and a Brexit-reversal majority was elected, then backing out would have some legitimacy.

Calina

Contributions during transition is not a compromise. If transition means norhing changes then it is the bare minimum to be expected The EU does not have to agree to transition.

When the UK deals with its Home Office ignoring its own courts, the UK court system might be adequate. But the govt had to be dragged screaming into giving parliament a vote on Article 50 AND the budget allocation to NI courtesy of the DUP deal which puts Britain very possibly in breach of the GFA. Given the latest investigation on illegal deportations of EU citizens, and the contempt of court fun with the Home Office in a refugee case you can conclude that the power of the UK courts is somewhat limited.

Details on the customs partnership: provide them. Last I heard was they were vaporware with fantasies about drones. Please update me on that.

The UK hardly provides free travel for its own citizens. I assume you mean visa free.

I sat in a talk in Brussels yesterday with young British people. The fact that they turned up suggests they still hope desperately that Brexit won't happen. I fear their hope is misplaced. When I read posts like yours, solo, I particularly fear their hope is misplaced.

steddyeddy

Inquitus wrote: »

Everything you say is utterly dishonest, the UK hasn't compromised one jot on the key areas, and unless they do nothing is going to come of this charade. The Tory cabinet are at each others throats, they can't even agree between them what a Brexit should look like, how can the EU negotiate with them in good faith when their position changes on a weekly basis.

Indeed. Empty platitudes with complete dishonesty. A belief in ideology rather than facts.

Samaris

Can anyone actually enumerate the compromises that the UK has offered? Solo, you seem to know the most about them, what compromises are there and how do they differ from initial positions (as others have asked too).

It's a straight-forward question based entirely on your claims, so it should be fairly easy to answer.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Try replacing "EU" with "EU-27" in your post above and see if it gets across where I think Brexit thinking is going wrong. Yes, the EU-27 are presenting a single negotiating team, but this doesn't mean that this is anything like a bilateral discussion as might happen between two countries.

The EU is a complex arrangement between 28 (soon to be 27) different countries. This arrangement is far too important to the EU-27 to have it ripped asunder and re-engineered to placate a UK government that doesn't really know what it wants beyond a cake-and-eat it approach that would give it a much better deal than any other of the EU-27 countries.

If the UK want out, fine, but complaining that the EU-27 won't re-model the EU to suit their preferred model is disrespectful towards the other 27 sovereign states and their own democratically elected governments.

The EU isn't all about the UK. Maybe the self-obsessed UK need to understand that?

The Rape of Lucretia

Samaris wrote: »

Can anyone actually enumerate the compromises that the UK has offered? Solo, you seem to know the most about them, what compromises are there and how do they differ from initial positions (as others have asked too).

It's a straight-forward question based entirely on your claims, so it should be fairly easy to answer.

So easy that there is a strong reluctance.

Specifically the compromises should relate to the divorce, not the future relationship. But ones on any topic, even if the details of the divorce havnt been agreed and so one on the future relationship are premature, would be welcome.

The bottom line is there havnt been any. The UK is still trying to come to terms with the politics of the road they have set out on - one for which they were completely unprepared - and so are incapable of knowing how the separation should be settled, much less, their position on the future relationship, and by consequence what they could compromise on.

Oh, other than chimeric nonsense like cherry picking, having the cake and eating it, being in the EU predominantly but being able to keep the English lower classes happy by saying they are not in it, etc. Otherwise known as imaginative and creative solutions. Fantasy in other words, while the UK comes to terms with the reality that what they set out to do is simply impossible - but are too traumatised to acknowledge at the moment.

It truly is the extraordinary political fûk up of our times.

The Rape of Lucretia

swampgas wrote: »

If the UK want out, fine, but complaining that the EU-27 won't re-model the EU to suit their preferred model is disrespectful towards the other 27 sovereign states and their own democratically elected governments.

The EU isn't all about the UK. Maybe the self-obsessed UK need to understand that?

