Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
Obviously not.
To pick an obvious example, the text we have covers Gibraltar:
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
???? Britain will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals during the transition period Gibraltar explicitly in the deal International agreements / EU trade deals to continue during transition joint committee to make sure both sides act in good faith during transition death of EU’s punishment clause agreement on financial settlement locked in ???
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
Not according to that arch remainer, Faisal Islam, who says both sides compromised
Once again May surprises on the upside. After a speech which pointed to a soft Brexit but to which she got pretty much everyone signed up she now has a transition deal which is even softer. Once again, so far, everyone is on board. Remarkable.
For 21 months we're going to become a vassal state.
That's going to be a hard sell to the ERG lot.
The name always puzzles me, what research have they actually done into europe ?
I thought the "R" was for Reform, and it seems I'm not the only one to have made that mistake
There was previously a different ERG going back to the early 80s where the R did mean reform. The current ERG was created in the 90s out of the Maastricht rebellion and was mainly a vehicle for Daniel Hannan's propaganda.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
???? Britain will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals during the transition period Gibraltar explicitly in the deal International agreements / EU trade deals to continue during transition joint committee to make sure both sides act in good faith during transition death of EU’s punishment clause agreement on financial settlement locked in ???
Agreed but the punishment clause is still there - but not yet agreed
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
That's obviously not the case. As with the deal agreed a few months ago.
For 21 months we're going to become a vassal state.
That's going to be a hard sell to the ERG lot.
I don't know - I think they might buy it.
The pitch will be: 21 months of vassal state and then freedom. Or continued vassal state in the EU.
That would have to be how the government sells it to them (whether this 'vassal' state talk is fair I have yet to determine, but we know from the initial reactions that will be a perception), although that depends if they even accept extended transition as a price worth paying. There are people who want a crash out of course, so its how many are in that category, as nothing will satisfy those people short of that.
Arguably the arch remainer/rejoiners should be hoping for a crash out. Best chance of a speedy re-entry I would have thought.
A transition period where things stay the same but no influence isn't going to inspire anyone to a second referendum.
I think there are people hoping for a crash out on both sides, for very different reasons. I'd have thought a remainer like Soubry though would find it harder to justify rebellion on an EU heavy transition deal than the hard brexiters would. So how upset will a one sided deal make them, and can they sway anyone who doesn't want a hard brexit but thinks this deal would be too bad to stomach?
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
???? Britain will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals during the transition period Gibraltar explicitly in the deal International agreements / EU trade deals to continue during transition joint committee to make sure both sides act in good faith during transition death of EU’s punishment clause agreement on financial settlement locked in ???
Once again May surprises on the upside. After a speech which pointed to a soft Brexit but to which she got pretty much everyone signed up she now has a transition deal which is even softer. Once again, so far, everyone is on board. Remarkable.
There has been a hell of a lot of projection, from all sides, during the running commentary from people who supposedly know what they are talking about. We could have safely ignored all of it.
Stupidity. It's been going on a couple of weeks, the idea that the opposition and media will go easy on the government because of this is moronic. Corbyn won't stop hammering the government about the NHS, nor will the media stop reporting about it, nor should they.
I love the caption on the photo though:
Theresa May’s gravest deception is to pretend she has all the answers
Isn't that a deception peddled by all parties and pundits since the dawn of time? Even when they say they don't have all the answers, they still proffer one, which is to vote for them.
Also:
Corbyn’s faithful fear that the potential deaths of MI6 double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia – or any one else in Salisbury who came into contact with the nerve agent – would fuel the cries for a tough response against Moscow.
Why would his faithful fear this? He accepts is was probably Moscow, officially, and if someone were to die a tough response would be the very opposite of overreacting!
"Theresa May’s gravest deception is to pretend she has all the answers"
A very odd sentiment. I would say May's problem might well be the exact opposite. She avoids taking decisions because she doesn't know the answer. This ends in dithering or phoning Nick Timothy.
For 21 months we're going to become a vassal state.
That's going to be a hard sell to the ERG lot.
I don't know - I think they might buy it.
The pitch will be: 21 months of vassal state and then freedom. Or continued vassal state in the EU.
That would have to be how the government sells it to them (whether this 'vassal' state talk is fair I have yet to determine, but we know from the initial reactions that will be a perception), although that depends if they even accept extended transition as a price worth paying. There are people who want a crash out of course, so its how many are in that category, as nothing will satisfy those people short of that.
Arguably the arch remainer/rejoiners should be hoping for a crash out. Best chance of a speedy re-entry I would have thought.
A transition period where things stay the same but no influence isn't going to inspire anyone to a second referendum.
As a businessperson I simply want the least damaging settlement for the longest period. So an extra two years is a decent solution, at least for now.
Yes - I agree. An extra 2 years is surely the best thing. Despite wanting us to remain/rejoin I don't honestly want the disruption that people expect from crashing out.
