Brexit discussion thread III

Nody

Nody wrote: »

This is coming from a government who had to be taken to EU court to follow the law and now asks Eu to trust them after their fumbling around...

True, but less often then Ireland, it would seem

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_ECJ_v10FINAL%20web.pdf

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

True, but less often then Ireland, it would seem

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_ECJ_v10FINAL%20web.pdf

Yes, the point being that Ireland will continue to be held against those standards. There is nothing wrong with challenging, but when the outcome comes you need to respect and implement it.

Davies has said said the EU and UK should “trust each others’ regulations and the institutions that enforce them, with a robust and independent arbitration mechanism”

So let me get this straight. The EU goes off and creates a whole load of regulations, regulations that it then insists that member states adhere to. And then the UK is going to come along with different regulations, and wants the members of the EU to accept these lessor standards from them, whilst having to stick to the higher regulations themselves?

That is the stated UK position? regulations normally cost money to adhere to. Lessor regulations normally less. So the UK are looking to get a competitive advantage over the rest of the EU for their products.

Sorry but what? Why would the EU even consider this? Why should, as a business, continue to suffer the additional burdens of regulation when the UK company continue to take my business based on lower costs?

And why should it be an independent arbitration. You want to sell into a market you need to adhere to that markets rules. So the UK wants to take back control, and then give it straight away to and independent arbitrator and also expects , at the same time, for the EU to give up control.

Skedaddle

Why should the EU trust them at all?

"UK faces €2bn fine over Chinese imports scam, say EU investigators"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/uk-faces-2bn-fine-over-chinese-imports-scam-say-eu-anti-fraud-investigators

"Britain owes EU billions due to customs fraud"

www.dw.com/en/britain-owes-eu-billions-due-to-customs-fraud/a-37853852

Track record is very poor.

trellheim

As Boris said when using the metaphor "you can't have your cake and eat it" " I am very Pro Having it and Pro Eating it"


Unfortunately I can only see the Marie Antoinette cake metaphor and we know what happened to her

Skedaddle

Interestingly, the FT is reporting that an aspect of French political debate isn't seeing Brexit as entirely negative. They're glad to see the back of the UK, as it has pushed very neoliberal policies (including the eastward expansion) in the EU over the years and this is an opportunity to make the EU a little more in-line with French ideas of how it should work.

https://www.ft.com/content/366db7e0-161e-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44

I think a lot of the Brexiteers forget that not everyone's actually all that upset about this. It's not out of malice or irrational dislike. It's just an opportunity for France to push a more social agenda in the EU that has been somewhat squashed by the UK in the past.

From an Irish perspective that's a mixed bag, particularly if there's a big push for tax harmonisation. Brexit does change the balance of power in the EU though.

J Mysterio

Headline on English Independent:

"Give us total access to your markets without your regulations, Davis tells EU"

:pac:

Leroy42

Another contradiction in Davies speech relates to the exit payment. The principle has been agreed, if not the final amount, but still the UK are insisting that unless a deal is agreed that they will not pay for the obligations that they freely signed up for.

And then he asks the EU to trust them?

Skedaddle

It's pretty simple really. The EU (rightly) doesn't trust them and is extremely used to dealing with these kinds of negotiations with parties that back-pedal and double-speak.

A lot of people in the UK are making the assumption that the EU is staffed by some kind of naive morons who don't see right through this charade. They're expert negotiators and are backed by a bunch of some of the best legal and technical people with experience on drawing up international treaties that you could possibly find anywhere. Yet, Davis speaks to them like he's speaking to a tabloid newspaper journalist.

The way thing are headed they're going to be presented with a template, highly technical and detailed agreement proposal from the EU fait accompli . If they don't want to accept it, they will more than likely be walking away with nothing. The clock continues to tick and the UK seems to still stuck where it was months and months ago with no workable proposals, spewing bile and hot air.

Not only have they made no real progress on an agreement, they seem to be now determined to unravel and attempt to renegotiate the Northern Ireland peace deals on the side. They only took the best part of 30 years, and the best minds and most open minded and progressive politicians we've seen probably in a century.

