What is particularly intolerable? And do you think that the EU wants to have anything to do with a joint committee on the long term?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
What is particularly intolerable? And do you think that the EU wants to have anything to do with a joint committee on the long term?
But this sounds like handing over an unnecessary concession to the UK, if it's tolerable to the EU but not to the UK. Why would the 27 nations do that?
Imagine spending the best part of two years negotiating a deal with someone, and then them agreeing to it, after you've already made concessions that you won't give anyone else, and then they come back to you and go "actually.. nah, doesn't work for me, let's renegotiate". In no scenario is that acceptable, let alone in something of the scale of Brexit.
The Tories have shown themselves to be untrustworthy pricks, yet no doubt will spin this now as "the big bad EU won't make a deal, aren't they terrible", and half the British media and public will probably gobble it up.
The Tories have shown themselves to be untrustworthy pricks, yet no doubt will spin this now as "the big bad EU won't make a deal, aren't they terrible", and half the British media and public will probably gobble it up.
Run away, far away, whilst you still can.
Brexit will turn your braincells into mush.
Ditto Labour
There are many risks to the UK of remaining in the backstop and associated minimalist customs union long-term, but I consider the main ones to be:
1. The danger of being in a customs union but not automatically a member of FTAs negotiated by the EU. For example, the UK would suffer economic contraction if TTIP were signed as American goods would enter the UK tariff-free but UK goods would potentially continue to face American tariffs as currently applied. This is a real issue and would likely have caused Turkey to exit its customs union with the EU had TTIP been signed - under the backstop the UK would not have this unilateral withdrawal mechanism.
2. The UK would be prevented from setting its own external tariffs and customs policies, and therefore could not finalise any deep trade deals.
3. The Attorney General's legal advice states that the text of the Withdrawal Agreement allows for the replacement of the backstop with alternative measures 'in whole or in part'. The reference to 'in part' leaves open the possibility that the EU could later apply to say that only NI need remain in the customs union, and the rest of the UK should leave. This would put a customs border in the Irish Sea.
To avoid a potential 'no deal'?
Plenty of people talking sense on Bexit, but the people who matter, i.e. the Government, only taking shite.
I don't need that cnut to tell me what is obvious to any right thinking person.
To be honest, our government is a mess cause he people they represent are.
If we're heading down the no deal route then a general election should be held. This government has proven itself inept and untrustworthy to negotiate any future trade deals.
Labour really isn't that much better and in some ways equally responsible for this mess but the blame will be laid at the Conservatives' door
Labour really isn't that much better and in some ways equally responsible for this mess but the blame will be laid at the Conservatives' door
The vote to pass last nights bill passed by 15 or so votes. The ERG voted for it on the basis that the Withdrawal Agreement would be reopened AND the backstop would be removed. So were not talking about concessions on the backstop, were talking about it being removed and other nameless concessions elsewhere. Part of their agreement is based on them being able to reject it in 2 weeks time also. So its a bullshit majority that will collapse again in 2 weeks time. Backstop negotiations are a total dead end.
The issue there is that the EU and the UK have different expectations for the backstop.
The UK is insisting that the backstop will not be needed at all. The EU (and particularly Ireland) obviously do not share that confidence and feel they are more likely to need the backstop. As such, it makes no sense for the EU to tie themselves equally to some punishment related to the backstop being used.
Both sides can agree that the backstop is temporary until a better solution is negotiated but that doesn't mean both sides actually have equal confidence in the liklihood of that better solution being found.
It's also worth remembering that the backstop has been designed around the UK's own red lines, it isn't by any means the EU's preffered option. If the EU were going to build a punishment mechanism for themselves into a deal then I would imagine they'd expect to recieve more than they're getting from the backstop.
Oh yeah, I agree. I was thinking about what would actually make sense from the perspective of rational negotiation and a fair compromise. I'm pretty sure we're going to crash out with no deal in reality.