The brexiteers and neobrexiteers aren't going to like this package much.
We remain in the Single Market for all intents and purposes until Christmas 2020. NI could remain indefinitely.
I've not seen 'neobrexiteers' before - who are the neobrexiteers?
They're the ones who switched from Remain to Leave when Theresa took over, sniffing where the new power resided.
a.k.a., democrats.
Not so – it's not undemocratic to hold to your principles just because they suffered a narrow defeat in a referendum. Would these types suddenly become pro-hanging were the policy approved by 51% of the electorate? Actually, they probably would.
If they don't feel particularly strongly about it, as is sometimes said of Corbyn, then going with the democratic flow is not a dishonourable decision. If they think it would be a disaster and they do, that might be. If the think it suboptimal but go ahead because of the democratic decision, that is also not dishonourable, necessarily (it would depend on if they became as fervent as a Brexiteer without stating why they were wrong before I suppose).
It's not wholly inconsistent. The Third Reich also took a hard line on Russia.
Eventually!
It was always part of the plan. Indeed, it was always the key to the plan. Those who say that Hitler made a mistake in invading the Soviet Union miss the point that the attack was absolutely intrinsic to the nature of Nazism.
Quite. but the late Adolf took a while in getting round to it. Though I suspect that if Britain and France hadn’t intervened to ‘help’ Poland the Germas might well have crashed on further East. Is there a counter-factual anywhere where that happened?
He launched a full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union with over 150 divisions, only eight-and-a-half years after coming to power in a country that was still prevented by international treaty from developing offensive armed forces, having in between taken on and defeated or neutralised the threat from every other country on the continent. I'm not sure how he could reasonably have attacked the Soviets any earlier. An attack later in 1940 wasn't logistically on, and while he could have prompted a war starting in 1938, he would still have had to have defeated (at the minimum) France, the low countries and Norway first - and done so with a country not psychologically ready for war.
I'm not sure not guaranteeing Poland was ever a meaningful option for Britain or France, after the fall of Prague. To have not done so - or to have renagued on it - would have been to give a green light to Hitler's occupation of all of Eastern Europe, right down to Greece, which would have directly threatened the Suez Canal.
We still don't know if on January 1st 2021 we're headed for a cliff edge or a decent deal with the EU.
If the 21 months of vassal statehood are needed to obtain the latter Mrs May should be able to sell that to the country.
True. Before we get carried away, all this is just about getting Theresa out of the brown stuff after she invoked Article 50 too quickly. Still, at least it goes some way to neutering the Brexit suicide squad.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
For 21 months we're going to become a vassal state.
That's going to be a hard sell to the ERG lot.
I don't know - I think they might buy it.
The pitch will be: 21 months of vassal state and then freedom. Or continued vassal state in the EU.
That would have to be how the government sells it to them (whether this 'vassal' state talk is fair I have yet to determine, but we know from the initial reactions that will be a perception), although that depends if they even accept extended transition as a price worth paying. There are people who want a crash out of course, so its how many are in that category, as nothing will satisfy those people short of that.
Arguably the arch remainer/rejoiners should be hoping for a crash out. Best chance of a speedy re-entry I would have thought.
A transition period where things stay the same but no influence isn't going to inspire anyone to a second referendum.
As a businessperson I simply want the least damaging settlement for the longest period. So an extra two years is a decent solution, at least for now.
Yes - I agree. An extra 2 years is surely the best thing. Despite wanting us to remain/rejoin I don't honestly want the disruption that people expect from crashing out.
Agreed. My fears were that the more extreme wings of brexiteer/neobrexiteer would pay any price to leave the EU – yet the government appears to differ from that extreme position, as evidenced by today's package in which they have (wisely) conceded on pretty much every single point.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
If you say so. It was said during the last announcement last year too, though there was some good annotated analysis I recall which showed how we had secured 'wins', though the EU ahd secured more, and Dr Palmer is always advising that for all the froth it is a negotiation and there are fudges, even as more ardent EUphiles say things are only ever one way.
Transition - or “implementation”, to use May’s disingenuous phrase - was always about ticking the box called Brexit while changing absolutely nothing.
That was obvious quite early on. And it’s not even about the relative strength of negotiating ability - there was really no other alternative given the respective red lines.
The U.K. made a series of demands for degrees of variance during transition - quite publicly - about migration, about fisheries, etc - all of which it has had to retract. As predicted by many on here.
The “achievement” here is for May to have sold this into Johnson, Gove, and Rees-Mogg - all of whom were denouncing what we have now ended up agreeing, just a few short months ago.
It’s a disgraceful place for the U.K. to be - even for less than two years - but it at least moderates the economic hit for a period.
Another landmark day on our path to exiting the EU. The government has had a pretty good start to 2018.