It isn't going to end well ... for the UK.

I really think the only way out of this is a general election in the UK and a change of direction. If it continues like this to March 2019, they'll bluster their way into an unneqotiated Brexit and an economic mess.

Leroy42

I actually don't see how it is going to end up as anything other than a hard Brexit. Anything else is simply putting off the inevitable.

If the UK do sign up to an agreement, I would not be convinced that they fully understand it and will, over time, look to get out of it.

Simply look at how they have changed the thinking on the transition. Originally it was a way to extend the leave period, and for most people that would simply be pushing everything back. But no, the UK wants the transition period to be one where they keep everything they see as a benefit whilst getting rid of the rest. So its not an extension, its a completely new scenario which they have dreamed up and given no details of how it is going to work. And then they complain when the EU states that they want a fast track mechanism to hold the UK to account during the period of it goes back on any promises.

Or Phase 1. As soon as the photocall was over, the UK were out declaring that it was simply a white paper, a matter for further debate. Whilst legally that is of course correct, what sort of negotiation partner does that?

At this point, any thing less than a full hard Brexit will likely be seen as a capitulation by May and her cabinet. The exit payment, essentially a payment of the future costs of obligations already entered into, has been cast as some sort of punishment, the cost of leaving. It is of course nothing of the sort but even today Davies was happy to use the threat of failing to comply with international agreements as a way to get what they want.

Skedaddle

Essentially what they want is the EU to turn itself inside out, upside down, cast aside all of its fundamental principles and concepts and give them a bespoke deal that only benefits the UK, undermines the EU and its remaining 27 members.

That's very, very unlikely to happen.

Also the UK is vastly overestimating its own leverage. The EU doesn't really have to budge. Yeah, it will be uncomfortable and even unpleasant for countries that are exposed to the 'front line' of Brexit, but I suspect we'll cope and get on with it.

I'm of the view that Ireland can't really trust the UK either. They are quite prepared to say one thing and do something entirely different or just conveniently forget everything they agreed to. Sadly, I think you are dealing with an era of politics that has thrived on nothing but manipulative spin and very little substance. They think they can take that model into international treaty negotiations and they're getting an unpleasant wakeup call.

We would really be crazy to tie ourselves to that sinking ship. The UK is a nice place and it may well snap out of this in a decade's time but in the interim, we are far better off to shelter from this crazy.

Ireland's major strength here is that we are the very familiar safe haven of sanity. It's going to cost us money in other parts of our economy and we need to be getting prepared to look at all sorts of strategies to avoid painful adjustments.

LeinsterDub

The Dutch government has activated a no-deal Brexit customs plan which will see it hire hundreds of new customs agents to deal with new trade barriers after Brexit.

Dutch finance minister, Menno Snel, said "divisions within the British Conservative Party" and "lack of clarity" from the UK government meant a no-deal Brexit is possible.

It's quite difficult to disagree with this assessment
http://uk.businessinsider.com/netherlands-will-need-up-to-930-customs-agents-to-cope-with-brexit-say-mps-2018-2

Skedaddle

Well, NL is extremely pragmatic and isn't going to be caught off guard.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, the point being that Ireland will continue to be held against those standards. There is nothing wrong with challenging, but when the outcome comes you need to respect and implement it.

It wasn't though, was it?

It was a simple snide attempt to paint the British government as untrustworthy, when the actual facts show something far different.

Skedaddle wrote: »

Well, NL is extremely pragmatic and isn't going to be caught off guard.

and it has a ****ing great big port which is the gateway to europe, so they appreciate that whatever happens, changes will need to be made if that is to continue to be the main trade route in to the UK.

Skedaddle

You really have to wonder about a country that has actually had to send a minister to a major international conference to explain that they're not going to be a "Mad Max dystopia" in a few years time.
The very fact that someone has to reassure people that it is unlikely to be the case speaks volumes!

demfad

DD latest speech tries to imply 'equivalance' is the same as 'harmonisation'. EU uses 'harmonisation'. End of story.

