Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Paul the Wolf]

am I right in thinking that if the W.A. is not signed the "financial obligations" will be lower as part of the financial agreement was for continued access to the single market for the transition period?

Believe so, the supposed 39bn also covered the cost of the transition period.

 

[sun_tzu]

Believe so, the supposed 39bn also covered the cost of the transition period.

no doubt getting that down to say 34bn pr something would be spun as a huge victory by the pro brexit brigade

 

[Maticmaker]

Yeah whatever man, read your own posts. It's not a "position", it's not a "demand". It's a legal bloody requirement. An EU law the UK voted into effect too, via its MEPs.

What you're saying is that UK brexiteer position was that the EU would break its laws to favour a departing member. Absolute fantasy.

This has obviously got you riled up, but it is an EU demand, (i.e. its not for negotiation therefore its a demand) one resulting from EU laws/rules and yes the UK did vote for it, in fact I think it was a Brit who wrote A50!

I am not saying it is or was the Brexiteer's position, I am simply saying they are now realising that only a no deal will come close satisfying their expectations. Our politicians notably May led the UK public to believe they could negotiate the whole package in one agreement, when in fact the EU made it clear from day 1 that was not the case.

I apologised for not being clear about what I meant, but nothing I said was wrong, the EU does not have a choice unless they break their own rules, but I would also advise you to calm down, we are both on the same page here!

 

[Paul the Wolf]

This only in effect, restates what has been the EU position since day 1. The EU demands a WA is signed and ratified by the UK Parliament before it even begins to discuss Trade issues. The UK's approach as always been the opposite, to agree (optimistically, over a two year transition period) a trade deal, then a WA agreement can then be reached. Each side (understandably) reluctant to give a hostage to fortune, to the other side

So in three years (plus), nothing basically has changed at all. Despite May changing her mind and agreeing to the WA being agreed first she did however always imply "nothings agreed until everything is agreed" but then seemed to have change her mind on that; its no wonder the EU read the wrong signals from us. Now with Boris seeming to want to focus on getting some sort of movement on the back-stop, he is giving the impression that this will be enough to get both sides (who lets be honest are both dreading a no deal outcome) to agree to some sort of 'eleventh -hour' negotiated deal.

The problem is, that as many people have been saying, a lot more is known now about what Brexit means, or what it doesn't mean, than at the referendum. However a little learning can be a dangerous thing, most leavers now know things they didn't know, principally that the only way they will be likely to get what they want in Brexit is through a no deal and remainers know any sort of 'deal' agreed is less than what we have now and so revoking A50 is the only way out for them, that's why Swinson is betting the house on this for an upcoming GE.

Corbyn's been playing for a GE all along and it has to be said he has played a 'blinder' on that one, but he's missed the boat, by the time the GE, (known as the Brexit GE) comes along Swinson will have stripped him of the mantle for Revoking A50 and the Tories/TBP will have stolen a number of his northern seats. Jeremy's like a player running the full length of the pitch evading tackle after tackle, rounding the goalkeeper, then firing wide!

I see the last three years as basically a waste of time. There was only ever going to be one withdrawal agreement based on the red lines of leaving the CU and the SM.
If it was Brexit in name only, leaving was pointless. People believing that it would satisfy both sides is the opposite of my opinion in that no-one would be happy.

Really the negotiations have hardly started, just the basics of citizens rights, pay the bill and sort out the border but they're no further advanced than 3 years ago. Imagine how long it will take once it gets down to the nitty-gritty of a trade deal.
Corbyn has been playing for a GE but I'd be very very surprised if he ever became PM, and think he's got everything wrong.

 

[EwanI Ted]

This has pretty much always been Labour policy, nothings changed.

Those such as Watson who believe they can do a better job of campaigning for remain can still do so, why they're unhappy that they get to be the focal point rather than Corbyn says a lot.

I dont think that's accurate, this sounds like a small but distinct change in position. Previously he hadnt explicitly said either way what he would do, which essentially left all options on the table. Now he seems to be moving towards categorically ruling out backing either Remain or Leave. That has at least two major knock ons.