I don't think anyone is saying the vote should be ignored. But put it another way: another extension of the time we remain to all intents and purposes, within the EU*. I mean if we really, really wanted to leave why didn't we leave on March 2019?
*A pretty sub-standard membership, of course, but membership nevertheless.
Stupidity. It's been going on a couple of weeks, the idea that the opposition and media will go easy on the government because of this is moronic. Corbyn won't stop hammering the government about the NHS, nor will the media stop reporting about it, nor should they.
I love the caption on the photo though:
Theresa May’s gravest deception is to pretend she has all the answers
Isn't that a deception peddled by all parties and pundits since the dawn of time? Even when they say they don't have all the answers, they still proffer one, which is to vote for them.
Also:
Corbyn’s faithful fear that the potential deaths of MI6 double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia – or any one else in Salisbury who came into contact with the nerve agent – would fuel the cries for a tough response against Moscow.
Why would his faithful fear this? He accepts is was probably Moscow, officially, and if someone were to die a tough response would be the very opposite of overreacting!
"Theresa May’s gravest deception is to pretend she has all the answers"
A very odd sentiment. I would say May's problem might well be the exact opposite. She avoids taking decisions because she doesn't know the answer. This ends in dithering or phoning Nick Timothy.
Reading the rest of the piece they may mean it more specifically in relation to the Salisbury event, but that's contradicted in any case by the acknowledgement May didn't pretend she had all the answers in her statement (in not outright stating the only possibility was Putin).
It does seem though that some of these Corbyn defending pieces seem to be arguing from a position that it was wrong to suggest it was highly likely to be the russians and that the government is only saying so as a distraction, and well done him for saying so, when his position is now not that.
He said: “The evidence points towards Russia on this, therefore responsibility must be borne by those that made the weapon, those that brought the weapon into the country and those that used the weapon.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
I’m talking about transition. You know, the news we just heard about?
Once again May surprises on the upside. After a speech which pointed to a soft Brexit but to which she got pretty much everyone signed up she now has a transition deal which is even softer. Once again, so far, everyone is on board. Remarkable.
It seems we are heading for a deal which reflects the 52/48 split in the referendum and the reality of the more recent GE result. I am content with this and I suspect the least happy will be the more rebid leavers/remainers on both sides. In addition I doubt if Jeremy Corbyn will be overly pleased. AIAWNTL!
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
Unless something changes by then. (Nearly) three years is a long time in politics.
In all honesty I think she waited as long as she could, politically. If we had come up on a year and still hadn't declared, i think she would have faced trouble. The less reasonable thing was that even as of this year apparently the cabinet had not agreed key stances to adopt, and of course that she declared, and then had a GE, when many people *cough*me*cough* thought she would not be so silly as to take away several months of negotiation time by holding a GE after declaring.
Wasn't that one of the problems with the Nimrod MRA4 - they were not identical, making modifications difficult?
That was fucked in a different way. All of the donor MR.2s were built on concrete jigs but six of them were built on the jig that wasn't square. The wing kit didn't fit the first donor (XV234) but the rest went on using the age old 'fettle to fit' techniques of the British aircraft industry.
It was all the fault of the rainbow trousered train fancier Portillo.
Stupidity. It's been going on a couple of weeks, the idea that the opposition and media will go easy on the government because of this is moronic. Corbyn won't stop hammering the government about the NHS, nor will the media stop reporting about it, nor should they.
I love the caption on the photo though:
Theresa May’s gravest deception is to pretend she has all the answers
Isn't that a deception peddled by all parties and pundits since the dawn of time? Even when they say they don't have all the answers, they still proffer one, which is to vote for them.
Also:
Corbyn’s faithful fear that the potential deaths of MI6 double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia – or any one else in Salisbury who came into contact with the nerve agent – would fuel the cries for a tough response against Moscow.
Why would his faithful fear this? He accepts is was probably Moscow, officially, and if someone were to die a tough response would be the very opposite of overreacting!
"Theresa May’s gravest deception is to pretend she has all the answers"
A very odd sentiment. I would say May's problem might well be the exact opposite. She avoids taking decisions because she doesn't know the answer. This ends in dithering or phoning Nick Timothy.
Reading the rest of the piece they may mean it more specifically in relation to the Salisbury event, but that's contradicted in any case by the acknowledgement May didn't pretend she had all the answers in her statement (in not outright stating the only possibility was Putin).
It does seem though that some of these Corbyn defending pieces seem to be arguing from a position that it was wrong to suggest it was highly likely to be the russians and that the government is only saying so as a distraction, and well done him for saying so, when his position is now not that.
He said: “The evidence points towards Russia on this, therefore responsibility must be borne by those that made the weapon, those that brought the weapon into the country and those that used the weapon.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when McD marched into Corbyn's office to have it out with him and Seamus over their attempt to throw the next GE so early in the parliament...
