Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BACK TO THE FUTURE – Part 2 The past is a foreign country – Re

1235»

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657

    The EU do not have a veto on us moving out of Transition.

    http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-brexit-withdrawal-agreement.html

    Key question: Can the UK be forced to stay in the transition period indefinitely?

    No – and no. First of all, any extension of the transition period has to be agreed jointly, as noted already. Secondly, any extension won’t be indefinite, since the negotiators will add a final possible date for extension when they agree the final text of the withdrawal agreement.

    On the other hand, the UK might theoretically end up in the backstop relating to Northern Ireland indefinitely. Although the withdrawal agreement says that this arrangement must be temporary, unlike the transition period there is no final date to end it and the UK cannot unilaterally end it at a certain date. However, the backstop is more limited in scope than the transition period, as it concerns only some EU laws (mainly on external trade, customs, and goods regulation, plus some limited application of EU laws on labour, the environment, state aids and competition in its Annexes). In particular, the backstop does not concern the free movement of people or services, or contribution to the EU budget.

    Yes, those evil Eurocrats are plotting to lock us indefinitely in an arrangement where we get all of the advantages of the Single Market and Customs Union without having to pay the bills and without having to accept Freedom of Movement. The cunning bastards!
    The thing is, most of the grown-ups on here* seem to have spotted this is not such a bad deal really. The shocking thing is there appear to be so few grown-ups in the HoC. :disappointed:

    (*I appreciate there are a few neoliberal zealot PBers who want to pursue a crash and burn No Deal exit to usher in Singapore-on-Europe. It's an honestly held if deeply misguided position I am sure.)
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    WELL THIS ISN'T VERY UPSETTING AT ALL.

    https://www.facebook.com/WeWantsIt/videos/338850266702681/
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,601
    I hate to pronounce ex cathedra, but the ultimate issue is trust. There is a significant amount of voters and MPs who do not trust the EU in any circumstances. Since any deal with the EU involves signing a deal with the EU, and such a deal must be legally binding in some fashion, then those voters and MPs will find something, anything in that deal and chafe on that. Because they simply don't trust the EU.

    This explains why the smarter Leavers, whose priorities are to leave the EU, are OK with the deal, whereas the others, whose priorities are to have nothing to do with the EU post-departure except to participate in its destruction, will disdain any deal.

    I might be wrong (and hopefully I am!) but I think there is enough of the latter to fuck things up and I am proceeding on the assumption that there will be no deal. Happy to be wrong on this.
  • I posted it earlier. It is absolutely brilliant. Sometimes it doesn't matter which side of a debate you are on you can still appreciate really good satire.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?
    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    Hang on, I thought the problem was that we would be stuck in the backstop, not the transition. Make your mind up;
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    Years of uncertainty and bitterness gains them those things? Isn't there a time limit in the WA? The backstop is an issue within it, but the transition as a whole seems deliberately very time limited, there's dates all over it about how x and y will come to an end.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 49,353
    edited December 2018
    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    IanB2 said:



    Nah, most people would be glad that it's over; the ERG's star has crashed and burned, yes they will make a fuss but they'll be back where they started as eccentrics to whom most people won't give a hearing.

    I am not worried about the ERG. I tend to agree with you about them. I am rather more concerned about the righteous indignation of the 17.4m who voted Leave and who will know the Tory Remoaners denied them what they won at the ballot box.
    It won't be Tory Remoaners, but Tory and non-Tory Leavers in cahoots with Labour, the LibDems and the SNP who will have denied them what they won at the ballot box. If the ERG and heavy friends hadn't dh 29th.
    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?
    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An sition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed yom result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    Hang on, I thought the problem was that we would be stuck in the backstop, not the transition. Make your mind up;
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    Years of uncertainty and bitterness gains them those things? Isn't there a time limit in the WA? The backstop is an issue within it, but the transition as a whole seems deliberately very time limited, there's dates all over it about how x and y will come to an end.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    We would not be in transition. We would be out, without a trade deal, that is not the same as being in transition. A whole series of legal agreements within the WA would not apply (there are some that apply beyond for time limited periods, but these are specific), so the state of play would change markedly from when we are transition to when we would not. In NI the backstop is more complicated, but you don't make any sense to claim that once the rules underpinning the transition end...we are still in transition.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657