Firstly, since he would be Prime Minister, we can assume this means the UK Government will not have a view on whether we should Remain or Leave. That means the machinery & resources of Government will not back Remain.

Secondly, presumably this means Labour would officially not be backing Remain, since Corbyn seems unlikely to ignore a clear resolution of conference. Likely he will push for a conference resolution that permits everyone to vote as they see fit, arguing its a matter of conscience, something along those lines. Again this means Labour Party machinery and resources will not be used to campaign for Remain. So no official emails, phone calls, leaflets etc from central office and no access to central Labour Party data.

For the Remain campaign, this a blow. Sure, lots of high profile Labour figures will still campaign for Remain, but with neither a Labour Government nor the Labour Party using their tools or influence in favour of Remain, it feels likely to have an impact. Given that a second ref seems likely to be both hard fought and narrowly decided, this feels like it could be a major contributing factor to the outcome.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

no doubt getting that down to say 34bn pr something would be spun as a huge victory by the pro brexit brigade

Probably, but at the end of the day the UK pay what they owe, no more and no less.

 

[sun_tzu]

I see the last three years as basically a waste of time. There was only ever going to be one withdrawal agreement based on the red lines of leaving the CU and the SM.
If it was Brexit in name only, leaving was pointless. People believing that it would satisfy both sides is the opposite of my opinion in that no-one would be happy.

Really the negotiations have hardly started, just the basics of citizens rights, pay the bill and sort out the border but they're no further advanced than 3 years ago. Imagine how long it will take once it gets down to the nitty-gritty of a trade deal.
Corbyn has been playing for a GE but I'd be very very surprised if he ever became PM, and think he's got everything wrong.

Also remember trade deals are normally constructive and collaborative processes (albeit very long and detailed ones)
Typically you come from places of different alignment and are agreeing to compromise and come to an agreement in order to remove barriers to trade (you give a bit we give a bit type negotiations)
we will be coming from a place of full alignment and seeking to diverge and that will lead to aditional barriers coming into force (if you do that we will put a tarrif in place... tit for tat type threats)
If we have left without a withdrawal agreement and especially a situation where each side tries to blame the other then I can see the negotiations being really really hard work and taking a long long time (especially if lets say the brexit party end up in a coalition and involved in the talks)

 

[sun_tzu]

Probably, but at the end of the day the UK pay what they owe, no more and no less.

I'm presuming the figure was agreed in € not £ as well

 

[711]

am I right in thinking that if the W.A. is not signed the "financial obligations" will be lower as part of the financial agreement was for continued access to the single market for the transition period?

Also some of the settlement was for our part in the remaining current budget we had agreed to, rightly so of course, but I presume as it's dragged on we've been now paid for much of that already.

 

[sun_tzu]

Also some of the settlement was for our part in the remaining current budget we had agreed to, rightly so of course, but I presume as it's dragged on we've been now paid for much of that already.

logically yes id say so - I think the current period ran up to back end of 2020?
i can see us ending up with mays agreement - the backstop called something else but basically unchanged and a shorter transition period meaning we will have paid as much but it being spun that we have halfed our payment?
and of course by the end of 2020 when we have no trade deal and the Backstop (or backstop by another name) kicks in farrage etc will be demanding we go back and renegotiate / leave without a deal anyway / start a war if the EU dont agree

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I'm presuming the figure was agreed in € not £ as well

Presumably, special offer - pay it now and save 20% if there's no deal and sterling collapse

 

[711]

logically yes id say so - I think the current period ran up to back end of 2020?
i can see us ending up with mays agreement - the backstop called something else but basically unchanged and a shorter transition period meaning we will have paid as much but it being spun that we have halfed our payment?
and of course by the end of 2020 when we have no trade deal and the Backstop (or backstop by another name) kicks in farrage etc will be demanding we go back and renegotiate / leave without a deal anyway / start a war if the EU dont agree

Yeah, I decided some time ago I'd take the deal and worry about the backstop later. A poor way to do things but I couldn't think of anything better.