The UK government hasn't fully understood the implications of rolling over the EUs external trade deals for the transition either. These trade deals have tough country of origin rules. This rules were put in place mainly to prevent Asian companies setting up in the EU importing mainly a majority of its raw materials/components and then trading as if inside the EU while also benefitiing from these external trade deals.
For example, on average cars exporting under these trade deals must have 55% of it's parts made in the EU. If the UK leaves the EU and cuts and pastes this deal this 55% would apply to 'UK' components. UK cars average only 45% UK parts.
If the trade deal rolls over that would mean the external countries would now retain free trade with the UK, but the UK would be stuck with high tarrifs on these products. This is very bad news as the UK imports a lot of its raw materials and components.
To get around this you can have 'accumulated country of origin' where EU made components would count as if from the UK.
This would have to be negotiated with the third country both by the UK and EU. The third country would at best use this leverage to get something, at worst refuse if not in their interest. No motive for EU to help them out of thsi pickle for each deal.
The normally ultra reserved Japanese ambassador to the UK put it this way:

“If there is no profitability of continuing operations in the U.K. — not Japanese only — no private company can continue operations” —

https://www.politico.eu/article/localization-barrier-risks-to-spoil-britains-free-trade-hopes/

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

You really have to wonder about a country that has actually had to send a minister to a major international conference to explain that they're not going to be a "Mad Max dystopia" in a few years time.
The very fact that someone has to reassure people that it is unlikely to be the case speaks volumes!

These speeches are cringeworthy. In no way are they aimed at or designed for an EU audience. Not one person in Austria is more informed or persuaded about Britain's Brexit objectives after Davis's 'speech'. They are designed to give the Tory press some headline fodder. In reality, it's deluded and disingenuous blather to cover the fact that they have no plan.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

It wasn't though, was it?

It was a simple snide attempt to paint the British government as untrustworthy, when the actual facts show something far different.

It was being discussed in the light of whether the UK would continue to hold alignment, and people had highlighted that they shouldn't be trusted.

You countered that Ireland was brought to court over the same thing, more times than the UK.

The key difference is that the UK will no longer be part of the EU and thus outside of the power of the EU to hold it to account.

Aegir wrote: »

and it has a ****ing great big port which is the gateway to europe, so they appreciate that whatever happens, changes will need to be made if that is to continue to be the main trade route in to the UK.

Luckily UK isn't an set of islands with the vast majority of its trade undertaken voa ports. There is simply no need for them to prepare for the very outcome they are threatening everyone else with.

Nody

Aegir wrote: »

It wasn't though, was it?

It was a simple snide attempt to paint the British government as untrustworthy, when the actual facts show something far different.

The UK government is untrustworthy as shown by their own actions and the push by EU to ensure phase 1 is documented as they decided they could renegade on it the day after. This is beyond the shambles they have done of the "negotiations" so far and the utter failure May has been as a PM to get her government to even march in some general similar direction let alone have a formulated plan and opinion on Brexit.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

you didn't respond to me first point.

Is this completely unrelated to the inability of the Northern Ireland power sharing executive to form a working government?

What of it? That would make no difference to my point, which is the irony of the situation.

Still, since you ask. It's not completely unconnected, obviously. It's easier to attack the GFA when the executive is not functioning.

On the other hand, we can turn your question around. Is the simultaneous attack on the GFA by several prominent Brexiters completely unrelated to the nine mentions the GFA gets in the Phase 1 Agreement, and the current focus on getting the UK to enter into a legally binding version of the commitment it made in that agreement to support and protect the GFA? The paralysis of the executive has been ongoing for over a year, after all. And it doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the three brexiters, in their reflections on the GFA, to consider whether the continuing paralysis might have anything to do with the advantageous position that the DUP currently have through their influence over the Tory government, because of the deal between them. No, they just conclude that the GFA has failed. Which is a highly convenient conclusion for an ultra-Brexiter to reach.