    I posted it earlier. It is absolutely brilliant. Sometimes it doesn't matter which side of a debate you are on you can still appreciate really good satire.
    It is very well done.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 49,353
    Is it safe to admit after all this time that as much as I love the Lord of the Rings movies (and I rewatched them last year and they still hold up very well), I never actually cared all that much for the Gollum voice (or Elijah Wood as Frodo)? Serkis is one of the great actors out there, truly great, but I never liked the voice he picked for Gollum.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,368
    The last 4 years in British politics have been a rollercoaster ride, but the next 4 days could be even more dramatic.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?
    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    Hang on, I thought the problem was that we would be stuck in the backstop, not the transition. Make your mind up;
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    Years of uncertainty and bitterness gains them those things? Isn't there a time limit in the WA? The backstop is an issue within it, but the transition as a whole seems deliberately very time limited, there's dates all over it about how x and y will come to an end.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
    ^C^V

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    I posted it earlier. It is absolutely brilliant. Sometimes it doesn't matter which side of a debate you are on you can still appreciate really good satire.
    It is very well done.
    It's the bit where she stares right into the camera and says "WE DON'T HAVE ANY FRIENDS".

    Chillingly realistic.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    viewcode said:

    I hate to pronounce ex cathedra, but the ultimate issue is trust. There is a significant amount of voters and MPs who do not trust the EU in any circumstances. Since any deal with the EU involves signing a deal with the EU, and such a deal must be legally binding in some fashion, then those voters and MPs will find something, anything in that deal and chafe on that. Because they simply don't trust the EU.

    This explains why the smarter Leavers, whose priorities are to leave the EU, are OK with the deal, whereas the others, whose priorities are to have nothing to do with the EU post-departure except to participate in its destruction, will disdain any deal.

    I might be wrong (and hopefully I am!) but I think there is enough of the latter to fuck things up and I am proceeding on the assumption that there will be no deal. Happy to be wrong on this.

    I think your analysis of the leaver types is perceptive but you are forgetting the Remainers.

    Many Remainers recognise that we probably have to leave and will, I think come round to the view that this deal or something very close to it will be acceptable but at the moment they are unexpectedly seeing a chink of light for a possible Remain ending (via a 2nd referendum).

    We're going to need to work that through over the next couple of weeks I suspect. If that get's closed down they will (in the HoC at least) dig in to prevent No Deal.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,368

    It's funny how many prime ministerial epitaphs can be written as a short phrase.

    Margaret Thatcher: Poll Tax
    John Major: Back to Basics
    Gordon Brown:Bail Out

    But the most powerful epitaphs are the ones where all your years of failure can be pithily captured in a single word.

    Tony Blair: Iraq
    David Cameron: Referendum
    Theresa May: Backstop

    With John Major I think it was Europe rather than Back To Basics that caused the most problems for him.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    I am not worried about the ERG. I tend to agree with you about them. I am rather more concerned about the righteous indignation of the 17.4m who voted Leave and who will know the Tory Remoaners denied them what they won at the ballot box.

    It won't be Tory Remoaners, but Tory and non-Tory Leavers in cahoots with Labour, the LibDems and the SNP who will have denied them what they won at the ballot box. If the ERG and heavy friends hadn't dh 29th.
    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?
    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An sition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed yom result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    Hang on, I thought the problem was that we would be stuck in the backstop, not the transition. Make your mind up;
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    Years of uncertainty and bitterness gains them those things? Isn't there a time limit in the WA? The backstop is an issue within it, but the transition as a whole seems deliberately very time limited, there's dates all over it about how x and y will come to an end.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    We would not be in transition. We would be out, without a trade deal, that is not the same as being in transition. A whole series of legal agreements within the WA would not apply (there are some that apply beyond for time limited periods, but these are specific), so the state of play would change markedly from when we are transition to when we would not. In NI the backstop is more complicated, but you don't make any sense to claim that once the rules underpinning the transition end...we are still in transition.
    Unless the aim to get a trade deal is dropped we would be in a transitional state even after the end of the Implementation Period. And part of the trade deal would involve superseding the backstop, which is why the two are intrinsically linked.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?
    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    Hang on, I thought the problem was that we would be stuck in the backstop, not the transition. Make your mind up;
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
    ^C^V

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    You mean you're view that "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition" is your 'analysis' of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 28,667
    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,050
    edited December 2018
    Donny43 said:

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.

    It's entirely clear:

    WA Article 126: "There shall be a transition or implementation period, which shall start on the date of entry into force of this Agreement and end on 31 December 2020.

