Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!
- Thread starter drdel
- Start date
- Status
Kellfire
Blackballed
Worth a watch? Saw it at 10pm on BBC1 but was winding down for the night.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
OK - I agree I am not fully informed, and indeed I am ignorant, about detail associated with leaving; the negotiations; and leaving on No Deal - despite my efforts to become informed (in part by trying to take on what you point me to). That being the true then I suggest that your own understanding of the detail being much better than mine and most probably the vast majority of the electorate supports the case for the need for an informed debate around leaving on No Deal and for a confirmatory referendum
That aside - yes - the EU can be viewed as being partly, or indeed jointly, responsible for the situation we find ourselves in - even although their intransigence is surely only self-serving. If the EU had seen benefits that outweighed the risks to the EU in anything that the UK has suggested, then would they not have taken these suggestions on-board.
In any case - if you listen to such as Tim Martin on leaving on a No Deal basis (as expressed in a Dublin pub on Panorama last night - which btw I thought was not very informative at all - pretty poor in fact - a skim that didn't tell me much more that I didn't know other than some fishermen have quite some faith in Spanish and French customers continuiing to buy our fish no matter what) - then he might well say that we have to thank the EU for being so intransigent, his view being very strongly that No Deal is better than any deal.
It is just a pity that we did not hear more of such voices in support of No Deal during the lead up to the vote - at least then we would have been able to get to the bottom of what leaving with No Deal would actually mean - though when Remain told us, their words were dismissed as Project Fear and so not to be listened to or believed.
Last edited:
yes, but the one we watched was on at 9 i think
spongebob59
Journeyman Pro
BREAKING --> GERMANY'S MERKEL SAYS IF FIND SOLUTION FOR IRISH BORDER IN POLITICAL DECLARATION, THE BACKSTOP WILL BE OVERWRITTEN (reuters)
Foxholer
Blackballed
Irish press seem to have leaped on Merkel's statement as some nnew development! But there's actually nothing new there!
The whole purpose of the 'backstop' is to have some rules for what happens if NO solution is found! By default, if A solution is found, there's no need for a 'backstop!
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
Boris the Bold has the answer to the backstop....he is going rename it the Stopback. 
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
BJ telling us (today in the DT?) that if man can go to the moon then there will be a technical solution to support the management of an open border in Ireland between the UK and the EU. That being the case what is the issue with the backstop that is blocking Eurosceptic MP agreement of May's Agreement. Yes - the EU would have to agree it - but by the time the technical solution is ready to be implemented I suspect the EU may be happy to be well shot of us.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Unfortunately I can only see Farage; the BP; the ERG and their ilk rejecting pretty much any deal that BJ might be able to cobble together and agree with the EU. And I suspect that they will spin things so that too many voters would believe that we were being shanghaied by the EU and Remoaners into that deal and Leave voter anger will rise, as will The BP.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Do the shipping events in the gulf; the UK's naval limitations in being able to protecting our interests in that region; the suggestion UK could have, but had not, requested US support; and the suggestion that our European friends could jointly work with us protecting each other's assets across the globe - does not all of this support the case for an EU Rapid Reaction Force (as opposed to an army - armies as such being pretty much an anachronism for most countries in today's world) - such a force being something most Leave voters find abhorrent and a reason to leave.
Also whither Trident as a deterrent...and Trident renewal? Let's spend all those £Bn10s on naval, and airborne assets and forces instead?
Also whither Trident as a deterrent...and Trident renewal? Let's spend all those £Bn10s on naval, and airborne assets and forces instead?
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
You cannot rapid respond naval vessels from Europe to the Gulf, you need a permanent force in place to have a chance of making any impact.
I imagine the next step will be to convoy tankers under the protection warships, I think this has been done before. Its rather ironic the UK has found its self in the current position through implementing current EU trade embargoes on Iran, will we see other EU countries rushing out miltary support to the gulf. I think we know what countries will be left to deal with the consequences.
And the Deputy Prime Minister for Ireland has said that checks can be done away from the border, and that a hard border crossing will not be implemented. So why were the EU saying the back stop has to be there? Spin your post on its head and ask the EU why they wanted the back stop. Never mind asking why the Eurosceptic MP's railed against it, ask why the EU wanted it.
If they are now saying its not needed, just who was negotiating in good faith?
drdel
Tour Rookie
^^^ Exactly.
The EU has not negotiated they've just stonewalled in the hope the UK will capitulate and in the process prevent other members breaking ranks
The EU has not negotiated they've just stonewalled in the hope the UK will capitulate and in the process prevent other members breaking ranks
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
The EU has stuck resolutely to their 4Fs constraints in their negotiations - constraints that of course we knew all about in advance of the vote and commencing negotiations - constraints that we knew were inconsistent with May's Red Lines as soon as she set them out. But in the face of that intransigence, the UK does not have to capitulate - we can just leave; but we 'just leave' with consequences, and these consequences will be of our doing because it would be UK alone which would chose to 'just leave'.
If the EU had an 'on balance' self-interest in making it easy or beneficial for the UK to leave, then I would have thought that they would have enabled that - but clearly, at the moment, the EU considers that their balance of interests calculation is to not facilitate such an exit - that may well change in the coming months under a BJ 'belief' leadership. The EU wants us to remain - and will do what they can within their constraints to make that happen as it is in the EU27's interest for that to happen - but not when the overall balance of consequences is not in the EU's self-interest.
chrisd
Major Champion
You do write a load of tosh. The EU are simply trying to make an example of us so other countries dont follow suit. More important is that with BJ it's less likely that we'll part with the £39b if we go with no deal and that'll be the beginning of the end of their masterplan for a country called Europe!
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Agreed - though rapid reaction forces don't have to be based in the home country - they can be based more locally perhaps? Maybe one of our new carriers could be the floating home of an EU RRF in the Gulf
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
That is your opinion - and indeed it might well be true as it would be part of their overall consideration of the balance of risks and benefits...and we would have known that all along - so why are we upset or surprised?
And the £39bn? Well OK - we withhold that when we leave with No Deal - and with the EU sending billions to support the economy of Ireland (that our No Deal leaving will knacker), I suggest that when we knock on the door of the EU or they come knocking on ours - we will discover even more of what IDS referred to yesterday as the EU's 'mastery of hard-nosed negotiation'. And, when looking for deals around the world, there is I am sure nothing like being seen as a country that reneges on commitments made to a partner - whether these are legally enforceable or not it's not great optics I suggest.
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
While I agree with you about 'trying to make an example...', the rest is just as mush (hopeful) tosh - imo! Much of the £39Bn is legitimate commitments - to pensions anjd other already committed funding - for which UK will actually benefit from. But it's highly likely that those payments will get hidden in (presumably) BoJo's Treasury accounting.
It's all 'Politics/Politicking' and none of the participants are truly 'honest' about anything. Boris is particularly deceitful imo! But that/this appears to be the nature of politics these days - it's the world of the 'best' headline as opposed to the best overall policy!
chrisd
Major Champion
Reneges on commitments? - what happened to "nothings agreed until everything is agreed"
The Beeb did a good piece on the £39bn about a month ago. It can, probably, still be found on their news website. The majority of the £39bn is budget commitments during the implementation period, if May's deal had been accepted.
As a decision to go for a No Deal would not include an implementation period, that portion of the bill wouldn't need to be paid.
Beyond that, the EU has consistently said it will not start any trade negotiations until the issue of financial commitments, UK citizens rights in the EU and the Irish border is decided.
- Status