Aegir wrote: »

Just because someone supports Brexit, it doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on Northern Ireland, especially when they have a direct interest in what goes on there.

Indeed. But we must be open to the possibility that their opinion on Northern Ireland, and in particular their attitude to the GFA, has been influenced by, even subordinated to, their position on Brexit. Which is precisely the danger the Prime Minister was warning of, even if she was looking in the wrong direction when she issued the warning.

Havockk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Headline on English Independent:

"Give us total access to your markets without your regulations, Davis tells EU"

:pac:

My god, they really are totally delusional. Were we not to have clarity after this round of speeches? I've heard nothing new, and watching Davis deliver that today, it was seemed clear to me he didn't even believe his own words.

Skedaddle

Havockk wrote: »

My god, they really are totally delusional. Were we not to have clarity after this round of speeches? I've heard nothing new, and watching Davis deliver that today, it was seemed clear to me he didn't even believe his own words.

It's becoming an endless series of false dawns.
We keep hearing that this next speech will bring clarity and then it's the same bunch of old waffle delivered.
It's actually getting to the point that it's nearly an insult to the intelligence of the intended audience, which I can only assume to be the EU and governments of the 27 countries that make it up.

Leroy42

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's becoming an endless series of false dawns.
We keep hearing that this next speech will bring clarity and then it's the same bunch of old waffle delivered.
It's actually getting to the point that it's nearly an insult to the intelligence of the intended audience, which I can only assume to be the EU and governments of the 27 countries that make it up.

But again, why? I understand they are predominately talking to the home audience, but surely the only people that want to hear this is Hard Brexiteers and that must run the risk of then anything less than a hard brexit will be seen as climbdown.

So if not them, then who and what purpose?

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's becoming an endless series of false dawns.
We keep hearing that this next speech will bring clarity and then it's the same bunch of old waffle delivered.
It's actually getting to the point that it's nearly an insult to the intelligence of the intended audience, which I can only assume to be the EU and governments of the 27 countries that make it up.

But again, why? I understand they are predominately talking to the home audience, but surely the only people that want to hear this is Hard Brexiteers and that must run the risk of then anything less than a hard brexit will be seen as climbdown.

So if not them, then who and what purpose?

This nonsense is aimed only at a home audience. You'd like to hope that someone is talking more sensibly to the EU off camera but I wouldn't bet on it.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

This nonsense is aimed only at a home audience. You'd like to hope that someone is talking more sensibly to the EU off camera but I wouldn't bet on it.

Yeah, but to what end. They can't honestly think that the EU is going to give in to the demands they are making, I mean it is completely hypocritical for a start (we wan't to take back control, so we need you to give up control).

They keep saying what they really want is for everything to stay the same, but then are the ones that are changing everything. It is totally baffling to me.

If they want a hard Brexit, then why wait around for it, why go through the embarrassment that was the end of Phase 1 talks? Why bother to sign up to an agreement they had no intention of sticking to?

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

This nonsense is aimed only at a home audience. You'd like to hope that someone is talking more sensibly to the EU off camera but I wouldn't bet on it.

Yeah, but to what end. They can't honestly think that the EU is going to give in to the demands they are making, I mean it is completely hypocritical for a start (we wan't to take back control, so we need you to give up control).

They keep saying what they really want is for everything to stay the same, but then are the ones that are changing everything. It is totally baffling to me.

If they want a hard Brexit, then why wait around for it, why go through the embarrassment that was the end of Phase 1 talks? Why bother to sign up to an agreement they had no intention of sticking to?

They are making it up as they go along. I wouldn't bother trying to read anything resembling a plan or strategy into it.

strandroad

Leroy42 wrote: »

They keep saying what they really want is for everything to stay the same, but then are the ones that are changing everything. It is totally baffling to me.

If they want a hard Brexit, then why wait around for it, why go through the embarrassment that was the end of Phase 1 talks? Why bother to sign up to an agreement they had no intention of sticking to?