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
???? Britain will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals during the transition period Gibraltar explicitly in the deal International agreements / EU trade deals to continue during transition joint committee to make sure both sides act in good faith during transition death of EU’s punishment clause agreement on financial settlement locked in ???
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
Given Guido has been a firm proponent that 'the only true brexit is a hard brexit', if he was relatively on board perhaps not too many hard brexiters will be willing to bring the house crashing down.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Once again May surprises on the upside. After a speech which pointed to a soft Brexit but to which she got pretty much everyone signed up she now has a transition deal which is even softer. Once again, so far, everyone is on board. Remarkable.
It seems we are heading for a deal which reflects the 52/48 split in the referendum and the reality of the more recent GE result. I am content with this and I suspect the least happy will be the more rebid leavers/remainers on both sides. In addition I doubt if Jeremy Corbyn will be overly pleased. AIAWNTL!
No it doesn’t. I’m sure very few would have voted for taxation without representation.
What’s been taken off the table today is a full WTO crash out, that’s good. But to do so, we’ve had to agree to follow someone else’s rules - rules which may change - for a few years.
Quite unparalleled in diplomatic history for this country.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
I’m talking about transition. You know, the news we just heard about?
Jeez.
When has May ever said we will not have a transition? That transition will still end well before the next general election is due
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
I’m talking about transition. You know, the news we just heard about?
Jeez.
When has May ever said we will not have a transition? That transition will still end well before the next general election is due
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
First there were no concessions.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Crow was referring to his experiences among the bruisers of the RMT. This is a an incredibly weak Tory administration we are talking about – exactly the sort of wet timewasters Crow ate for breakfast on a daily basis.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
I’m talking about transition. You know, the news we just heard about?
Jeez.
When has May ever said we will not have a transition? That transition will still end well before the next general election is due
The transition deal itself is a compromise. It is not mandatory to the process of leaving the EU; we could have decided to leave in March 2019. What is agreed in the transition deal is always going to be out of our hands and at the largesse of the EU.
And as I have noted earlier, every day of a transition deal is a risk to the government, and to Brexit. Moreso given the nature of the deal as negotiated which is, as @Gardenwalker has noted, taxation without representation and no great way to argue you have benefited the country on the stump at the next GE.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
I’m talking about transition. You know, the news we just heard about?
Jeez.
When has May ever said we will not have a transition? That transition will still end well before the next general election is due
You’re not make any sense. Even less than usual.
It is not that difficult.
We have a transition until the end of December 2020 then we are out in terms of key factors like ending free movement etc, as has always been the case
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
First there were no concessions.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
I’m talking about transition. You know, the news we just heard about?
Jeez.
When has May ever said we will not have a transition? That transition will still end well before the next general election is due
The transition deal itself is a compromise. It is not mandatory to the process of leaving the EU; we could have decided to leave in March 2019. What is agreed in the transition deal is always going to be out of our hands and at the largesse of the EU.
And as I have noted earlier, every day of a transition deal is a risk to the government, and to Brexit. Moreso given the nature of the deal as negotiated which is, as @Gardenwalker has noted, taxation without representation and no great way to argue you have benefited the country on the stump at the next GE.
No as the transition period will end well before 2022, the date the next general election is due
Doesn’t sound terribly acceptable. All we have done is sign up to a full-vassal transition.
Taxation without representation.
How is that acceptable? Having zero say about what goes on in the UK's own waters?
Rob, don't buy the Europhile spin.
Quotas will be kept the same, or at least very similar, for the transition period. The UK will have to wait for "control". Sure, it will sign that away again, or at least some of it, for UK vessels' access to EU waters.
I suppose the UK's concessions aren't all that bad if that is the case, and are temporary in nature. They even managed to wrangle Gibraltar into the deal!
You must have very low expectations. The U.K. has caved on every front. Every single one.
No, cone 2021 free movement will end and we will be out of the single market
I’m talking about transition. You know, the news we just heard about?
Jeez.
When has May ever said we will not have a transition? That transition will still end well before the next general election is due
The transition deal itself is a compromise. It is not mandatory to the process of leaving the EU; we could have decided to leave in March 2019. What is agreed in the transition deal is always going to be out of our hands and at the largesse of the EU.
And as I have noted earlier, every day of a transition deal is a risk to the government, and to Brexit. Moreso given the nature of the deal as negotiated which is, as @Gardenwalker has noted, taxation without representation and no great way to argue you have benefited the country on the stump at the next GE.
No as the transition period will end well before 2022, the date the next general election is due
Once again May surprises on the upside. After a speech which pointed to a soft Brexit but to which she got pretty much everyone signed up she now has a transition deal which is even softer. Once again, so far, everyone is on board. Remarkable.
It seems we are heading for a deal which reflects the 52/48 split in the referendum and the reality of the more recent GE result. I am content with this and I suspect the least happy will be the more rebid leavers/remainers on both sides. In addition I doubt if Jeremy Corbyn will be overly pleased. AIAWNTL!