Indeed. But it doesnt. The Brexit black cloud hanging over it is truly colouring their view of everything and is an imminent calamity for them. But that the EU does not have the same cloud over it, is really not understood. Brexit is one of many issues the EU is dealing with. And, whatever the details of Brexit, will pretty much carry on as before. Which is not the case for the UK. The self-obsession is understandable - it has not faced such a crisis since June 1940. The tragedy is, this time it is totally self inflicted, so interest in helping them out is minimal.
The UK does not appreciate that Brexit news is not headline news on a daily basis in Europe. It is minor article update stuff, buried within the papers, that most people arent really following at all. Ireland, as the country that truly is vulnerable to the resulting turbulence, and being a bit of a UK press follower anyway, is the only one following the tragic show.

mickoneill31

Samaris wrote: »

Can anyone actually enumerate the compromises that the UK has offered? Solo, you seem to know the most about them, what compromises are there and how do they differ from initial positions (as others have asked too).

It's a straight-forward question based entirely on your claims, so it should be fairly easy to answer.

+1 to that. Looking forward to the next post from Solo where he/she answers the question with an answer, rather than

a) going off on a tangent
or
b) saying "I've said it frequent times on this post and won't type it again".

The quote was

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises

So we should get a list of at least 4 or 5 I'd say.

steddyeddy

The EU commision is investigating the UK over treatment of EU citizens, including deportation and detention.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/brussels-uk-deported-eu-citizens?CMP=fb_gu

Samaris

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU commision is investigating the UK over treatment of EU citizens, including deportation and detention.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/brussels-uk-deported-eu-citizens?CMP=fb_gu

Aarrrgh. Why do the UK keep shooting themselves in the foot? Why was it necessary to ratchet up deportations while trying to carry out these delicate negotiations? What message does this give, especially when other countries are registering concerns that these deportations are not necessarily being carried out with due process (or semblance of humanity in some cases). Isn't there plenty of time for organised deporting or y'know, not deporting when plainly unreasonable after the whole thing has been dealt with and Britain is actually no longer under the auspices of the agreements that ban this sort of carry-on?

Every time it looks like the UK leadership might finally have removed heads from rectal regions and started acting like a grown-up country, something happens to indicate that heads have been solidly reinserted again.

This is insane. It really is. There is no sensible logic for this method.

strandroad

Samaris wrote: »

Every time it looks like the UK leadership might finally have removed heads from rectal regions and started acting like a grown-up country, something happens to indicate that heads have been solidly reinserted again.

This is insane. It really is. There is no sensible logic for this method.

Some of their voters will only be delighted to hear about it though. There's a method to it, for them it shows how Brexit starts to deliver.

Enzokk

Samaris wrote: »

Aarrrgh. Why do the UK keep shooting themselves in the foot? Why was it necessary to ratchet up deportations while trying to carry out these delicate negotiations? What message does this give, especially when other countries are registering concerns that these deportations are not necessarily being carried out with due process (or semblance of humanity in some cases). Isn't there plenty of time for organised deporting or y'know, not deporting when plainly unreasonable after the whole thing has been dealt with and Britain is actually no longer under the auspices of the agreements that ban this sort of carry-on?

Every time it looks like the UK leadership might finally have removed heads from rectal regions and started acting like a grown-up country, something happens to indicate that heads have been solidly reinserted again.

This is insane. It really is. There is no sensible logic for this method.

This is the same Home Office and Amber Rudd that defied a court order from a judge recently. Do you think they will listen to the EU? It seems increasingly like the UK government will do what they want. If anything I would be very scared if I was a EU citizen in the UK. I don't think even the "special" relationship between Ireland and the UK will be of any use in the end.

I mean the fact that Boris is still in his job after openly criticizing the PM and then using the Foreign Office premises for an event for a non-governmental think tank says a lot. They are in such disarray its actually not funny. Imagine if Jeremy Corbyn had been defied like this? The UK press would be having a field day with the situation but its par for the course for this government.