    WA Article 132: "1. Notwithstanding Article 126, the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the transition period for up to one or two years."


    There was confusion as a result of the WA first draft saying "20xx" rather than 2022. That was an error, and fixed a few days later.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?
    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    Hang on, I thought the problem was that we would be stuck in the backstop, not the transition. Make your mind up;
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
    ^C^V

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    You mean you're view that "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition" is your 'analysis' of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it?
    Yes. Well done.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,451

    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."

    Genius.

    Why did May not think of that...


  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Andrew said:

    Donny43 said:

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.

    It's entirely clear:

    WA Article 126: "There shall be a transition or implementation period, which shall start on the date of entry into force of this Agreement and end on 31 December 2020.

    WA Article 132: "1. Notwithstanding Article 126, the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the transition period for up to one or two years."


    For the transition to be extended past 2022, we would need a new agreement.
    See my post at 11:42.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?
    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
    ^C^V

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    You mean you're view that "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition" is your 'analysis' of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it?
    Yes. Well done.
    So basically you've invented it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 28,667

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "OK. Your CV will end with "the guy who lost the EU 16% of its trade and £39 billion". Good luck getting your next job...."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 49,353
    edited December 2018

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    Ah but you see he won't because he wants a deal, which means they'll give us anything we ask for.

    Don't get me wrong I hope that's true, but it seems a forlorn hope.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?

    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
    ^C^V

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    You mean you're view that "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition" is your 'analysis' of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it?
    Yes. Well done.
    So basically you've invented it.
    See my post at 11:42.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    Andrew said:

    Donny43 said:

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.

    It's entirely clear:

    WA Article 126: "There shall be a transition or implementation period, which shall start on the date of entry into force of this Agreement and end on 31 December 2020.

    WA Article 132: "1. Notwithstanding Article 126, the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the transition period for up to one or two years."


    For the transition to be extended past 2022, we would need a new agreement.

    Yeah but the thing is Andrew, you're making the mistake of actually looking at the documents, whereas Donny43 has freed himself from all that nonsense and is just making it up to fit his preconceived ideas.

    Much easier.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 28,667
    AndyJS said:

    It's funny how many prime ministerial epitaphs can be written as a short phrase.

    Margaret Thatcher: Poll Tax
    John Major: Back to Basics
    Gordon Brown:Bail Out

    But the most powerful epitaphs are the ones where all your years of failure can be pithily captured in a single word.

    Tony Blair: Iraq
    David Cameron: Referendum
    Theresa May: Backstop

    With John Major I think it was Europe rather than Back To Basics that caused the most problems for him.
    And Brown was "Ending Boom and Bust"
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,050
    Donny43 said:


    See my post at 11:42.

    You're confusing the transitional period with the backstop, which is considerably different.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "OK. Your CV will end with "the guy who lost the EU 16% of its trade and £39 billion". Good luck getting your next job...."
    And yours will end "the guy who lost the UK 44% of its trade, caused widespread shortages of essential foodstuffs and medical supplies, grounded air travel and plunged the country into recession..." good luck enjoying your retirement.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 12,523

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    Barrier "You my friend appear to think your handful of old maids puts you in a strong position. It doesn't goodbye"
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Andrew said:

    Donny43 said:


    See my post at 11:42.

    You're confusing the transitional period with the backstop, which is considerably different.
    No, I'm not.

    Even after the end of the Transition/Implementation Period we'll still be in a transitional phase (what's a better word? Interim perhaps?) until either a trade deal (which will supersede the backstop) is signed or given up on (the latter case being incredibly unlikely).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    So?

    Why would a Hotel California/purgatory Brexit be worth agreeing to?

    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.
    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
    ^C^V

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    You mean you're view that "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition" is your 'analysis' of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it?
    Yes. Well done.
    So basically you've invented it.
    See my post at 11:42.
    As I thought - you've invented it.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:



    Don't ask me, it was Brexiteers who wanted:

    - An end to the CAP
    - An end to the CFP
    - Leaving the Single Market
    - Leaving the Customs Union
    - An end to Freedom of Movement
    - An end to ECJ interference in domestic law
    - An end to paying vast sums to the EU
    - A free-trade deal with the EU
    - A smooth transition

    Now it turns out they and you don't want that. I really haven't the faintest glimmer of an idea why you and other leavers have changed your minds and in many cases are accusing the PM who has painstakingly negotiated it of something akin to treason, but what I do know is that if there's now zero reason for anyone else to respect the referendum result.