Optics. "We wanted to bring you cake, but all they gave us was a rotten Canada deal. It's a hard Brexit then, but it's the EU's fault, so you can blame them for the experience. Remember that we wanted, and deserved, cake."

The more they talk about cake, the more I see hard Brexit as their end game.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, but to what end. They can't honestly think that the EU is going to give in to the demands they are making, I mean it is completely hypocritical for a start (we wan't to take back control, so we need you to give up control).

They keep saying what they really want is for everything to stay the same, but then are the ones that are changing everything. It is totally baffling to me.

If they want a hard Brexit, then why wait around for it, why go through the embarrassment that was the end of Phase 1 talks? Why bother to sign up to an agreement they had no intention of sticking to?

People wanted the government to lay out what it wants. It is doing that.

It’s a negotiation, you don’t start any negotiation at your final offer do you?

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

People wanted the government to lay out what it wants. It is doing that.

It’s a negotiation, you don’t start any negotiation at your final offer do you?

Right, I get they are saying what they want, even though they already know that they can't get it. So why bother to restate it? People are looking for, and the government stated that they would, provide clarity on what Brexit would mean but that is not what they are doing at all.

They are simply telling everyone what they already know, that the UK wants the EU redesigned on the basis of they way they want it.

Who are they talking to in these speeches? Is it the EU? I don't think so as the EU has already made it clear that none of these positions are available. Would you continue to go back to a negotiation when the other party just kept going back to the start?

Is it the home audience? More likely, but why continually state the perfect when the likelihood is you won't get it and thus come out looking like you caved?

People keep mentioning this line of start of negotiations. In case you missed it, they started ages ago and in fact the UK have already agreed to a significant part of the issues.

EU want to talk about Phase 2 whilst the UK want to restart the talks at Phase 1.

We have now had a number of speeches from senior government ministers in the last few days. Can you honestly say that you have learned anything new?

If you believe your line that you don't start negotiations by giving your end game, then what is the point of these public comments? Why not simply go into the discussions? And why, if they want to hold their cards so close to their chest, did May outline a number of Red Lines right for the start? Isn't that giving away your position?

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

People wanted the government to lay out what it wants. It is doing that.

Boris Johnson says the UK wants a future with less regulation; David Davis says the UK wants a future with more, tougher regulation.

How is that laying out what it wants, and how can the UK itself having two polar opposite desires be the start of a negotiating process?

Infini

CelticRambler wrote: »

Boris Johnson says the UK wants a future with less regulation; David Davis says the UK wants a future with more, tougher regulation.

How is that laying out what it wants, and how can the UK itself having two polar opposite desires be the start of a negotiating process?

To be honest I wouldnt be suprised if theyre not even bothered to negotiate and that this is all stalling tactics to run down the clock. The Brexiteers have no coherent argument or intelligence theyre from the cut as the DUPs never never brigade. Problem is theres gonna be a reckoning for these fools and what may be left at the end is a rump of England. Ive no doubt there will be a hard brexit if they dont abort this and when there is Scotland will nope the hell out of this mess very quickly. As for NI it would most likely be an United Ireland as the end result. Economics trump Nationalistic reasons and if NI gets hit hard in a Hard Brexit the arguments for a United Ireland would get far stronger as its an out for the region from the conservatives stupidity.

Water John

I said two weeks ago to let them make their speeches and hopefully we would have progress and clarity.
I think we have got the clarity but no progress. EU now knows that and will go really hardball and should.

The clarity is, they haven't a clue.

swampgas

Aegir wrote: »

People wanted the government to lay out what it wants. It is doing that.

It’s a negotiation, you don’t start any negotiation at your final offer do you?

Yeah, but they're not even negotiating. A negotiation starts with a clear indication that you want X and you are prepared to pay Y for it. And X and Y have to be somewhat realistic or the other person can't engage.

Once an initial position is established the haggling can go on from there.

But the UK can't even do that very minimal thing. What we should be hearing by now is that the UK and EU are agreed on a,b,c,d,e,f, and g, but there are disgreements over h and i, and j. At least that way both sides know where the other is coming from and can work towards an agreement.