Boris Johnson accused of breaching ministerial code over thinktank launch

Samaris

I am thoroughly relieved that I made the choice to move back to Ireland just before all this went down, I'll tell you that. Half-English or no, Irish-citizen or no, I wouldn't particularly trust this government to not screw me over and right now, I wouldn't trust the emboldened actual racists* to exempt me from their dislike. Especially since I've been mistaken (admittedly by idiots) for either southern European or not European at all in looks. Besides, once everyone else is out or stamped down on, I don't think the Irish will be particularly beloved or accepted either.

My impression of Johnson's intelligence is not good (excellent education, impressed he can recite Kipling from memory, does Eton maybe need to focus on drilling in common sense as well as recitations?) so I'm not surprised at his antics. It is a bit remarkable that someone as young as he is with a good education and a high standing in British public affairs could be ..well, Boris Johnson, but there you go. And that he's the favourite for the next Tory leader/PM? God help Britain.

May's incredibly weak. Both in character and in political position. Either of those would be difficult to work around, but both? She's a dead duck in this climate. She is silent when she should speak and it makes her out both cold and unfeeling -and- slow and indecisive (i.e. Grenfell). Her silence scores her badly in two sets of metrics appealing to different sectors of the population, and that's rarely a good outcome. That on top of the general impression of a clown brigade (mostly Johnson's fault) and the lack of respect earned by Davis in the negotiations and really, how has this government survived this long?

*No, not "all Brexiters" or "all British", just the actual racists who are undoubtedly emboldened by any excuse that leans their way, which Brexit undoubtedly does.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

The U.K. has not put a single workable solution on the table in respect of any of the three issues. You're either totally delusional or simply tell porkies.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

If the U.K. leaves with no deal that will be a situation entirely of their own making. It has taken over 40 years of negotiation, compromise and in the case of the U.K. opt outs to get the EU to where it is today. And to expect that the EU states would put that at risk by compromising on it's fundamental principles for the sake of a third country is just dumb!

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

And here is how the businesses will respond.

You see the businesses don't give a damn about the game and who wins or losses; they need a deal or they are out of there and the Tories can stand around crying how unfair it is all they want. That is why EU has the upper hand over UK in the negotiations; no deal they get more companies coming over, deal and they get less interruption in existing export. However for UK it's no deal and the businesses leave, deal and only some of the business leaves.

And that is just UK businesses.

I was at a luncheon event on Thursday, hosted by one of the local 'big 3' law firms, and just happened to be sat next to their head of HR (-legal practice).

We were -of course- comparing notes on Brexit, and I recounted how I had witnessed a shift in my caseload makeup since the referendum (accelerating for the past 3-4 months) which was beginning to mirror the 2008 GFC aftermath: new filing activity reducing way off-trend, but new contentious activity increasing way off-trend in proportion (representative of businesses doing less innovation and focusing on enforcement to husband market share and profit line ).

As she thought about it, she considered that her own department's caseload was likewise starting to take shades of post-2008 GFC, and recounted how, soon after the referendum, she had heard across her clientele, that EU27 firms (mostly German) with local UK subsidiaries/presence were reassuring staff with 'nothing will change', 'we are committed to our UK operations' <etc.>.

But how, in the past 6 months, she has started taking instructions from EU27 HQs directly, to get started with hatchet jobs on those local jobs amongst the local UK subsidiaries/presence which represent the highest overheads (i.e. senior management).

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

Can anyone actually enumerate the compromises that the UK has offered? Solo, you seem to know the most about them, what compromises are there and how do they differ from initial positions (as others have asked too).

It's a straight-forward question based entirely on your claims, so it should be fairly easy to answer.

mickoneill31 wrote: »

+1 to that. Looking forward to the next post from Solo where he/she answers the question with an answer, rather than

a) going off on a tangent
or
b) saying "I've said it frequent times on this post and won't type it again".

The quote was


So we should get a list of at least 4 or 5 I'd say.

Good afternoon!

I've specifically listed them here in the quoted section of my post.

In fact there are 5 there. It's a bit irritating when you're implying I've not done this when I have clearly. It's not constructive to lie about what other posters have said.