    The deal doesn't guarantee any of that as long as the EU retains a veto on moving out of transition.
    The backstop is to be used as an excuse to lock us in endless transition.
    Why would the EU want that?
    France wants our fish. Spain wants Gibraltar. For a start.
    If there isn't a final trade deal, we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition.
    Can you just point me to the part of the Withdrawal Agreement that says that?
    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    Here's the Withdrawal Agreement, show me where is says (or in anyway could be interpreted to mean) "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition"...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

    (Hint: You can't because it doesn't)
    ^C^V

    It's an analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it.
    You mean you're view that "we're still in transition whether or not we are in Transition" is your 'analysis' of the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration, not a quote from it?
    Yes. Well done.
    So basically you've invented it.
    See my post at 11:42.
    As I thought - you've invented it.
    What would you call a time period between a previous state and a new permanent state?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    Donny43 said:

    Andrew said:

    Donny43 said:


    See my post at 11:42.

    You're confusing the transitional period with the backstop, which is considerably different.
    No, I'm not.

    Even after the end of the Transition/Implementation Period we'll still be in a transitional phase (what's a better word? Interim perhaps?) until either a trade deal (which will supersede the backstop) is signed or given up on (the latter case being incredibly unlikely).
    No. We'll be in the backstop. Whose attributes include: access to the Customs Union with no fees, no freedom of movement. Not a place the EU would be comfortable for us to remain indefinitely.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,294

    viewcode said:

    I hate to pronounce ex cathedra, but the ultimate issue is trust. There is a significant amount of voters and MPs who do not trust the EU in any circumstances. Since any deal with the EU involves signing a deal with the EU, and such a deal must be legally binding in some fashion, then those voters and MPs will find something, anything in that deal and chafe on that. Because they simply don't trust the EU.

    This explains why the smarter Leavers, whose priorities are to leave the EU, are OK with the deal, whereas the others, whose priorities are to have nothing to do with the EU post-departure except to participate in its destruction, will disdain any deal.

    I might be wrong (and hopefully I am!) but I think there is enough of the latter to fuck things up and I am proceeding on the assumption that there will be no deal. Happy to be wrong on this.

    I think your analysis of the leaver types is perceptive but you are forgetting the Remainers.

    Many Remainers recognise that we probably have to leave and will, I think come round to the view that this deal or something very close to it will be acceptable but at the moment they are unexpectedly seeing a chink of light for a possible Remain ending (via a 2nd referendum).

    We're going to need to work that through over the next couple of weeks I suspect. If that get's closed down they will (in the HoC at least) dig in to prevent No Deal.
    Was about to post similar. Leavers are split .Chucking random insults at each other .Have always believed we have to leave. To respect the referendum result. But half of Leavers don't respect it either. So, why the hell should I?
    We need to stay .
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Andrew said:

    Donny43 said:


    See my post at 11:42.

    You're confusing the transitional period with the backstop, which is considerably different.
    No, I'm not.

    Even after the end of the Transition/Implementation Period we'll still be in a transitional phase (what's a better word? Interim perhaps?) until either a trade deal (which will supersede the backstop) is signed or given up on (the latter case being incredibly unlikely).
    No. We'll be in the backstop. Whose attributes include: access to the Customs Union with no fees, no freedom of movement. Not a place the EU would be comfortable for us to remain indefinitely.
    So it's an interim phase. Or transitional. Thanks for proving my point.

    On that note, as it's past midnight, good night.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,368
    Corbyn could be PM in 72 hours' time.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    dixiedean said:

    viewcode said:

    I hate to pronounce ex cathedra, but the ultimate issue is trust. There is a significant amount of voters and MPs who do not trust the EU in any circumstances. Since any deal with the EU involves signing a deal with the EU, and such a deal must be legally binding in some fashion, then those voters and MPs will find something, anything in that deal and chafe on that. Because they simply don't trust the EU.

    This explains why the smarter Leavers, whose priorities are to leave the EU, are OK with the deal, whereas the others, whose priorities are to have nothing to do with the EU post-departure except to participate in its destruction, will disdain any deal.

    I might be wrong (and hopefully I am!) but I think there is enough of the latter to fuck things up and I am proceeding on the assumption that there will be no deal. Happy to be wrong on this.