Alright, so we can't have a hard boarder in Ireland, ipso facto we can't have no deal, which implies there has to be a hard boarder between the UK and the rest of Europe.
Solution, cancel Brexit
Solution, cancel Brexit
That, again, hurts the UK way way more than it hurts the EU. So why give a concession to someone who wants to cut off their nose to spite their face? Especially someone who has been arrogant, dismissive and self-destructive in 2yrs of negotiations.
It already is a fair compromise. Scotland, England and Wales can drop out whenever they feel like it. The Northern Irish assembly is always going to be given priority over their future. Neither you or we can make any decisions for them because it'd be immediately rejected and fought against by 50% of the NI politicians. So it maintains the status quo in Northern Ireland until Stormont can make a decision on their future. Realistically they cant stay in 2 different contradictory legal jurisdictions indefinitely.
Well exactly. Hence I think we're heading for no deal.
It was never going to be fair though? Its easy to sit here and say this and that would even it up but this was always the likely scenario before the vote.
The UK people can't vote for something then cry about the repercussions. It simply doesn't make sense.
I love the mindset this morning that the EU needs to bow to democracy and behave in a fair manner when 3/4 of the last two years have been full of British politicians and commentators calling for the EU to feck Ireland over and for us to know our place.
Where's the fairness in the UK putting the GFA at risk when Ireland gave up its claim to NI to facilitate said agreement? Now Ireland has to agree to give up a backstop which, by definition, means Britain can erect a border and smash the GFA anytime they want.
This whole mess hurts my head.
The EU want a deal but not at any cost. They will reluctantly watch us lurch out without a deal before they renogotiate the removal of the backstop as they view no deal as the lesser of 2 evils. That is my take.
Mine too. Both sides think the other is bluffing. Neither is.
They have, but nobody in the UK is listening.
The only way they'll entertain further is if the UK sign up to an amended political declaration for its intention to go for a softer Brexit i.e. staying in the Customs Union and Single Market but as that was ruled out by not sanctioning the deal it seems very unlikely to happen.
All this talk of amendments, GE and referendum changes nothing.
Either the UK signs up to the WA, it cancels Brexit or it leaves with no deal. The only thing that can possibly change is the wording of the political declaration and the UK don't look remotely likely doing that.
Philippe Lamberts, a Belgian Green MEP and a member of the European parliament’s Brexit steering group, told Sky News this morning that he thought hard Brexiters in the UK were suffering from “delusion” if they thought the EU was going to abandon the backstop. He explained:
"We are not going to say that we surrender the backstop or, conversely, that we accept that we will make no checks at the borders, even though the United Kingdom might significantly diverge in terms of sanitary standards, social standards, environmental standards. And then we should let a 500 kilometre door open to the single market, without any checks? Just as if you, as a Brexiter, would say, ‘Okay, we do not want [freedom of movement], but we accept that we will not make any border checks on people. Would they do that? Of course not ...
I think there is an underestimation in the United Kingdom ... that the cost of hurting the single market is judged, on this side of the channel, as much bigger than the cost of a no-deal Brexit. Yes, a no-deal Brexit will be damaging, not just to the UK - massively so - but also to the European Union. But accepting a gigantic backdoor into the single market would be even more damaging. So the calculus is quite obvious; if we have to choose, we will choose the lesser of two evils, and that’s a no-deal Brexit"
Like i said, if Ireland rolled over then the rest of the EU would still reject removing the backstop.
"We are not going to say that we surrender the backstop or, conversely, that we accept that we will make no checks at the borders, even though the United Kingdom might significantly diverge in terms of sanitary standards, social standards, environmental standards. And then we should let a 500 kilometre door open to the single market, without any checks? Just as if you, as a Brexiter, would say, ‘Okay, we do not want [freedom of movement], but we accept that we will not make any border checks on people. Would they do that? Of course not ...