Samaris wrote: »

I am thoroughly relieved that I made the choice to move back to Ireland just before all this went down, I'll tell you that. Half-English or no, Irish-citizen or no, I wouldn't particularly trust this government to not screw me over and right now, I wouldn't trust the emboldened actual racists* to exempt me from their dislike. Especially since I've been mistaken (admittedly by idiots) for either southern European or not European at all in looks. Besides, once everyone else is out or stamped down on, I don't think the Irish will be particularly beloved or accepted either.

The idea that Britain is heaving with racists is manifest nonsense.

I'm glad that I'm staying here and I'm glad that the UK is leaving the European Union. The behaviour in respect to the weasel term "sufficient progress" doesn't make me want to crawl back to being a member it rather makes continued membership less appetising as you see how unreasonable they are being. The audience in Wolverhampton on Question Time were right.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've specifically listed them here in the quoted section of my post.

In fact there are 5 there. It's a bit irritating when you're implying I've not done this when I have clearly. It's not constructive to lie about what other posters have said.

Right. For expediency, here is your list;
- continuing contributions for transition
- joint arbitration
- rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon
- customs partnership in the border
- (visa?)free travel for EU citizens into the UK.

Added visa there as your claim didn't quite make sense. I don't think anyone's running a platform of free travel for EU people into the UK or vice versa. Was it visa-free you intended?


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631038/Joint_technical_note_on_the_comparison_of_EU-UK_positions_on_citizens__rights.pdf

Here are the positions as of July, the first meeting where positions were debated (the first meeting was more of an introduction).

Trying to find positions as at the second meeting currently, but you're indicating that certain positions have moved since these stances were taken, so ...okay, feel free to continue backing it up.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The idea that Britain is heaving with racists is manifest nonsense.

Quite, so it's just as well that no-one said it then, isn't it?

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've specifically listed them here in the quoted section of my post.

In fact there are 5 there. It's a bit irritating when you're implying I've not done this when I have clearly. It's not constructive to lie about what other posters have said.



The idea that Britain is heaving with racists is manifest nonsense.

I'm glad that I'm staying here and I'm glad that the UK is leaving the European Union. The behaviour in respect to the weasel term "sufficient progress" doesn't make me want to crawl back to being a member it rather makes continued membership less appetising as you see how unreasonable they are being. The audience in Wolverhampton on Question Time were right.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No need to get so sensitive. You didn't list compromise, you listed positions.

Crawl back to being a member? You said you were Irish, you are a member of the EU.

No one thinks the EU are being unreasonable except you, except when you voted remain.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've specifically listed them here in the quoted section of my post.

In fact there are 5 there. It's a bit irritating when you're implying I've not done this when I have clearly. It's not constructive to lie about what other posters have said.

Ok, I will bite. How does continuing paying into the EU for access to the single market mean they have moved and the EU have to compromise? Do you think that the EU should now give the UK a concession where they only have to pay half the cost for a transition period? Do you think that is how it works? Who is asking for access to the single market and for a deal? If its the UK then they will have to take what they get given, whether you like it or not. Life's not fair, ask the people of Scotland that were told if they voted to stay in the UK they would stay in the EU.

I think it is bloody obvious that the UK has to pay for access during a transition period. If you think this is not the case then you have no common sense, in my opinion.

Samaris

Actually, yeah, concluding that the UK paying contributions during the transition period is a concession is a bit silly. I am not making a concession to someone else if all I'm doing is paying what's owed. That's not really a concession, it should be a normal starting point.

Did they really start off from the position that they would pay nothing but expected a transition period? If not, why is this listed as a concession or compromise? If they did, well, I suppose by the standards of low expectations, paying what's owed is a glorious compromise. >.<

murphaph

The very notion that solo thinks paying continuing contributions during a transitional period (granted by the EU if at all) is some sort of compromise explains a lot.

The UK can count itself lucky if it gets to pay the proper amount (no rebate of course) and not double!

The Rape of Lucretia

Samaris wrote: »

Right. For expediency, here is your list;
- continuing contributions for transition
- joint arbitration
- rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon
- customs partnership in the border
- (visa?)free travel for EU citizens into the UK.