    I think your analysis of the leaver types is perceptive but you are forgetting the Remainers.

    Many Remainers recognise that we probably have to leave and will, I think come round to the view that this deal or something very close to it will be acceptable but at the moment they are unexpectedly seeing a chink of light for a possible Remain ending (via a 2nd referendum).

    We're going to need to work that through over the next couple of weeks I suspect. If that get's closed down they will (in the HoC at least) dig in to prevent No Deal.
    Was about to post similar. Leavers are split .Chucking random insults at each other .Have always believed we have to leave. To respect the referendum result. But half of Leavers don't respect it either. So, why the hell should I?
    We need to stay .
    This Deal or Stay. I could honestly be happy with either now. Just want it done tbh.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,368
    Corbyn could be PM in 72 hours' time.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,451
    AndyJS said:

    Corbyn could be PM in 72 hours' time.

    for 72 hours
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,657
    AndyJS said:

    Corbyn could be PM in 72 hours' time.

    Hard to see how.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 28,667
    AndyJS said:

    Corbyn could be PM in 72 hours' time.

    ....in his mind......
  • Scott_P said:

    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."

    Genius.

    Why did May not think of that...


    There is more than one way to guarantee an open border. If we simply say we will work to keep an open border then that should be enough if we are all acting on good faith and doesn't entail snaring us with the backstop which is a specific mechanism.
  • Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    Barrier "You my friend appear to think your handful of old maids puts you in a strong position. It doesn't goodbye"
    "So be it. Goodbye."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 28,667

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "OK. Your CV will end with "the guy who lost the EU 16% of its trade and £39 billion". Good luck getting your next job...."
    And yours will end "the guy who lost the UK 44% of its trade, caused widespread shortages of essential foodstuffs and medical supplies, grounded air travel and plunged the country into recession..." good luck enjoying your retirement.
    I would have had 30 months of preparing for No Deal. I wouldn't have bowed to Barnier's sequencing requirements. Just stare him down, as I prepared for No Deal......
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,451

    And yours will end "the guy who lost the UK 44% of its trade, caused widespread shortages of essential foodstuffs and medical supplies, grounded air travel and plunged the country into recession..." good luck enjoying your retirement.

    It's certainly "highly creative deal-making"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,451

    I would have had 30 months of preparing for No Deal.

    Month 1. Concrete over kent

    Month 2. JLR, BMW, Nissan, Toyota and Airbus announce they are closing all UK production

    Month 3. The government falls.
  • Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "Ok. So what's your plan for keeping the Irish border open now, punk?"
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,881
    Scott_P said:
    Does he have a link for the analysis?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,534
    Scott_P said:

    I would have had 30 months of preparing for No Deal.

    Month 1. Concrete over kent

    Month 2. JLR, BMW, Nissan, Toyota and Airbus announce they are closing all UK production

    Month 3. The government falls.
    Err - You do realise that Airbus sources parts from outside EU currently right?

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,368
    Interesting poll alert:

    "Europe Elects
    @EuropeElects
    6h6 hours ago

    Spain, Invymark poll:

    PSOE-S&D: 23% (-3)
    PP-EPP: 23% (-1)
    Cs-ALDE: 23% (+1)
    UP-LEFT: 15% (-2)
    VOX-ECR: 7%"
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,534
    AndyJS said:

    Corbyn could be PM in 72 hours' time.

    Ha ha - right
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,534
    dixiedean said:

    viewcode said:

    I hate to pronounce ex cathedra, but the ultimate issue is trust. There is a significant amount of voters and MPs who do not trust the EU in any circumstances. Since any deal with the EU involves signing a deal with the EU, and such a deal must be legally binding in some fashion, then those voters and MPs will find something, anything in that deal and chafe on that. Because they simply don't trust the EU.

    This explains why the smarter Leavers, whose priorities are to leave the EU, are OK with the deal, whereas the others, whose priorities are to have nothing to do with the EU post-departure except to participate in its destruction, will disdain any deal.

    I might be wrong (and hopefully I am!) but I think there is enough of the latter to fuck things up and I am proceeding on the assumption that there will be no deal. Happy to be wrong on this.

    I think your analysis of the leaver types is perceptive but you are forgetting the Remainers.

