The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[MickeyC_UTV]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

 

had to laugh at that video while crying inside with the whole situation, damn, sick burn brah!

[villakram]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

A return to where things were is off the table once the UK has left (i.e. as it currently stands and would do with the WA - 29th March 2019 11pm).

My reading is that the deal language is quite wishy washy in terms of specifics and so a return is not ruled out. The only real hard thing is the backstop as a carrot to discourage your elected representatives from continuing to negotiate in such a non-sensical manner. Though, I fear the EU lot have not been paying quite enough attention to things with all this logic and such. Of course, there would likely be a price, political or monetary or preferably both to pay. Maybe, you lot could have a sensible government confiscate Lizzy and her lots fortune to pay for these things. Two birds, one stone.

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, villakram said:

 Two birds, one stone. 

Whole thing is more like two birds one cup if you ask me.

[snowychap]

17 minutes ago, villakram said:

My reading is that the deal language is quite wishy washy in terms of specifics and so a return is not ruled out.

It doesn't matter what the language of the deal is.

17 minutes ago, villakram said:

The only real hard thing is the backstop

There are a number of hard things.

As far as I got it from the CJEU judgment, the UK can revoke A50 only whilst it's still a member of the EU. When it ceases to be so (the 29th March as it stands), then it can't. Return after that point would be via A49 (?) process.

17 minutes ago, villakram said:

Of course, there would likely be a price, political or monetary or preferably both to pay.

That wouldn't be returning to how things were. That would be applying for new membership.

Edited December 11, 2018 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Oh god, Newsnight have got Redwood in again.

[OutByEaster?]

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It doesn't matter what the language of the deal is.

I kind of got from Juncker today that he believes the language of the deal is the only thing that now has some room for negotiation. He's not going to change the deal but he's quite willing to explain it to us again in a slightly different way if we didn't understand the words first time around.

 

 

[snowychap]

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

I kind of got from Juncker today that he believes the language of the deal is the only thing that now has some room for negotiation. He's not going to change the deal but he's quite willing to explain it to us again in a slightly different way if we didn't understand the words first time around.

I think my comment ought to be taken in the narrow context it was made, i.e. about returning to how things were.

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

he's quite willing to explain it to us again in a slightly different way if we didn't understand the words first time around.

Or the same words, louder?

[peterms]

[a m ole]

Paraphrased quotes from the public on newsnight:

”we just need to get on with it, that’s what the people voted for”

”we just need to get behind Teresa May”

”she’s doing really well, we need to come together to support her”

[villa4europe]

42 minutes ago, a m ole said:

"we just need to get on with it, that’s what the people voted for”

”we just need to get behind Teresa May”

that is literally not what we voted for

[blandy]

12 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

when you trot out Brown people and Blue passports  , you make baby Jesus cry

Sorry, these things have hardly featured in the "debate". I'm sure no-one has any strong views on them, from the Brexit supporting camps.

[Awol]

I’m not a huge fan of our EU membership, but Remain is still better than May’s deal. To knowingly enter a legal relationship that gives us no possibility of unilateral exit is insanity, the equivalent of a masochist embracing a genuine sadist & hoping for the best. 

That said if we got forced into a 2nd referendum and the WTO option was on the ballot I’d take that over Remain or May’s deal. The Treasury modelling is hyper-politicised nonsense IMO. Faced with, for example, the collapse of Airbus, the EU would come around to having a serious negotiation very quickly. 

The problem we’ve had from the beginning (from a leaver’s perspective) is May’s determination to keep us as closely tied as possible to the geo-legal & geo-economic regimes of the EU. That cuts off the potential benefits of leaving & ultimately facilitates re-entry ASAP.

The Tories should have binned her in July when Chequers made the outcome she was aiming for completely clear, but then Tory MPs are Remainers by a clear majority. 

[ml1dch]

19 minutes ago, Awol said:

Faced with, for example, the collapse of Airbus, the EU would come around to having a serious negotiation very quickly.

Probably.

So just think how inconvenient it would be for all parties if a referendum result had just mandated the Government to not put any new trading relationship in place.

[StefanAVFC]

How can anyone in the Government stand there and say anything they've done since 2016 is in the national interest?

Even with 3 months to go they're having a power struggle (the reason we have 3 months to go and we've wasted time is because they triggered article 50 then called a GE )

[Chindie]

WTO rules is bad. Which is why nobody relies on them.

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I’m not a huge fan of our EU membership, but Remain is still better than May’s deal. To knowingly enter a legal relationship that gives us no possibility of unilateral exit is insanity, the equivalent of a masochist embracing a genuine sadist & hoping for the best. 