So :

- while we are still effectively members, we will contribute as if we were a member
- if we can agree to agree, then we will agree
- if there is a disagreement, our court will be judge
- some undefined border controls
- visa free travel for EU citizens into the UK (and of course visa free travel for UK citizens into the EU)



Whoop de doo, I think would be the diplomatic response.

What are they a concession on ?
- during the transition we will retain free trade rights but wont pay anything
- we will decide everything
- if there is a disagreement there will be no agreement
- other undefined border controls
- that UK citizens have visa free travel to the EU, but EU citizens do not have it to the UK.


I think I will go into my boss tomorrow and tell him I want a revised job contract : one days work per year, and a salary of one million.
If he doesnt agree I will propose that he pay me 950k and I will do two days work per year. If he doesnt agree to that I will say he is being unreasonable. From my opening proposal I have doubled the work I am willing to do for him, and cut what he would have to pay me by €50k! I am making serious concession and being reasonable. If he doesnt agree to that then he is just being vindictive.

Enzokk

I will try to be fair to solo, here is a part of his quote where he shows the compromises from the UK so far,

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've seen a lot of reasonable compromises proposed by the British government. I've seen movement on all three issues from Davis. For example continuing contributions for transition, joint arbitration, rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon, customs partnership in the border, free travel for EU citizens into the UK. I could probably even list more.

I've not seen any form of movement from Brussels on anything however. This will need to change if we're to see a good outcome.

Just in case he is not getting his point of view across properly, what do you mean by joint arbitration? Was the position before that only the UK will decide on arbitration but they now have compromised to allow the EU a say?

As for rights of EU nationals that can seek recourse to the Supreme Court, was the position before that they would have no recourse in case their rights were infringed?

What about the customs partnership is a compromise on their previous position?


This is what others were asking you for, details on why you think there has been compromises. I think if you were able to show that there has been compromises people would agree with you, but you seem to be as short on details as the UK is on their Brexit plans right now.

Edit: I mean compromising from one unreasonable position to another may be seen as compromise by some but not by others.

Roanmore

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Indeed. But it doesnt. The Brexit black cloud hanging over it is truly colouring their view of everything and is an imminent calamity for them. But that the EU does not have the same cloud over it, is really not understood. Brexit is one of many issues the EU is dealing with. And, whatever the details of Brexit, will pretty much carry on as before. Which is not the case for the UK. The self-obsession is understandable - it has not faced such a crisis since June 1940. The tragedy is, this time it is totally self inflicted, so interest in helping them out is minimal.
The UK does not appreciate that Brexit news is not headline news on a daily basis in Europe. It is minor article update stuff, buried within the papers, that most people arent really following at all. Ireland, as the country that truly is vulnerable to the resulting turbulence, and being a bit of a UK press follower anyway, is the only one following the tragic show.

Sky News to be fair alluded to that last week, said the EU27 had other things to worry about.

The Rape of Lucretia

Roanmore wrote: »

Sky News to be fair alluded to that last week, said the EU27 had other things to worry about.

While there are parties for who a hard brexit would be a problem - particular businesses, or residents in the UK, there are many for whom it would be an opportunity, many other businesses, financial institutions.
And for a great majority it will have little or no impact.
So while the EU administration must deal with the process, as a whole, nobody in Europe has much interest in Brexit, nor any concerns that life and business will continue as heretofore whatever deal is done.
The UK still thinks Europe is as worried about the detail of the Brexit deal as they are, and that it really is two parties with a serious stake in the outcome. The UK is the one with various grades of everything to lose here.It does seem some of their civil service and EU staff understand this. But the political class doesnt want to hear it while it plays internal politics instead. And they are not hearing the tick-tock tick-tock.

Jim2007

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

- that UK citizens have visa free travel to the EU, but EU citizens do not have it to the UK

The problem with that is that it is not a decision the EU can make on their own, under any circumstances! For visa free travel in Europe, you are covered by the EU/EEA/CH agreement or by Schengen. Any agreement there will also require the agreement of the non EU members as well. And needless to say the non-EU states such as Switzerland are concerned about the status of their citizens in the UK and so far this has not even been considered.