 

[711]

Labour MPs will still be campaigning for remain as will Momentum it just won't be party official policy. I don't think anyone who could be convinced to vote remain would now not do so since it's not an official policy.

That'll go down well in the Labour manifesto 'don't worry Momentum have got it covered', should pull in votes by the million that one.

 

[sun_tzu]

Presumably, special offer - pay it now and save 20% if there's no deal and sterling collapse

i think some of the payments are due over around 20 years - so probably compound inflation means we would be better off not doing that - but yes the initial payments could jump in price if we see the pound drop significantly (though conversly if we agreed a transition arrangement i could see the pound bouncing on at least the short term)

 

[nickm]

Corbyn seems to have decided his 'negotiate with me and then I'll campaign against it' policy was a bit ludicrous after all, so he's cleverly replaced it with a 'negotiate with me but I don't care what happens either way' policy.

Just be honest Corbyn, whatever your beliefs on the EU actually are tell us and explain them, and if you don't have any feck off out of politics, you've picked the wrong hobby.

All I know is, his gut says maybe...

Still, it's at least a remain friendly option, which is an improvement. Although it'd be helpful to know more about the shape of the proposed Labour deal and how they would realistically go about getting something different to the WA.

 

[WensleyMU]

"Xavier Bettel’s speech yesterday did not serve the European cause," Mr Röttgen, a former minister in Ms Merkel's government warned.

"His public venting ignored that a deal is still in everyone’s interest. Even without a deal there will be a post-Brexit life, which means that right now everyone needs to behave in a way that avoids animosity."

One EU diplomat in Brussels suggested that Mr Bettel had gone too far and "reinforced the us versus them narrative" in the UK.

Another accused Luxembourg's leader of playing into the hands of hard Brexiteers back in the UK who wanted a no-deal.

The Independent.

 

[Smores]

I dont think that's accurate, this sounds like a small but distinct change in position. Previously he hadnt explicitly said either way what he would do, which essentially left all options on the table. Now he seems to be moving towards categorically ruling out backing either Remain or Leave. That has at least two major knock ons.

Firstly, since he would be Prime Minister, we can assume this means the UK Government will not have a view on whether we should Remain or Leave. That means the machinery & resources of Government will not back Remain.

Secondly, presumably this means Labour would officially not be backing Remain, since Corbyn seems unlikely to ignore a clear resolution of conference. Likely he will push for a conference resolution that permits everyone to vote as they see fit, arguing its a matter of conscience, something along those lines. Again this means Labour Party machinery and resources will not be used to campaign for Remain. So no official emails, phone calls, leaflets etc from central office and no access to central Labour Party data.

For the Remain campaign, this a blow. Sure, lots of high profile Labour figures will still campaign for Remain, but with neither a Labour Government nor the Labour Party using their tools or influence in favour of Remain, it feels likely to have an impact. Given that a second ref seems likely to be both hard fought and narrowly decided, this feels like it could be a major contributing factor to the outcome.

Corbyn may have not announced it as official policy but this approach of free votes has been discussed for most of the last year in public by key figures. I wouldn't immediately presume a lack of support for campaigns from Labour.

It would be incredible to suggest that the result will rely on the funding of either campaign though. We're already 3 years into an anti-brexit campaign that has taken up 95% of news coverage in that time frame.

I was always of the opinion that the main parties and especially the government should have been neutral in the original campaign. We might not be in this mess if they had.

 

[RedChip]

Turning back to the European parliament for a moment, here is the text of the Brexit motion that MEPs will be voting on.

And here is an extract from what it says about a no-deal Brexit.

The European parliament ...