No it doesn’t. I’m sure very few would have voted for taxation without representation.
What’s been taken off the table today is a full WTO crash out, that’s good. But to do so, we’ve had to agree to follow someone else’s rules - rules which may change - for a few years.
Quite unparalleled in diplomatic history for this country.
The point is there was no decisive vote either in the referendum or the GE and despite your assurances I don't believe you have any insight into the minds of voters. we are getting realpolitik and we all have to suck it up.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
By 'more intelligent Brexiteers' you mean those not bothered by immigration when ending free movement was one of the main reasons most Leave voters voted Leave, that requires leaving the EEA even if we have a 2 year transition until departure
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
First there were no concessions.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
He seems rather wound up today.
I wonder why.
Not really. But I’m perpetually surprised by the profound stupidity of some on here.
The transition deal is only a triumph in the sense that Rees-Mogg is back in his box and business has another two years before it needs to divest. Which is not nothing, but let’s not pretend the government has actually achieved anything in this particular stage of negotiation.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Pretty depressing state of affairs in one sense: the overriding aim of Brexiters was to keep the foreigners out.
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
First there were no concessions.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
He seems rather wound up today.
I wonder why.
Not really. But I’m perpetually surprised by the profound stupidity of some on here.
The transition deal is only a triumph in the sense that Rees-Mogg is back in his box and business has another two years before it needs to divest. Which is not nothing, but let’s not pretend the government has actually achieved anything in this particular stage of negotiation.
The EU has conceded a number of things, as has already been made clear to you downthread.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
You forget the usual Brexiteer disclaimer:
"Of course I have no problem with it personally, but it's the little people you see... They just can't abide the thought of Latvians moving in next door, and anyway, they should stay in Latvia where they belong and help the Latvian economy instead of coming over here."
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Pretty depressing state of affairs in one sense: the overriding aim of Brexiters was to keep the foreigners out.
The rest is details.
Whose fault was that? Largely Blair's for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most existing EU nations
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Pretty depressing state of affairs in one sense: the overriding aim of Brexiters was to keep the foreigners out.
The rest is details.
Whose fault was that? Largely Blair's for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most existing EU nations
People not liking foreigners is their own fault. Not Blair's not anyone else's.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
By 'more intelligent Brexiteers' you mean those not bothered by immigration when ending free movement was one of the main reasons most Leave voters voted Leave, that requires leaving the EEA even if we have a 2 year transition until departure
EEA transition beats vassal transition, is what I’m saying.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
You forget the usual Brexiteer disclaimer:
"Of course I have no problem with it personally, but it's the little people you see... They just can't abide the thought of Latvians moving in next door, and anyway, they should stay in Latvia where they belong and help the Latvian economy instead of coming over here."
Fast forward 13 months: we're in transition with a legally agreed backstop solution for Northern Ireland keeping it in the customs union but without a long-term deal with the EU yet agreed and we want to negotiate trade deals with third countries. For which customs territory are we negotiating? The only answer can be Great Britain, not the UK.
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
First there were no concessions.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
He seems rather wound up today.
I wonder why.
Not really. But I’m perpetually surprised by the profound stupidity of some on here.
The transition deal is only a triumph in the sense that Rees-Mogg is back in his box and business has another two years before it needs to divest. Which is not nothing, but let’s not pretend the government has actually achieved anything in this particular stage of negotiation.
It is highly improbable nothing has been achieved at all. If you don't think much as been achieved, fine, but not achieving 'anything' doesn't make any sense, because if that was the case we really would have gone for No deal by now. Argue its one sided, to be sure, but this insistence that we never achieve anything simply makes no sense.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
By 'more intelligent Brexiteers' you mean those not bothered by immigration when ending free movement was one of the main reasons most Leave voters voted Leave, that requires leaving the EEA even if we have a 2 year transition until departure
EEA transition beats vassal transition, is what I’m saying.
They are essentially the same thing, in neither case do we have Commissioners or MEPs
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
First there were no concessions.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
He seems rather wound up today.
I wonder why.
Not really. But I’m perpetually surprised by the profound stupidity of some on here.
The transition deal is only a triumph in the sense that Rees-Mogg is back in his box and business has another two years before it needs to divest. Which is not nothing, but let’s not pretend the government has actually achieved anything in this particular stage of negotiation.
It is highly improbable nothing has been achieved at all. If you don't think much as been achieved, fine, but not achieving 'anything' doesn't make any sense, because if that was the case we really would have gone for No deal by now. Argue its one sided, to be sure, but this insistence that we never achieve anything simply makes no sense.
We have faffed around to the point whereby without a transition deal we would have incurred serious damage.