    Many Remainers recognise that we probably have to leave and will, I think come round to the view that this deal or something very close to it will be acceptable but at the moment they are unexpectedly seeing a chink of light for a possible Remain ending (via a 2nd referendum).

    We're going to need to work that through over the next couple of weeks I suspect. If that get's closed down they will (in the HoC at least) dig in to prevent No Deal.
    Was about to post similar. Leavers are split .Chucking random insults at each other .Have always believed we have to leave. To respect the referendum result. But half of Leavers don't respect it either. So, why the hell should I?
    We need to stay .
    That's a long and tortuous way of saying you want to ignore the result

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,534
    edited December 2018

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "OK. Your CV will end with "the guy who lost the EU 16% of its trade and £39 billion". Good luck getting your next job...."
    And yours will end "the guy who lost the UK 44% of its trade, caused widespread shortages of essential foodstuffs and medical supplies, grounded air travel and plunged the country into recession..." good luck enjoying your retirement.
    oh dear god - not the grounding planes crap again.

    That was shot down (pun intended) ages ago.... unless you know better than the Aviation industry?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,451
    Floater said:

    Err - You do realise that Airbus sources parts from outside EU currently right?

    So do Nissan and Toyota.

    Wouldn't stop them closing UK production
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,534

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "Ok. So what's your plan for keeping the Irish border open now, punk?"
    Strangely, the EU, us and Ireland agree that even in a no deal event the border remains open

    Square that circle....
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,534
    kle4 said:

    Is it safe to admit after all this time that as much as I love the Lord of the Rings movies (and I rewatched them last year and they still hold up very well), I never actually cared all that much for the Gollum voice (or Elijah Wood as Frodo)? Serkis is one of the great actors out there, truly great, but I never liked the voice he picked for Gollum.
    Stop being so precious.... Is that my coat?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 3,437
    The Tories infighting has led to this botched negotiations .

    And they now want to play who will be leader as the country goes down the pan. And apparently the beauty parade of leadership challenges will include those pushing a so called managed no deal .

    The managed of course is to dupe the plebs into thinking it’s all under control. The country has truly lost its mind .

    What on earth has happpened to the UK ?
  • Scott_P said:
    Does he have a link for the analysis?
    I doubt it. He is probably following the Scott playbook and just making shit up
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,294
    Floater said:

    dixiedean said:

    viewcode said:

    I hate to pronounce ex cathedra, but the ultimate issue is trust. There is a significant amount of voters and MPs who do not trust the EU in any circumstances. Since any deal with the EU involves signing a deal with the EU, and such a deal must be legally binding in some fashion, then those voters and MPs will find something, anything in that deal and chafe on that. Because they simply don't trust the EU.

    This explains why the smarter Leavers, whose priorities are to leave the EU, are OK with the deal, whereas the others, whose priorities are to have nothing to do with the EU post-departure except to participate in its destruction, will disdain any deal.

    I might be wrong (and hopefully I am!) but I think there is enough of the latter to fuck things up and I am proceeding on the assumption that there will be no deal. Happy to be wrong on this.

    I think your analysis of the leaver types is perceptive but you are forgetting the Remainers.

    Many Remainers recognise that we probably have to leave and will, I think come round to the view that this deal or something very close to it will be acceptable but at the moment they are unexpectedly seeing a chink of light for a possible Remain ending (via a 2nd referendum).

    We're going to need to work that through over the next couple of weeks I suspect. If that get's closed down they will (in the HoC at least) dig in to prevent No Deal.
    Was about to post similar. Leavers are split .Chucking random insults at each other .Have always believed we have to leave. To respect the referendum result. But half of Leavers don't respect it either. So, why the hell should I?
    We need to stay .
    That's a long and tortuous way of saying you want to ignore the result

    Yes.Cheers leavers.
  • Scott_P said:

    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."

    Genius.

    Why did May not think of that...


    There is more than one way to guarantee an open border. If we simply say we will work to keep an open border then that should be enough if we are all acting on good faith and doesn't entail snaring us with the backstop which is a specific mechanism.
    "Good faith" is literally meaningless; it has to be legally binding.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,577
    edited December 2018
    Floater said:

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "Ok. So what's your plan for keeping the Irish border open now, punk?"
    Strangely, the EU, us and Ireland agree that even in a no deal event the border remains open

    Square that circle....
    You could square it like this:



    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/how-would-you-vote-if-a-ni-border-referendum-were-held-shortly-after-a-no-deal-brexit/
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 1,965

    Floater said:

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "Ok. So what's your plan for keeping the Irish border open now, punk?"
    Strangely, the EU, us and Ireland agree that even in a no deal event the border remains open

    Square that circle....
    You could square it like this:



    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/how-would-you-vote-if-a-ni-border-referendum-were-held-shortly-after-a-no-deal-brexit/
    I'm not really sure how to respond to that tweet.