Notes that there can be no transition period in the absence of the withdrawal agreement nor any ‘mini-deals’ put in place to help mitigate the disruption of a disorderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU;

Stresses that further negotiations between the EU and the UK after the UK has withdrawn from the EU without a deal can only take place on condition that the UK honours its obligations and commitments in respect of citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the Good Friday agreement in all its parts;

Notes that in the case of a ‘no-deal exit’, the UK’s financial and other obligations will still exist; affirms that in such a case it will refuse to give consent to any agreement or agreements between the EU and the UK unless and until the UK honours its commitments;

Recalls that, once such commitments are met, future EU-UK relations negotiations will require strong safeguards and level playing field provisions with a view to safeguarding the EU’s internal market and avoiding placing EU firms at a potential unfair competitive disadvantage; reiterates in that respect the conditions set out in its resolution of 14 March 2018 not least as regards ensuring high levels of environmental, employment and consumer protection; notes that any free trade agreement that fails to respect such levels of protection would not be ratified by the European parliament.

Well, that's clear enough though whether Brexiteers will even bother to read it is doubtful.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The Independent.

I suppose Boris threatening to turn into the Incredible Bulk and Farage calling him a pipsqueak were conducive to amicable relations. I thought you were tired of this pettiness.

It would have been good training for Boris anyway, if he leaves with no deal the Leavers as well as the Remainers will be booing him when they realise they've been conned.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Hand waving & pointing is now a Nazi salute is it?

fecks sake, it's bad enough, no need to make shit up, you fecking idiot. Who is this Jason twat face anyway?

 

[WensleyMU]

I suppose Boris threatening to turn into the Incredible Bulk and Farage calling him a pipsqueak were conducive to amicable relations. I thought you were tired of this pettiness.

It would have been good training for Boris anyway, if he leaves with no deal the Leavers as well as the Remainers will be booing him when they realise they've been conned.

No, they were just as pathetic. Maybe if they all grew up, things would be better.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Well, that's clear enough though whether Brexiteers will even bother to read it is doubtful.

Well yes it's been clear all along but a combination of lying politicians and journalists don't help.

 

[WensleyMU]

Hand waving & pointing is now a Nazi salute is it?

fecks sake, it's bad enough, no need to make shit up, you fecking idiot. Who is this Jason twat face anyway?

We are in the age of "everything is hitler" as far as some are concerned.

 

[EwanI Ted]

Corbyn may have not announced it as official policy but this approach of free votes has been discussed for most of the last year in public by key figures. I wouldn't immediately presume a lack of support for campaigns from Labour.

I dont see how we could have a situation where the party officially and clearly resolves to support Remain (or indeed Leave for that matter) but Corbyn doesn't do it. It requires at least some wiggle room, if only in the letter of the law. Particularly if it comes from a conference resolution, Corbyn of all people can't ignore it without consequences, I wouldnt have thought.

It would be incredible to suggest that the result will rely on the funding of either campaign though. We're already 3 years into an anti-brexit campaign that has taken up 95% of news coverage in that time frame.

You don't think the endorsement of the Prime Minister, UK Government and largest political party would be a contributing factor to the outcome? I find that hard to believe, but ok.

 

[Berbaclass]

That video of Boris in the hospital getting confronted by that guy is almost a carbon copy of the “Do you know what it’s like to clean up your own mothers piss” scene from The Thick of It

 

[Honest John]

Corbyn:

'I'll take a neutral stance' = 'I do not give a feck either way about Brexit.

The EU, and whether we are in or out is way down my list. (apart from the fact that it has provided a huge pile of bricks to lob at the Tories for any reason I care to make up at the time)

I do not care what kind of country I inherit as long as Mac and I can implement our idealistic policies.

 

[Dobba]

Corbyn:

'I'll take a neutral stance' = 'I do not give a feck either way about Brexit.

The EU, and whether we are in or out is way down my list. (apart from the fact that it has provided a huge pile of bricks to lob at the Tories for any reason I care to make up at the time)

I do not care what kind of country I inherit as long as Mac and I can implement our idealistic policies.

I thought the line was that Corbyn campaigned half-heartedly at the last referendum, to the point of almost single handedly losing it for Remain, so why are you complaining that he won't campaign in a second one? You've basically got it in the bag.

