Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The naivety, or just plain head-in-the-sand mentality of both Remoaners and ‘No to No-Deal’ exponents is truly incredible! The EU have stated time and time again that NOTHING FURTHER IS NEGOTIABLE. What does it take to get this fact Into their heads?

If there is no room for negotiation and no leeway, then what other option is there except no bloody deal??

Ironically Barnier’s deal gave Labour Remoaners virtually everything they wanted:

UK trapped in the Customs Union in perpetuity at the EU’s pleasure, unable to make our own trade deals and no say in its operation. A fudge on the Single Market allowing a continuation of Free Movement in all but name. Subject to the ECJ for a minimum of 8 years with extension periods that could be extended infinitely. What’s not for Labour to like?

The only reason Corbyn and Labour voted against the deal was because it was a TORY deal.

We relax some of our Red Lines.

The backstop was the OUR idea to fit in with OUR Red Lines - it was not something the EU came up with to trap us in the EU for ever and a day. We set our Red lines in full knowledge of the EU principles around the Single Market - they did not invent them for the negotiations. May painted the UK into a corner. The paint is now dry. We can get out of that corner if we so choose. Johnson is choosing not to do so. Cleverly this morning claimed that there will be a deal - that Johnson and the government want a deal - but failed to explain how that can happen if we refuse to engage - and his rationale for refusing to engage was that previously engaging did not deliver the agreement that was acceptable - but at least it produced an agreement.

Leavers and some here explain endlessly how the solutions to border control between the EU and NI exist - that the issue is simply one confected by the EU - these controls just need rolling out. If that is true then the backstop will NEVER be required. So the backstop should be a non-issue.

Johnson has now said that the backstop should be removed completely without coming up with any suggestion of what could replace it - especially in the event of a no deal departure. But the backstop cannot be removed as there has to be something in place for border control if we leave without a deal - and it simply remains in place until the solutions that already exist are rolled out.

I am not hearing anything about what Johnson actually wants from the EU out of a new negotiation - even were they to drop the backstop. What do we want - a free trade deal and full access to the Single Market? Well that would be nice But it just isn't going to happen.

Despite the words and the lines being spouted by every minister who is put up for any interview - I fear that we are leaving on 31/10 with No Deal - a country being led into a Fields of Dreams by Boris Johnson astride his unicorn. And what we will find there on 1st November - well nobody really knows.

 

[USER1999]

Flipping heck, not Unicorns again.

 

[Fade and Die]

We relax some of our Red Lines.

The backstop was the OUR idea to fit in with OUR Red Lines - it was not something the EU came up with to trap us in the EU for ever and a day. We set our Red lines in full knowledge of the EU principles around the Single Market - they did not invent them for the negotiations. May painted the UK into a corner. The paint is now dry. We can get out of that corner if we so choose. Johnson is choosing not to do so. Cleverly this morning claimed that there will be a deal - that Johnson and the government want a deal - but failed to explain how that can happen if we refuse to engage - and his rationale for refusing to engage was that previously engaging did not deliver the agreement that was acceptable - but at least it produced an agreement.

Leavers and some here explain endlessly how the solutions to border control between the EU and NI exist - that the issue is simply one confected by the EU - these controls just need rolling out. If that is true then the backstop will NEVER be required. So the backstop should be a non-issue.

Johnson has now said that the backstop should be removed completely without coming up with any suggestion of what could replace it - especially in the event of a no deal departure. But the backstop cannot be removed as there has to be something in place for border control if we leave without a deal - and it simply remains in place until the solutions that already exist are rolled out.

I am not hearing anything about what Johnson actually wants from the EU out of a new negotiation - even were they to drop the backstop. What do we want - a free trade deal and full access to the Single Market? Well that would be nice But it just isn't going to happen.

Despite the words and the lines being spouted by every minister who is put up for any interview - I fear that we are leaving on 31/10 with No Deal - a country being led into a Fields of Dreams by Boris Johnson astride his unicorn. And what we will find there on 1st November - well nobody really knows.

Aside from the fact that you think only the U.K. should make concessions (bet you was heartbroken when Teresa the appeaser got the bullet!) you seem to be ignoring the fact it is the E.U that has said there can be no more negotiations. it is your beloved E.U that has given us a take it or leave it deal.

So seems like we will be leaving with no deal, which is what was overwhelming voted for in parliament.