I think there is an underestimation in the United Kingdom ... that the cost of hurting the single market is judged, on this side of the channel, as much bigger than the cost of a no-deal Brexit. Yes, a no-deal Brexit will be damaging, not just to the UK - massively so - but also to the European Union. But accepting a gigantic backdoor into the single market would be even more damaging. So the calculus is quite obvious; if we have to choose, we will choose the lesser of two evils, and that’s a no-deal Brexit"
Like i said, if Ireland rolled over then the rest of the EU would still reject removing the backstop.
Exactly, the EU will never compromise the 4 freedoms which has been said since day one but the UK just won't accept it.
The first point isn't correct, it goes under article 18 of the withdrawal agreements under Safeguards.
The second point is just strange, if you ultimately don't want a border we will have to respect the same sets of rules, there is no way to go around it. So UK politicians should stop talking nonsense when it comes to that topic.
The third point is also not correct, at least the terms used and the interpretation isn't. The actual name is Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and reviewing mechanism involves both parties and the joint committee.
The ERG know the EU aren't going to renegotiate the WA. This is their entire play. They don't want a deal.
Those in the EU that think there's still a deal to be had are not getting the point.
If I were the EU, I'd break off contact, prepare for no deal and wait for the UK to decide what they want.
May just reneged on he deal she negotiated.
Those in the EU that think there's still a deal to be had are not getting the point.
If I were the EU, I'd break off contact, prepare for no deal and wait for the UK to decide what they want.
May just reneged on he deal she negotiated.
What you have to remember in all this is that the number one priority for the Government is staying in power, then what is best for the country after that. You only have to look at the amendments against no deal being voted down on party lines last night, despite the fact that everyone (including the Tories voting them down) knows that no deal is the last thing the country needs.
This is just so absurd.
Yesterday's vote did not give any new message or new mandate. She spent over a year negotiating the position and then delayed the vote to get the EU to budge on this very issue. Why are they now pretending that only now do the EU know our position on the backstop and for crying out loud someone ask her why she didn't make it clear to them the first or second time!
Yesterday's vote did not give any new message or new mandate. She spent over a year negotiating the position and then delayed the vote to get the EU to budge on this very issue. Why are they now pretending that only now do the EU know our position on the backstop and for crying out loud someone ask her why she didn't make it clear to them the first or second time!
Aren't we just heading towards what May wants with a final vote on her deal vs hard brexit?
In the event of Hard Brexit wining I'd imagine she'd resign, although she might stay on to keep the party in power?
In the event of Hard Brexit wining I'd imagine she'd resign, although she might stay on to keep the party in power?
She negotiated the backstop, it was shaped to suit her by including the whole of the UK.
She is delaying just to stay in power a little bit longer, that's all.
The EU knows exactly what's going on, the whole world knows exactly what's going on.
The Government doesn't know what's going on.
So Corbyn is willing to meet with May to discuss to protect jobs, Living conditions and Rights of the British people. This is crucial , but i can't help but feel from here on in it's just pissing in the wind.
Sounds like cancelling Brexit.
Corbyn is a Kyte in a hurricane. He's a passenger in this process. He doesn't have the numbers to make any meaningful impact. Not when he has 10+ rebels willing to impose had brexit on us.
Feels like eveeyeve is just in political damage limitation mode.
Feels like eveeyeve is just in political damage limitation mode.
...just reminds me of...
It's not. May has shown she will not countenance any solution that breaks her party.
The part you missed out is that he wants to put forward his alternative proposition about being in a permanent customs union but having different tariffs and negotiating separate trade deals plus having single market acess without following the 4 freedoms. Somehow people still treat him as a serious politician.
I'm joking, I know it won't be cancelled. It would just be the best thing to do if the goal is to protect jobs, living conditions etc. Of course that would require politicians to focus on bettering society and not staying in power.
True
You joke but that's when people will use the dreaded "regulatory alignment". I don't even know what they imagine it to be.
100 lorries a day 