I expect there will be strong opposition to anything other than the UK joining Schengen. To do otherwise would mean that they would need to setup a special scheme for the UK and I doubt there will be much support for that.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The behaviour in respect to the weasel term "sufficient progress" doesn't make me want to crawl back to being a member it rather makes continued membership less appetising as you see how unreasonable they are being. The audience in Wolverhampton on Question Time were right.

You could not crawl back even if you wanted to! A50 provides no provision for it's revocation, nor is there any other provision to do so. The only people making that claim are UK jurists and that rests solely on UK Law allowing the UK government to change it's mind. Noting to do with the ECJ accepting it.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

The behaviour in respect to the weasel term "sufficient progress" doesn't make me want to crawl back to being a member it rather makes continued membership less appetising as you see how unreasonable they are being.

The term 'sufficient progress' could mean 'any progress' or 'genuine progress'. None of these substitute terms can apply to the current position.

No progress is certainly an accurate description so far. Another few weeks for the miracle.

Thargor

I think we're starting to see the final collapse starting for May now, disaster of an interview on Andrew Marr this morning and stories about her losing it appearing in the papers:

Link looks broken but it works if you press play:

Fury in Palace and panic at No 10 as premier wept

Buckingham Palace was left infuriated with Theresa May's behaviour after her general election disaster plunged the Prime Minister into a personal "crisis of confidence".

Senior courtiers were exasperated that May misled the Queen by saying she had a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) only to take another 17 days to nail it down, and then went on to breach protocol in the way she announced her intention to form a government.

The delay led to irritation at May's lack of "courtesy", as the Queen's speech was delayed for two days, meaning the state opening of Parliament disrupted plans for Royal Ascot.

Following the inferno at Grenfell Tower the week after the election, Downing Street staff became so worried about the prime minister's welfare that one suggested sending for an SAS officer to give her a pep talk to boost her resilience.

May's problems led to tensions with Buckingham Palace, where the Queen's private secretary was unable to get answers from No 10 about the status of the DUP deal or about rumours that May was on the verge of resigning.
Details of the post-election period are contained in a new book, Fall out: A Year of Political Mayhem, Serialised in the Sunday Times today.

It reveals that the Prime Minister repeatedly broke down in tears after surrendering the Conservative majority and went in to a spiral after she faced widespread criticism for failing to meet victims of the Grenfell Tower fire.
She had to have her makeup redone before she visited the Queen because she had been crying. Aides grew concerned that she might not be able to go on. "She looked tired and I didn't think she was thinking straight", one said.
By the Friday after the week of the election, a senior political appointee decided help was needed, saying "she was absolutely beaten, grey-skinned. I've seen people with shell shock and she looked worse than that".

The official suggested to Gavin Barwell, May's new chif of staff, that he get member of the SAS to speak to May about "resilience".
The aide said "I can get you former special forces commanders ... people who have been in crunching encounters. They will realise it is in the national interest to keep her on track and keep her going". The offer was not taken up.
According to a Tory who has discussed the events with a senior member of the Royal Household: "There was a high degree of uncertainty about whether Theresa May would survive".

May had been to see the Queen the day after the election, an encounter the monarch appears not to have relished(?). In the private audiences between the Queen and Mrs May, I don't think the Queen finds any easier company than anyone else", the source said.

Tropheus

'There is NO cliff edge' Farage reveals Brexit plan to give UK the upper hand OVER Barnier

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/861019/Nigel-Farage-Tice-Brexit-UK-Barnier-Theresa-May

A real gem from the Express. "Farage reveals Brexit plan". It's about three paragraphs long and tells us nothing. The farce continues and the cliff edge beckons.

steddyeddy

Tropheus wrote: »

'There is NO cliff edge' Farage reveals Brexit plan to give UK the upper hand OVER Barnier

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/861019/Nigel-Farage-Tice-Brexit-UK-Barnier-Theresa-May

A real gem from the Express. "Farage reveals Brexit plan". It's about three paragraphs long and tells us nothing. The farce continues and the cliff edge beckons.