The EU knows this, Tezza probably knows it, small children in Peterborough know it. The EU is being surprisingly benign about it all.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Pretty depressing state of affairs in one sense: the overriding aim of Brexiters was to keep the foreigners out.
The rest is details.
Whose fault was that? Largely Blair's for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most existing EU nations
People not liking foreigners is their own fault. Not Blair's not anyone else's.
It has got nothing to do with 'not liking foreigners' except for a small minority.
It has got everything to do with the fact we did not have the work permit requirements, preference to local workers requirements etc the likes of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland etc had from 2004 to 2011 for Eastern European migrants but a largely open door policy
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Pretty depressing state of affairs in one sense: the overriding aim of Brexiters was to keep the foreigners out.
The rest is details.
Whose fault was that? Largely Blair's for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most existing EU nations
People not liking foreigners is their own fault. Not Blair's not anyone else's.
It has got nothing to do with 'not liking foreigners' except for a small minority.
It has got everything to do with the fact we did not have the work permit requirements, preference to local workers requirements etc the likes of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland etc had from 2004 to 2011 for Eastern European migrants but a largely open door policy
Your every other post points out that people voted to leave because they wanted to keep the foreigners out. Now it's something about work permit requirements.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
Not really.
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Pretty depressing state of affairs in one sense: the overriding aim of Brexiters was to keep the foreigners out.
The rest is details.
Whose fault was that? Largely Blair's for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most existing EU nations
People not liking foreigners is their own fault. Not Blair's not anyone else's.
It has got nothing to do with 'not liking foreigners' except for a small minority.
It has got everything to do with the fact we did not have the work permit requirements, preference to local workers requirements etc the likes of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland etc had from 2004 to 2011 for Eastern European migrants but a largely open door policy
Your every other post points out that people voted to leave because they wanted to keep the foreigners out. Now it's something about work permit requirements.
Yes because the lack of transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries was pivotal to Leave getting over 50% in the referendum
I'm not a great Starmer fan but can't argue with his gist:
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Well, as Bob Crow apparently put it 'If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight you will always lose'. So worth a try?
There *was* another path. But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
Our future state is incompatible with free movement from the EU. Everything flows from that.
Pretty depressing state of affairs in one sense: the overriding aim of Brexiters was to keep the foreigners out.
The rest is details.
Whose fault was that? Largely Blair's for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most existing EU nations
People not liking foreigners is their own fault. Not Blair's not anyone else's.
It has got nothing to do with 'not liking foreigners' except for a small minority.
It has got everything to do with the fact we did not have the work permit requirements, preference to local workers requirements etc the likes of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland etc had from 2004 to 2011 for Eastern European migrants but a largely open door policy
Your every other post points out that people voted to leave because they wanted to keep the foreigners out. Now it's something about work permit requirements.
Yes because the lack of transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries was pivotal to Leave getting over 50% in the referendum
Really? Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation). It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
First there were no concessions.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
He seems rather wound up today.
I wonder why.
Not really. But I’m perpetually surprised by the profound stupidity of some on here.
The transition deal is only a triumph in the sense that Rees-Mogg is back in his box and business has another two years before it needs to divest. Which is not nothing, but let’s not pretend the government has actually achieved anything in this particular stage of negotiation.
The EU has conceded a number of things, as has already been made clear to you downthread.
There are none so blind as those who can’t see.
No it hasn’t been made clear. The EU have made no meaningful concessions, as predicted by many.
Whereas we have had to retract all demands for divergence. See Ruth’s post expressing disappointment.
PB Tories can masturbate all they wish about what a frabjous day this is, the rest of us can just sigh in relief that things will remain the same for a few years.
UK conceded on EU citizens getting full residence status during the transition, independent fisheries takes effect from 2020, not 30th March 2019, and there's a backstop on NI, as described in the annexes.
EU conceded on trade deals during transition, Gibraltar being part of transition, and a joint committee to oversee the transition arrangement, which in practice means the UK and EU agreeing on disputes or having to both agree to refer to the ECJ for it to rule.
The NI piece looks most significant to me, which I'm yet to full digest.
Good news in principle that we have the makings of a transitional deal.
I have printed off the 129 page "draft agreement" text and shall review it later. Call me a picky old lawyer though, but how exactly is it "an agreement" when the opening page clearly states that only the stuff in green is actually agreed (subject to "technical legal revisions"), the yellow is agreed "as policy" but not detail, and the non-highlighted stuff is still being negotiated?
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
No, because it's the difference between being honest with people and conning them. Surely that's not hard to understand?
The NI piece looks most significant to me, which I'm yet to full digest.
It means you can have Brexit or the union but not both.
Here we go....
I'm not sure it was ever the EU's official's position, but we were told that NI would bring down the whole house.
It seems a bit more comfortable now. The EU appears to accept that NI might have some differences to rUK, and London will do what it can to keep those to a minimum. That is a much more natural starting point than the previous.