    1. How you'd vote in a referendum =/ wanting a referendum

    2. Rep. of Ire. want call it any time soon because there is no way in hell that they could afford NI.
  • Chameleon said:

    Floater said:

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "Ok. So what's your plan for keeping the Irish border open now, punk?"
    Strangely, the EU, us and Ireland agree that even in a no deal event the border remains open

    Square that circle....
    You could square it like this:



    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/how-would-you-vote-if-a-ni-border-referendum-were-held-shortly-after-a-no-deal-brexit/
    I'm not really sure how to respond to that tweet.

    1. How you'd vote in a referendum =/ wanting a referendum

    2. Rep. of Ire. want call it any time soon because there is no way in hell that they could afford NI.

    I think you underestimate just how much monetary and other economic support an Irish unification process would get from the US. For tens of millions of Irish Americans it is the holy grail.

  • Thought-provoking stuff from Mr Brooke. It seems the best option from here might be to stay in the EU and work with a growing number of national governments and political groupings in the European parliament that believe it needs fundamental reform.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,451

    Chameleon said:

    Floater said:

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "Ok. So what's your plan for keeping the Irish border open now, punk?"
    Strangely, the EU, us and Ireland agree that even in a no deal event the border remains open

    Square that circle....
    You could square it like this:



    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/how-would-you-vote-if-a-ni-border-referendum-were-held-shortly-after-a-no-deal-brexit/
    I'm not really sure how to respond to that tweet.

    1. How you'd vote in a referendum =/ wanting a referendum

    2. Rep. of Ire. want call it any time soon because there is no way in hell that they could afford NI.

    I think you underestimate just how much monetary and other economic support an Irish unification process would get from the US. For tens of millions of Irish Americans it is the holy grail.

    Irish reunification would likely be subsidised by both the EU and the US. Irish government debt-to-GDP has collapsed since the Eurozone crisis, and is just 65% or so, so there's also a reasonable amount of cushion.

    All that being said, I think reunification is not that likely. Firstly, the impact of No Deal would likely be less severe than people fear. And this means soft unionists may end up moving back towards - errr - the UK. Secondly, Germany had been separated for just 40 odd years, and there was no schism cause by a deep religious divide. There were no Orangemen marches in Berlin, no songs about Fenian blood.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,611


    Tories using public money to attack their political opponents.

    Tories up to no good

    Tories
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,537

    Thought-provoking stuff from Mr Brooke. It seems the best option from here might be to stay in the EU and work with a growing number of national governments and political groupings in the European parliament that believe it needs fundamental reform.

    This is an interesting initiative, even though it doesn't look like the answer:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/manifesto-divided-europe-inequality-europeans
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,537
    viewcode said:

    I hate to pronounce ex cathedra, but the ultimate issue is trust. There is a significant amount of voters and MPs who do not trust the EU in any circumstances. Since any deal with the EU involves signing a deal with the EU, and such a deal must be legally binding in some fashion, then those voters and MPs will find something, anything in that deal and chafe on that. Because they simply don't trust the EU.

    This explains why the smarter Leavers, whose priorities are to leave the EU, are OK with the deal, whereas the others, whose priorities are to have nothing to do with the EU post-departure except to participate in its destruction, will disdain any deal.

    I might be wrong (and hopefully I am!) but I think there is enough of the latter to fuck things up and I am proceeding on the assumption that there will be no deal. Happy to be wrong on this.

    Congrats for devising a method to measure the ration of smarter to dumber leavers?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,920
    edited December 2018

    Thought-provoking stuff from Mr Brooke. It seems the best option from here might be to stay in the EU and work with a growing number of national governments and political groupings in the European parliament that believe it needs fundamental reform.

    Which seemed to me an inherent contradiction in his article, which seemed simultaneously to argue that we would have zero influence in Europe, while saying that European opinion about its future is moving in our direction.

  • IanB2 said:

    Thought-provoking stuff from Mr Brooke. It seems the best option from here might be to stay in the EU and work with a growing number of national governments and political groupings in the European parliament that believe it needs fundamental reform.