 

[Red Dreams]

How exactly is that doing anything he said. And with the context of the discussion being whether Trump was worse, then it's a perfectly valid point. Trump's time will end, whether in a year or 5, the other two are there until their death.

So again, there's no need to lie!

What an idiotic response.

There is always something worse going on around the world.

In any situation you do what is right. Its not complicated.

 

[Honest John]

I thought the line was that Corbyn campaigned half-heartedly at the last referendum, to the point of almost single handedly losing it for Remain, so why are you complaining that he won't campaign in a second one? You've basically got it in the bag.

I believe his half-heartedness was born out of apathy. Brexit is not an issue for him. Arguments he espoused against May's deal were pretty moot imo. Workers rights, the environment and the like? Those were things that could have easily been agreed but he made them a big deal. In cross-party negotiations, Labour were not that far from what was on the table. They could have got May's deal through. For me it wasn't ideal but it at least had 27 other signatures on it and would have been a start point. Labour voted it down solely because it was tabled by the Tories. No other reason. Then they look up and accuse others of putting personal ambition before the country.

 

[sun_tzu]

I dont see how we could have a situation where the party officially and clearly resolves to support Remain (or indeed Leave for that matter) but Corbyn doesn't do it. It requires at least some wiggle room, if only in the letter of the law. Particularly if it comes from a conference resolution, Corbyn of all people can't ignore it without consequences, I wouldnt have thought.



You don't think the endorsement of the Prime Minister, UK Government and largest political party would be a contributing factor to the outcome? I find that hard to believe, but ok.

I think the key will be to try and keep it off the conference agenda - not sure if they will be successful in that but i suspect that will be the aim

Free votes makes some sense (though it will also make the party seem disunited but thats probably the trade off for the party not tearing its self apart) - But I think the problem is that 99% of labour MPs will be arguig for remain or leave in that free vote if corbyn tries to hold a neutral position I think hes ' feked (presubably I will deliver whatever the people want is in his mind how it will go - in truth he will be attached as gutless and not prepared to tell us what he thinks on the biggest issue of the day - he will be destroyed in every interview and hes not the best interviewee anyway but seeing him trying to avoid giving an opinion... well its not exactly straight talking politics is it)

 

[Dobba]

I believe his half-heartedness was born out of apathy. Brexit is not an issue for him. Arguments he espoused against May's deal were pretty moot imo. Workers rights, the environment and the like? Those were things that could have easily been agreed but he made them a big deal. In cross-party negotiations, Labour were not that far from what was on the table. They could have got May's deal through. For me it wasn't ideal but it at least had 27 other signatures on it and would have been a start point. Labour voted it down solely because it was tabled by the Tories. No other reason. Then they look up and accuse others of putting personal ambition before the country.

So, again, why are you complaining that he won't be campaigning in a second? You should be jumping for joy.

I think the key will be to try and keep it off the conference agenda - not sure if they will be successful in that but i suspect that will be the aim

Free votes makes some sense (though it will also make the party seem disunited but thats probably the trade off for the party not tearing its self apart) - But I think the problem is that 99% of labour MPs will be arguig for remain or leave in that free vote if corbyn tries to hold a neutral position I think hes ' feked (presubably I will deliver whatever the people want is in his mind how it will go - in truth he will be attached as gutless and not prepared to tell us what he thinks on the biggest issue of the day - he will be destroyed in every interview and hes not the best interviewee anyway but seeing him trying to avoid giving an opinion... well its not exactly straight talking politics is it)

It'll be pretty funny seeing the people who've spent the last 3 years telling everyone Corbyn is a 'Brexiteer' try and make out they don't know where he stands on the issue.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

So, again, why are you complaining that he won't be campaigning in a second? You should be jumping for joy.

It'll be pretty funny seeing the people who've spent the last 3 years telling everyone Corbyn is a 'Brexiteer' try and make out they don't know where he stands on the issue.

Tbf it's been quite funny seeing the Corbyn fan club trying to convince themselves that Corbyn is a Remainer.