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
Presumably she's concerned at the fact that we don't get to make any of the rules during the transition period.
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
They were promised full and total control of British waters immediately as a consequence of voting to Leave. They haven't got that.
The NI piece looks most significant to me, which I'm yet to full digest.
It means you can have Brexit or the union but not both.
No as May also made clear in December the UK as a whole would have sufficient regulatory alignment as a backstop if the Irish issue was still to be resolved post transition but we would still have Brexited
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
They were promised full and total control of British waters immediately as a consequence of voting to Leave. They haven't got that.
UK conceded on EU citizens getting full residence status during the transition, independent fisheries takes effect from 2020, not 30th March 2019, and there's a backstop on NI, as described in the annexes.
EU conceded on trade deals during transition, Gibraltar being part of transition, and a joint committee to oversee the transition arrangement, which in practice means the UK and EU agreeing on disputes or having to both agree to refer to the ECJ for it to rule.
The NI piece looks most significant to me, which I'm yet to full digest.
If we don't come up with a solution to the Irish Border question then Northern Ireland effectively remains part of the EU.
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
They were promised full and total control of British waters immediately as a consequence of voting to Leave. They haven't got that.
If they get it in the end, I can’t see it being a huge issue.
The question for Labour, for 2022, is do they accept the status quo at the time or seek to rejoin?
It's not a question that has been much asked so far, as we've not left and the energy of the ardent pro-EU faction has been to either to prevent Brexit altogether, or else to minimise its effects. However, if the transitional deal does end at the beginning of 2021, that question then becomes a very live one. We all know where Corbyn stands. We also know where much of the PLP, the membership and Labour's voters stand.
Comments
To pick an obvious example, the text we have covers Gibraltar:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/20/britain-and-eu-clash-over-status-of-gibraltar-under-transition-deal
Britain will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals during the transition period
Gibraltar explicitly in the deal
International agreements / EU trade deals to continue during transition
joint committee to make sure both sides act in good faith during transition
death of EU’s punishment clause
agreement on financial settlement locked in
???
JRM, master of the non sequitur.
So now it's the wrong kind of transition...
A very odd sentiment. I would say May's problem might well be the exact opposite. She avoids taking decisions because she doesn't know the answer. This ends in dithering or phoning Nick Timothy.
Despite wanting us to remain/rejoin I don't honestly want the disruption that people expect from crashing out.
I'm not sure not guaranteeing Poland was ever a meaningful option for Britain or France, after the fall of Prague. To have not done so - or to have renagued on it - would have been to give a green light to Hitler's occupation of all of Eastern Europe, right down to Greece, which would have directly threatened the Suez Canal.
That was obvious quite early on. And it’s not even about the relative strength of negotiating ability - there was really no other alternative given the respective red lines.
The U.K. made a series of demands for degrees of variance during transition - quite publicly - about migration, about fisheries, etc - all of which it has had to retract. As predicted by many on here.
The “achievement” here is for May to have sold this into Johnson, Gove, and Rees-Mogg - all of whom were denouncing what we have now ended up agreeing, just a few short months ago.
It’s a disgraceful place for the U.K. to be - even for less than two years - but it at least moderates the economic hit for a period.
*A pretty sub-standard membership, of course, but membership nevertheless.
It does seem though that some of these Corbyn defending pieces seem to be arguing from a position that it was wrong to suggest it was highly likely to be the russians and that the government is only saying so as a distraction, and well done him for saying so, when his position is now not that.
He said: “The evidence points towards Russia on this, therefore responsibility must be borne by those that made the weapon, those that brought the weapon into the country and those that used the weapon.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-backtracks-on-stance-over-kremlin-involvement-spy-poisoning-and-says-the-evidence-a3791066.html
Jeez.
https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
In all honesty I think she waited as long as she could, politically. If we had come up on a year and still hadn't declared, i think she would have faced trouble. The less reasonable thing was that even as of this year apparently the cabinet had not agreed key stances to adopt, and of course that she declared, and then had a GE, when many people *cough*me*cough* thought she would not be so silly as to take away several months of negotiation time by holding a GE after declaring.
Nobody has stopped us *negotiating* trade deals - it’s presumably what Fox has tried to do for the last two years. Of course they can not be enacted until the end of transition. This is not a meaningful concession.
Likewise Gibraltar. It is internationally recognised as sovereign U.K. territory. It’s hardly a concession to include it in the deal.
The global trade deals of course make sense, it would basically break the single market and customs union if one country (U.K.) to be in one set of agreements but not another.
The “punishment” clause *is* still in there, we did the financial settlement in the last bleeding negotiation, so nothing new there.
So the only thing I can see is this joint committee. Big effing deal.
HOWEVER, my point is not that we have negotiated badly, or that it is a bad deal as a deal (let’s put aside the democratic issues of taxation without representation).