I don't see Farage should get special treatment. Boris is just as bad. Self serving, bumblimg and a liar.

Enzokk

Tropheus wrote: »

'There is NO cliff edge' Farage reveals Brexit plan to give UK the upper hand OVER Barnier

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/861019/Nigel-Farage-Tice-Brexit-UK-Barnier-Theresa-May

A real gem from the Express. "Farage reveals Brexit plan". It's about three paragraphs long and tells us nothing. The farce continues and the cliff edge beckons.

It seems to me that these 2 are even more out of touch than anybody else. It must be nice not to be in a position of power where you don't have any responsibility to be accurate. Some of the gems from the article,

The pair suggested that Remainers were scaremongering about massive tariffs after Brexit.

They claimed going to WTO rules would even cut the weekly bills for Britons.

Mr Tice explained: "The average tariffs are 3 per cent, and we have had a currency devaluation of 12 per cent so businesses are already making an enhanced profit.

"I hope Liam Fox and his department are progressing at great speed to engineer trade deals.

"If we go to WTO, we can unilaterally reduce tariffs from Africa, on goods we don’t produce - oranges, coffee, and so on - that would reduce people’s weekly bills."

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems to me that these 2 are even more out of touch than anybody else. It must be nice not to be in a position of power where you don't have any responsibility to be accurate. Some of the gems from the article,

I guess someone forget to tell them how imports are affected by the pound becoming worth less vs. exports being affected by the same... That's of course before the whole thing about importing the materials to produce the goods etc. but I have to agree with Farage that's it not an upcoming cliff edge if they don't get a deal; it's closer to jumping into an active volcano.

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

The problem with that is that it is not a decision the EU can make on their own, under any circumstances! For visa free travel in Europe, you are covered by the EU/EEA/CH agreement or by Schengen. Any agreement there will also require the agreement of the non EU members as well. And needless to say the non-EU states such as Switzerland are concerned about the status of their citizens in the UK and so far this has not even been considered.

I expect there will be strong opposition to anything other than the UK joining Schengen. To do otherwise would mean that they would need to setup a special scheme for the UK and I doubt there will be much support for that.

My understanding of Schengen is that it is nowadays completely regulated by EU law, not treaty, so the non-EU member states basically have to like it or lump it. The EU alone legislates for Schengen. That's what the Schengen wiki seems to suggest anyway.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

My understanding of Schengen is that it is nowadays completely regulated by EU law, not treaty, so the non-EU member states basically have to like it or lump it. The EU alone legislates for Schengen. That's what the Schengen wiki seems to suggest anyway.

For the EU members yes, it is incorporated into EU law, but for CH etc.. it is still an agreement and we in Switzerland need to vote on changes. This is an example of why the EU has said it never wants to do a Swiss bilateral deal again - it is too complicated.

Similarly the work permit stuff will cause problems - the Swiss bilateral states that CH will treat all non EU member states as third countries. If now the EU were to come up with a different deal, then the Swiss deal needs to be adjusted as well, so a vote in Switzerland would be required and the whole immigration thing is a sensitive area in Switzerland too.

The thing is that the bilateral has one very nasty sting to it, it states that if either the EU or CH reject an cause of it, then the whole thing falls! So if a vote on immigration were to fall, it would put at risk the free flow through the north/south trade routes of the EU, Pharma & Chemical certification etc...

All this stuff was agreed at a time when no one ever gave a thought what would happen if someone walked out.

ArmaniJeanss

Just a reminder that the Boris/MrKipling doc is on C4 in about 20 minutes.

The Rape of Lucretia

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Just a reminder that the Boris/MrKipling doc is on C4 in about 20 minutes.

Right after Queen Victoria solves the potato famine in Ireland.

Water John

Trevelyan is stalking the UK again, I think.

steddyeddy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Right after Queen Victoria solves the potato famine in Ireland.

Seen that. Apart from Russians I've never seen a people more deluded about their past. We'll see exhibit B On next as Boris sings a colonial poem in a temple.

Brexit will be an education in how a false sense of one's place in the world can have consequences.