That said if we got forced into a 2nd referendum and the WTO option was on the ballot I’d take that over Remain or May’s deal. The Treasury modelling is hyper-politicised nonsense IMO. Faced with, for example, the collapse of Airbus, the EU would come around to having a serious negotiation very quickly. 

The problem we’ve had from the beginning (from a leaver’s perspective) is May’s determination to keep us as closely tied as possible to the geo-legal & geo-economic regimes of the EU. That cuts off the potential benefits of leaving & ultimately facilitates re-entry ASAP.

The Tories should have binned her in July when Chequers made the outcome she was aiming for completely clear, but then Tory MPs are Remainers by a clear majority. 

‘No deal’ doesn’t resolve the problem of the Good Friday Agreement which has been the sticking point for May’s negotiations. 

[Awol]

12 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

‘No deal’ doesn’t resolve the problem of the Good Friday Agreement which has been the sticking point for May’s negotiations. 

GFA makes no reference to customs or a hard border, but it does provide for additional protocols to be added to it - indeed additional negotiations were supposed to happen after 1998 to further develop it but Blair didn’t bother.

The GFA could therefore provide a platform for an arrangement to be made outwith the EU and this negotiation. All parties could sign up to that as a route to a solution and should want to do so, having agreed to no hard border under any circumstances. 

The backstop isn’t about the EU being awkward, it was a ‘problem’ made in London as an anchor to keep us within the customs union. It wasn’t even spoken about prior to 2017 because a joint working group between customs authorities in Ireland & the UK were sorting it out. The head of HMRC has given evidence to Parliament that WTO rules don’t require any border infrastructure. The blockage is May, with her out of the way (assuming her deal goes with her) we can reach a deal with the EU, even if that means extending A50 by six months. 

When this is over, the depth of May’s deception over the last few years is going to be exposed. She makes Machiavelli look like Mr Blobby. 

[Awol]

27 minutes ago, Chindie said:

WTO rules is bad. Which is why nobody relies on them.

Bare bones WTO rules aren’t great, but do provide an operable platform to build on with additional bilateral agreements. If both parties have an economic interest in doing so that can be done quickly - note, I’m not talking about a full FTA. 

Leaving the EU inevitably means disruption - especially without a transition - because it means a fundamental economic and legal reorientation. The problem is May has tried to have it both ways which is impossible, hence falling on her face. 

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, Awol said:

GFA makes no reference to customs or a hard border, but it does provide for additional protocols to be added to it - indeed additional negotiations were supposed to happen after 1998 to further develop it but Blair didn’t bother.

The GFA could therefore provide a platform for an arrangement to be made outwith the EU and this negotiation. All parties could sign up to that as a route to a solution and should want to do so, having agreed to no hard border under any circumstances. 

The backstop isn’t about the EU being awkward, it was a ‘problem’ made in London as an anchor to keep us within the customs union. It wasn’t even spoken about prior to 2017 because a joint working group between customs authorities in Ireland & the UK were sorting it out. The head of HMRC has given evidence to Parliament that WTO rules don’t require any border infrastructure. The blockage is May, with her out of the way (assuming her deal goes with her) we can reach a deal with the EU, even if that means extending A50 by six months. 

When this is over, the depth of May’s deception over the last few years is going to be exposed. She makes Machiavelli look like Mr Blobby. 

That's a reading which seems at odds with circumstances.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that the GFA included dismantling the various security infrastructure (including border check etc.).

Secondly, pure WTO terms would require a hard border to the UK. Also Absence from the CU and SM would require the EU to put up a hard border with the UK.

Thirdly, no one on the Island of Ireland (well not no-one, but ykwIm) wants or will accept a hard border.

Fourthly, as we've done to death, you cannot have control over immigration and no hard border between the UK and the EU. It has been fundamentally impossible to have both these things.

So everything is loaded against having a hard border. Yet May's demands for control of immigration and the nutter hard Brexit lot desire for "just leave" must impose a hard border by its nature (the hard leave).

Finally, Ireland has a veto. They do not accept a hard border. They can kill any agreement.

Oh and the backstop - it's not made in London, it's an essential part of the EU protecting itself, in that if we leave the CU and SM we cannot have the benefits of them, so there needs to be something in place (which doesn't exist) to protect the integrity of the CU and SM, or N.I (or the whole UK) has to stay in them.

Why anyone's making a fuss over something so blindingly obvious, and which has been since before the vote, is quite beyond comprehension.