Ultimately, I have to conclude that a lot of the key players on the UK side don't really care about getting a deal, or else they have decided that a deal simply isn't possible, and they're too craven to admit it.

PeadarCo

CelticRambler wrote:

How is that laying out what it wants, and how can the UK itself having two polar opposite desires be the start of a negotiating process?

The UK government doesn't know what it wants. Any coherent negotiation(hard/soft) position would cause a serious break in the Conservative party and would impact Labour as well as they would have to take a position. In the short term it suits everyone that they don't have a position. It means Brexit can mean what ever anyone wants. So they don't have to make a choice between dealing with hard brexiters and any business that would actually have to deal with the implications of a hard brexit.

Econ_

I can’t link but go check out the ERG letter that was sent to May.

Leaked tonight.

It’s disgusting.

Nody

Econ_ wrote: »

I can’t link but go check out the ERG letter that was sent to May.

Leaked tonight.

It’s disgusting.

It's a hard brexit standard view; UK is equal to EU (nope), we should trade globally from day 1 (hard brexit), we should be able to ignore what we agreed to in phase 1 (hard brexit) and the implementation period should be on WTO terms (hard brexit and there are no WTO terms until the European volumes are split and agreed so good luck with that one).

ancapailldorcha

Econ_ wrote: »

I can’t link but go check out the ERG letter that was sent to May.

Leaked tonight.

It’s disgusting.

This is it (Source):



Some predicatble names including Jenkin, Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Bone, Davies and Duncan Smith.

Anthracite

PeadarCo wrote: »

In the short term it suits everyone that they don't have a position. It means Brexit can mean what ever anyone wants.

This is a great point.

People voted Brexit for myriad reasons. An obvious example is that some are opposed to the EU because it is too socialist (the far right of the Tory party) and some because it is too business oriented (Corbyn and his like).

Some wanted more immigration from outside the EU (e.g. the Indian community) and some wanted less (the BNP types).

There are any number of these binary oppositions in the Brexit fanbase. And all these positions added up to 52% of the voters on the day. But the obvious fact is that there is no Brexit Britain that will meet the requirements of all these diametrically opposed positions - therefore a certain proportion, a large proportion, of Brexit voters are going to find themselves in a Britain that's even further from what they wanted than before the vote.

I think Britain is heading for some turbulent years.

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

People wanted the government to lay out what it wants. It is doing that.

It’s a negotiation, you don’t start any negotiation at your final offer do you?

Politics is the art of the possible
- some foreigner

The EU set out it's stall a long time ago.

The working time directive and the ECJ and Four Freedoms weren't dreamt up the night before. Nor were the terms and conditions offered to Turkey , the Swiss, EFTA , Japan or the trade deals with lots of others. The passport thing was advisory.

And as every dog on the street knows, getting 30+ national and regional governments to agree on something isn't quick or easy. Especially when it's impossible to offer the UK any special terms that aren't offered to all third parties who already have similar deals.

The opt-outs given to the UK and some other countries aren't offered to new members either.


So the UK by triggering Article 50 knew, or should have known exactly what it was getting itself into , or out of.

Especially with regard to services.

Hurrache

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is it ......

Some predicatble names including Jenkin, Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Bone, Davies and Duncan Smith.

First comment in that article being

Trying to placate the Eu and act rationally has failed.... now is the time to start to assert our superior position

which was rightly rounded upon.

ancapailldorcha

Hurrache wrote: »

First comment in that article being

which was right rounded upon.

Yeah, I'm no fan of Guido Fawkes but this snippet is probably accurate.

Econ_

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Some predicatble names including Jenkin, Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Bone, Davies and Duncan Smith.

Penned by Rees-Mogg himself I’m sure. I can hear his 1800’s Victorian voice as I read it.

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here's an insight into why there's no reasoning with True Believer,
...
Post referendum, he can't get the EU immigrant staff to pick all his fruit, but says that the UK can solve the problem by finding cheap immigrant labour from outside the EU.