 

[Honest John]

So, again, why are you complaining that he won't be campaigning in a second? You should be jumping for joy.

I'm not complaining. Whether he campaigns or not matters not to me. My point is that he has no interest whatsoever in whether the UK is a member of the EU or not. The whole debate for him is an irritable noise with the one redeeming feature of providing him with all manner of excuses to vote down everything the Tories propose regardless of what harm it does. He wants the whole thing to fail miserably. The bigger the mess the better. Now he's in opposition and that's his job. But don't shoot holes in others for being career politicians.

At least May did the honorable thing. Looking back, I reckon that she genuinely cared more about the country's interests than he ever did. He could have got her deal through and stuck it to Farage and the ERG headbangers. May had already said she would go and whatever Tory leader came in would have called a GE almost immediately to try and increase the majority because the support of the DUP would have evaporated.. Corbyn could have had his chance.

Now look what we have!


My issue is the hypocrisy.

 

[FootyGirl88]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Dobba]

Tbf it's been quite funny seeing the Corbyn fan club trying to convince themselves that Corbyn is a Remainer.

He's such a Brexiteer that we left in March.

 

[Dobba]

I'm not complaining. Whether he campaigns or not matters not to me. My point is that he has no interest whatsoever in whether the UK is a member of the EU or not. The whole debate for him is an irritable noise with the one redeeming feature of providing him with all manner of excuses to vote down everything the Tories propose regardless of what harm it does. He wants the whole thing to fail miserably. The bigger the mess the better. Now he's in opposition and that's his job. But don't shoot holes in others for being career politicians.

At least May did the honorable thing. Looking back, I reckon that she genuinely cared more about the country's interests than he ever did. He could have got her deal through and stuck it to Farage and the ERG headbangers. May had already said she would go and whatever Tory leader came in would have called a GE almost immediately to try and increase the majority because the support of the DUP would have evaporated.. Corbyn could have had his chance.

Now look what we have!


My issue is the hypocrisy.

The woman who deported Britons, in some cases to their deaths, in one of the most brazenly racist campaigns in living memory genuinely cares about the country's interests. Got it.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

He's such a Brexiteer that we left in March.

With an agreement in March or in October without. Or do you mean he's going all out remain?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I'm not complaining. Whether he campaigns or not matters not to me. My point is that he has no interest whatsoever in whether the UK is a member of the EU or not. The whole debate for him is an irritable noise with the one redeeming feature of providing him with all manner of excuses to vote down everything the Tories propose regardless of what harm it does. He wants the whole thing to fail miserably. The bigger the mess the better. Now he's in opposition and that's his job. But don't shoot holes in others for being career politicians.

At least May did the honorable thing. Looking back, I reckon that she genuinely cared more about the country's interests than he ever did. He could have got her deal through and stuck it to Farage and the ERG headbangers. May had already said she would go and whatever Tory leader came in would have called a GE almost immediately to try and increase the majority because the support of the DUP would have evaporated.. Corbyn could have had his chance.

Now look what we have!


My issue is the hypocrisy.

I'm not sure that the accusation of hypocrisy stands.
I full agree that he doesn't especially care whether we're in the EU or not and considers it an irritating distraction from more critical issues.
Clearly the chaos in the Tories being maximised suits him.
However, I don't think you can claim that not backing May's deal means that engineering even more chaos for political gain is more plausible than him genuinely not agreeing with it. It could just as easily be argued that this demonstrates he's working in the country's interests.
Corbyn is not the cause of this issue and I'm not sure a committed remainer at the head of Labour would have resulted in less chaos.

 

[Dobba]

With an agreement in March or in October without. Or do you mean he's going all out remain?

So he's not just any Brexiteer, but a 'No Deal' Brexiteer who keeps requesting it be taken off the table.

 

[Honest John]

The woman who deported Britons, in some cases to their deaths, in one of the most brazenly racist campaigns in living memory genuinely cares about the country's interests. Got it.

Who do you think will suffer the most in this country because of a mess made seismically worse by Corbyns career-serving ambivalence?