It is that we made a series of underdeliverable demands and we’ve had the retract the bloody lot of them.
https://order-order.com/2018/03/19/transition-deal-good-news-bad-news/
This agreement could have been signed months ago but ministers wasted time fighting among themselves, holding out on negotiating objectives that they have failed to achieve and pursuing their reckless red lines.
Labour was the first to call for sensible transitional arrangements because it is the only way to protect jobs and the economy.
It is welcome that they have finally struck a deal on transition and now the government must prioritise negotiating a final agreement that protects jobs, the economy and guarantees there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/19/bexit-davis-barnier-press-conference-russia-salisbury-srkipal-denials-over-spy-poisoning-growing-increasingly-absurd-says-boris-johnson-politics-live?page=with:block-5aafb7cfe4b06194ea77dc3b#block-5aafb7cfe4b06194ea77dc3b
I’m still optimistic that on May 4th it will be the Tories looking for alibis for bad results, especially in London.
I’m sure very few would have voted for taxation without representation.
What’s been taken off the table today is a full WTO crash out, that’s good. But to do so, we’ve had to agree to follow someone else’s rules - rules which may change - for a few years.
Quite unparalleled in diplomatic history for this country.
Even less than usual.
Then there are, but they are meaningless.
Next you'll be telling me that yes, there were meaningful concessions, but the UK made much greater ones.
And as I have noted earlier, every day of a transition deal is a risk to the government, and to Brexit. Moreso given the nature of the deal as negotiated which is, as @Gardenwalker has noted, taxation without representation and no great way to argue you have benefited the country on the stump at the next GE.
We have a transition until the end of December 2020 then we are out in terms of key factors like ending free movement etc, as has always been the case
The more intelligent Brexiters - some on here - knew early on that the least worse exit involved us exiting to EEA/EFTA status (or similar) for a transitional period - or more permanently if you are a soft Brexiter.
Instead we have all of the downsides of EFTA with none of the upsides - albeit for less than two years.
There *was* another path.
But we negotiated ourselves out of it.
I wonder why.
But I’m perpetually surprised by the profound stupidity of some on here.
The transition deal is only a triumph in the sense that Rees-Mogg is back in his box and business has another two years before it needs to divest. Which is not nothing, but let’s not pretend the government has actually achieved anything in this particular stage of negotiation.
The rest is details.
There are none so blind as those who can’t see.
"Of course I have no problem with it personally, but it's the little people you see... They just can't abide the thought of Latvians moving in next door, and anyway, they should stay in Latvia where they belong and help the Latvian economy instead of coming over here."
(EDIT: declared dead many times before then of course! including yours truly...)
All about fish.
I'm sure she has a view on the rest of it...
The EU knows this, Tezza probably knows it, small children in Peterborough know it. The EU is being surprisingly benign about it all.
It has got everything to do with the fact we did not have the work permit requirements, preference to local workers requirements etc the likes of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland etc had from 2004 to 2011 for Eastern European migrants but a largely open door policy
Others more knowledgeable than me can comment on the significance.
The EU have made no meaningful concessions, as predicted by many.
Whereas we have had to retract all demands for divergence. See Ruth’s post expressing disappointment.
PB Tories can masturbate all they wish about what a frabjous day this is, the rest of us can just sigh in relief that things will remain the same for a few years. Davis can’t help it, he knows Brexit is an almighty clusterfuck - and it’s his name on the tin.
"I would prefer not to Brexit at all but I really like the NE Scotland votes"
EU conceded on trade deals during transition, Gibraltar being part of transition, and a joint committee to oversee the transition arrangement, which in practice means the UK and EU agreeing on disputes or having to both agree to refer to the ECJ for it to rule.
The NI piece looks most significant to me, which I'm yet to full digest.
I have printed off the 129 page "draft agreement" text and shall review it later. Call me a picky old lawyer though, but how exactly is it "an agreement" when the opening page clearly states that only the stuff in green is actually agreed (subject to "technical legal revisions"), the yellow is agreed "as policy" but not detail, and the non-highlighted stuff is still being negotiated?
There's an awful lot in yellow and white....
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/975716209395150848
So, to be clear Nicola, a 21 month transition period where we accept EU rules is a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Tories, but your policy of wanting a permanent acceptance of EU rules wouldn't be a massive sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the SNP?
Will also make a great leaflet for the 2021 Holyrood elections for the Blue Meanies.
It seems a bit more comfortable now. The EU appears to accept that NI might have some differences to rUK, and London will do what it can to keep those to a minimum. That is a much more natural starting point than the previous.
It's not a question that has been much asked so far, as we've not left and the energy of the ardent pro-EU faction has been to either to prevent Brexit altogether, or else to minimise its effects. However, if the transitional deal does end at the beginning of 2021, that question then becomes a very live one. We all know where Corbyn stands. We also know where much of the PLP, the membership and Labour's voters stand.