    This is an interesting initiative, even though it doesn't look like the answer:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/manifesto-divided-europe-inequality-europeans

    I’ve been saying for quite a few years that a system in which a majority feel they have no real stake is not sustainable. Capitalism is brilliant at creating wealth. The issue is distribution. The wealthy - individuals and corporate - need to understand that handing over more money rather than hoarding it is in their own long-term interests.

  • Nigelb said:

    Thought-provoking stuff from Mr Brooke. It seems the best option from here might be to stay in the EU and work with a growing number of national governments and political groupings in the European parliament that believe it needs fundamental reform.

    Which seemed to me an inherent contradiction in his article, which seemed simultaneously to argue that we would have zero influence in Europe, while saying that European opinion about its future is moving in our direction.

    Yep!!

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,611
    edited December 2018

    IanB2 said:

    Thought-provoking stuff from Mr Brooke. It seems the best option from here might be to stay in the EU and work with a growing number of national governments and political groupings in the European parliament that believe it needs fundamental reform.

    This is an interesting initiative, even though it doesn't look like the answer:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/manifesto-divided-europe-inequality-europeans

    I’ve been saying for quite a few years that a system in which a majority feel they have no real stake is not sustainable. Capitalism is brilliant at creating wealth. The issue is distribution. The wealthy - individuals and corporate - need to understand that handing over more money rather than hoarding it is in their own long-term interests.

    I posted a link the other day to a tedtalk called the pitchforks are coming which makes the same point, it goes on to talk about wealth inequality being similar to the French revolution.

    It seems an obvious thing as well, if you've got a good thing don't try to keep pushing it until it breaks.

    Edit: There is an alternate strategy I heard talked about where you hire bodyguards equipped with shock collars to horde what you have if/when it kicks off...

    Would surely be nicer just to fix the current situation and live wealthy within it.
  • IanB2 said:

    Thought-provoking stuff from Mr Brooke. It seems the best option from here might be to stay in the EU and work with a growing number of national governments and political groupings in the European parliament that believe it needs fundamental reform.

    This is an interesting initiative, even though it doesn't look like the answer:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/manifesto-divided-europe-inequality-europeans

    I’ve been saying for quite a few years that a system in which a majority feel they have no real stake is not sustainable. Capitalism is brilliant at creating wealth. The issue is distribution. The wealthy - individuals and corporate - need to understand that handing over more money rather than hoarding it is in their own long-term interests.

    I posted a link the other day to a tedtalk called the pitchforks are coming which makes the same point, it goes on to talk about wealth inequality being similar to the French revolution.

    It seems an obvious thing as well, if you've got a good thing don't try to keep pushing it until it breaks.

    Edit: There is an alternate strategy I heard talked about where you hire bodyguards equipped with shock collars to horde what you have if/when it kicks off...

    Would surely be nicer just to fix the current situation and live wealthy within it.

    Bodyguards and shock collars are a temporary relief, but end up making things worse. We are largely talking about hoarding for hoarding’s sake. The extremely wealthy - individual and corporate - have more money than they can ever hope to spend. I genuinely do not understand why they fight so hard to keep it all when it’s been amassed on the labour of others and when fairer distribution would actually ensure the preservation of the system that creates the wealth in the first place.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,537
    edited December 2018

    Scott_P said:

    Lol. Like I give a shiny shit.

    Spoken like a true ace negotiator...
    "Barnier, I don't give a shiny shit about you wanting a backstop. You aren't having it...."
    Barnier: "And you my friend aren't getting a deal. Goodbye"
    "OK. Your CV will end with "the guy who lost the EU 16% of its trade and £39 billion". Good luck getting your next job...."
    And yours will end "the guy who lost the UK 44% of its trade, caused widespread shortages of essential foodstuffs and medical supplies, grounded air travel and plunged the country into recession..." good luck enjoying your retirement.
    I would have had 30 months of preparing for No Deal. I wouldn't have bowed to Barnier's sequencing requirements. Just stare him down, as I prepared for No Deal......
    In your imagination I am sure we would be sitting just hunky dory right now. In the real world there is a good chance that telling Nissan and the others to sling their hooks, right back at the beginning, would have started a snowball effect of negative economic stories that by now would have brought half of Project Fear into being and created an unstoppable backlash against Brexit.
  • New thread
This discussion has been closed.