Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:27 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

May’s deal was a reasonable ‘hard option’, imo. Not what i’d have advocated, but reasonable nonetheless.

What do you think a reasonable deal would look like?

Protection of existing status for all brits now living in Europe, and for EU citizens now resident in the UK

An electronic mechanism so goods can move freely across the Irish border - no backstop.

The ability to strike autonomous deals outside of the EU and an agree trade deal with the EU

Make our own laws no recourse back to European court

A reasonable settlement figure 39bn seems huge.

The problem with May's deal is the EU hold all the cards and could hold the UK in a frozen Brexit indefinitely which is why it couldn't get through Parliament - a rotten deal from a PM completely out of her depth.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:52 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Protection of existing status for all brits now living in Europe, and for EU citizens now resident in the UK

An electronic mechanism so goods can move freely across the Irish border - no backstop.

The ability to strike autonomous deals outside of the EU and an agree trade deal with the EU

Make our own laws no recourse back to European court

A reasonable settlement figure 39bn seems huge.

The problem with May's deal is the EU hold all the cards and could hold the UK in a frozen Brexit indefinitely which is why it couldn't get through Parliament - a rotten deal from a PM completely out of her depth.

The first is perfectly reasonable, and was covered by articles 11 to 14, according to the summary I just googled.

The electronic mechanism solution to the Irish border problem doesn’t exist, has only been defined conceptually in broad terms, is at best an aspiration and at worst wishful thinking.

Contingent somewhat on the Irish border solution, May’s agreement allowed us to strike new trade deals outside the EU and with the EU.

May’s deal took us completely outside the jurisdiction of the European courts.

£39 billion is a lot of money, but none of what it covers seems unreasonable to me.

May was out of her depth but she picked up a poop hand. A huge part of the problem was that expectations were unrealistically high. That’s part of the political cycle of course, hopes are raised and then disappointed. And the way that has to be dealt with is by accepting reality and a degree of disappointment. Or by sticking fingers in ears and sulking our way to something even worse, apparently.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:06 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Protection of existing status for all brits now living in Europe, and for EU citizens now resident in the UK

An electronic mechanism so goods can move freely across the Irish border - no backstop.

The ability to strike autonomous deals outside of the EU and an agree trade deal with the EU

Make our own laws no recourse back to European court

A reasonable settlement figure 39bn seems huge.

The problem with May's deal is the EU hold all the cards and could hold the UK in a frozen Brexit indefinitely which is why it couldn't get through Parliament - a rotten deal from a PM completely out of her depth.

So your only issue with May's deal, which covered all the above, is the settlement figure?
A figure which you think "seems huge" but which we've already established you don't know the detail of or the rationale for?

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:16 am  

So the cat is out of the bag.
Even our "no deal" government knows that we are heading for choppy waters with no deal and despite Gove's best efforts to say this was old news, THERI OWN forecast for a no deal Brexit shows that we will be in for some pain.

If the leave side had written the dossier, it would be labelled "project fear" but this was THEIR OWN projection.

At least nobody can now be in any doubt that leaving without a deal will hurt every man, woman and child in the UK and if this is what any of you voted for, I hope your happy now.

I really would like to know the motivation and who actually wins with this outcome.

It seems that The EU believe that we wont follow through (for obvious reasons) and they aren't ready to budge so, we will see just how determined Boris and Co are to crap on the people that they represent.

The economy is already on the verge of recession and this should ensure that spending plans are reversed as we face a few more uncertain years.
Dont think it will be as bad as the banking crisis but what are they doing.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:19 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

The first is perfectly reasonable, and was covered by articles 11 to 14, according to the summary I just googled.

The electronic mechanism solution to the Irish border problem doesn’t exist, has only been defined conceptually in broad terms, is at best an aspiration and at worst wishful thinking.

Contingent somewhat on the Irish border solution, May’s agreement allowed us to strike new trade deals outside the EU and with the EU.

May’s deal took us completely outside the jurisdiction of the European courts.

£39 billion is a lot of money, but none of what it covers seems unreasonable to me.

May was out of her depth but she picked up a poop hand. A huge part of the problem was that expectations were unrealistically high. That’s part of the political cycle of course, hopes are raised and then disappointed. And the way that has to be dealt with is by accepting reality and a degree of disappointment. Or by sticking fingers in ears and sulking our way to something even worse, apparently.

You miss the "Hotel California" clause - conveniently

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:20 am  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

So your only issue with May's deal, which covered all the above, is the settlement figure?
A figure which you think "seems huge" but which we've already established you don't know the detail of or the rationale for?

Again it is the "Hotel California" clause that is the issue as you well know - shame you failed to mention that in your summary.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:05 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Again it is the "Hotel California" clause that is the issue as you well know - shame you failed to mention that in your summary.

Maybe the clowns that wanted a referendum should have thought a little more about how they would achieve it, BEFORE selling their version of utopia
The whole impasse is of our own making but, you can bet your life that Boris will be blaming "the inflexibility of the EU", despite still not having a sensible plan for the Irish border and given that he has had an additional 3 years since the referendum to come up with a sensible idea, it's quite ridiculous that he think the solution will suddenly appear, like some kind of apparition.
Remember the old phrase about not starting a fight if you cant finish it ???

[Bullseye]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:44 am  

If the technology isn’t that far off for the Irish border as some claim then accept the backstop in the WA. It won’t be needed.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:35 am  

Bullseye wrote:

If the technology isn’t that far off for the Irish border as some claim then accept the backstop in the WA. It won’t be needed.

Is that the technology that doesn't currently exist anywhere in the world?

What we're witnessing of course, is Johnson deliberately making vague and impossible demands of the EU, so he can play the inevitable failure of his plan as being entirely due to EU intransigence.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:47 am  

bren2k wrote:

Is that the technology that doesn't currently exist anywhere in the world?

What we're witnessing of course, is Johnson deliberately making vague and impossible demands of the EU, so he can play the inevitable failure of his plan as being entirely due to EU intransigence.

Absolutely.
It's just a matter of whether he uses this to blame the EU for the UK proceeding with no deal or, whether he uses the line in his resignation speech.
Sadly, I think it will be the first option.
It's a bloody shambles that he believed that the EU would blink, just because he wanted them to.
It's all starting to unravel.