WTF?

Brexit means all things to all men.

It means all immigration will be blocked.
It means a flood of cheap labour from poor countries who won't have workers rights.

It means taking back control from the EU
And handing it over to the US and China and anywhere else they want to trade with , like the main trading partner which of course is the EU.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK government doesn't know what it wants. Any coherent negotiation(hard/soft) position would cause a serious break in the Conservative party and would impact Labour as well as they would have to take a position. In the short term it suits everyone that they don't have a position. It means Brexit can mean what ever anyone wants. So they don't have to make a choice between dealing with hard brexiters and any business that would actually have to deal with the implications of a hard brexit.

Any deal put before parliament at this stage is doomed to fail. You have a third that wants to stay, a third that wants to leave fully and a third that wants the CU.

It is an impossible situation, a cabinet split the same way, except the third that wants to stay are having to push for something they don’t really believe in, but are probably the most realistic of the lot and need to be there to stop even more crazy stuff happening.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Politics is the art of the possible
- some foreigner

The EU set out it's stall a long time ago.

The working time directive and the ECJ and Four Freedoms weren't dreamt up the night before. Nor were the terms and conditions offered to Turkey , the Swiss, EFTA , Japan or the trade deals with lots of others. The passport thing was advisory.

And as every dog on the street knows, getting 30+ national and regional governments to agree on something isn't quick or easy. Especially when it's impossible to offer the UK any special terms that aren't offered to all third parties who already have similar deals.

The opt-outs given to the UK and some other countries aren't offered to new members either.


So the UK by triggering Article 50 knew, or should have known exactly what it was getting itself into , or out of.

Especially with regard to services.

Out of curiosity, what was the Turkey deal based on, or the Swiss and Canadian ones?

Youngpensioner

Hmmm

ancapailldorcha

Youngpensioner wrote: »

Hmmm

Mod: This is not constructive. Serious discussion only please.

ArmaniJeanss

Kind of astonishing that 60 MPs actually consider the Lancaster House speech to be something that needs to be stuck to - it was a fairly mad speech and I'd assumed it was generally accepted that it was an extreme initial negotiating position that would be watered down. I'm obviously wrong.

Also noteworthy that 60 names is above what's needed (48) to spark a leadership election, there's a definite 'warning shot across the bows' about it.

PeadarCo

Aegir wrote:

Any deal put before parliament at this stage is doomed to fail. You have a third that wants to stay, a third that wants to leave fully and a third that wants the CU.

Aegir wrote:

It is an impossible situation, a cabinet split the same way, except the third that wants to stay are having to push for something they don’t really believe in, but are probably the most realistic of the lot and need to be there to stop even more crazy stuff happening.

I'd agree with you. From what I can see it's a very good summation of the situation. The problem is it needs to be resolved and the debate should have happened before article 50 was triggered and some sort of resulting got. It's the worst situation. Unless it gets resolved either the UK takes whatever is offered by the EU or has a hard brexit that it's not prepared for. Which benefits no one. Even though I think brexit especially a hard brexit is a stupid idea, a UK government that was fully committed to a hard brexit and was in the process of making the necessary preparations would be far preferable to what is currently in place.

Water John

Corbyn says the UK should be in, a CU with the EU. This would solve the NI border.
I think we all know such a Joint CU would simply mirror the EUs CU.

It's obvious the Red Top owners are getting worried about him. Going for the very old red smear.

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

Corbyn says the UK should be in, a CU with the EU. This would solve the NI border.
I think we all know such a Joint CU would simply mirror the EUs CU.

It's obvious the Red Top owners are getting worried about him. Going for the very old red smear.

Corbyn's another one who doesn't know what he wants. The difference is that he can just sit by the sidelines and criticise while doing absolutely nothing knowing that any mistakes from the Conservatives just bring him that bit closer to number 10.

That said, his mainly young base of fans and activists are in for a shock if they think he's going to stay in the single market/customs union.