 

[ger147]

As I suspected, you've completely corrupted the purpose of those 'updates'! They are actually updates to delay leaving - in the hope of avoiding a 'no deal' situation!

The House of Commons has NOT 'voted to leave on October 31'! Though, as I stated in my earlier challengr, the effect of current legislation (and negotiations) is that that's what will happen!

To suggest/call SILH a liar for not making the same, erroneous, 'quantum leap' to the same conclusion as you borders on, if not plainly 'is', obscene!

Twaddle...

 

[Pants]

Flipping heck, not Unicorns again.

I think that he is one of the few on the planet who actually believes they exist. Could explain a lot

 

[SocketRocket]

As I suspected, you've completely corrupted the purpose of those 'updates'! They are actually updates to delay leaving - in the hope of avoiding a 'no deal' situation!

The House of Commons has NOT 'voted to leave on October 31'! Though, as I stated in my earlier challengr, the effect of current legislation (and negotiations) is that that's what will happen!

To suggest/call SILH a liar for not making the same, erroneous, 'quantum leap' to the same conclusion as you borders on, if not plainly 'is', obscene!

Parliament voted to enact Article 50 which is designed as the procedure for member states to have a mechanism to allow them to exit the EU. It gives a two year window to negotiate a mutual deal or leave without one, the two year period can also be extended if all parties agree. The UK government negotiated an agreement (deal) that parliament has rejected out of hand, the EU are saying they will not open the the proposed deal for renegotiation but many of the parliamentarians who rejected it are now saying they dont want us to leave without a deal. What option is there now but to leave without a deal just like voting for article 50 suggested could happen.

 

[Foxholer]

Parliament voted to enact Article 50 which is designed as the procedure for member states to have a mechanism to allow them to exit the EU. It gives a two year window to negotiate a mutual deal or leave without one, the two year period can also be extended if all parties agree. The UK government negotiated an agreement (deal) that parliament has rejected out of hand, the EU are saying they will not open the the proposed deal for renegotiation but many of the parliamentarians who rejected it are now saying they dont want us to leave without a deal. What option is there now but to leave without a deal just like voting for article 50 suggested could happen.

Oh, I don't disagree with that, or that that's where the situation is headed. It's the nature of the GER-SILH conversation - and the ridiculous accusation of SILH being a liar that wrankles!
Btw. I don't believe it was rejected 'out of hand' - at least not by all. It was simply a terrible 'deal', but was al the EU would 'concede'!

 

[clubchamp98]

Parliament voted to enact Article 50 which is designed as the procedure for member states to have a mechanism to allow them to exit the EU. It gives a two year window to negotiate a mutual deal or leave without one, the two year period can also be extended if all parties agree. The UK government negotiated an agreement (deal) that parliament has rejected out of hand, the EU are saying they will not open the the proposed deal for renegotiation but many of the parliamentarians who rejected it are now saying they dont want us to leave without a deal. What option is there now but to leave without a deal just like voting for article 50 suggested could happen.

Is this another unintended consequence that our third rate politicians have missed.
Our negotiations were not very good and the EU have just said no to everything.
They have conceded nothing and imo are regretting it as it looks like no deal is the only option.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Is this another unintended consequence that our third rate politicians have missed.
Our negotiations were not very good and the EU have just said no to everything.
They have conceded nothing and imo are regretting it as it looks like no deal is the only option.

Well given how opaque our government was on what was being discussed, we actually have very little idea what the EU conceded.

What we do know is that they conceded in respect of the EU/NI border. What has been agreed and signed off by the EU27 and the UK government in respect of the NI/EU border was not the EUs preferred solution - the EU accommodated what the UK wished. To enable the EU to make that accommodation the UK proposed the backstop. And on the basis of the backstop being in place the UK's preferred position was accepted by the EU.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Aside from the fact that you think only the U.K. should make concessions (bet you was heartbroken when Teresa the appeaser got the bullet!) you seem to be ignoring the fact it is the E.U that has said there can be no more negotiations. it is your beloved E.U that has given us a take it or leave it deal.

So seems like we will be leaving with no deal, which is what was overwhelming voted for in parliament.

Remind me again when that overwhelming vote for No Deal was?

 

[Hobbit]

Well given how opaque our government was on what was being discussed, we actually have very little idea what the EU conceded.

What we do know is that they conceded in respect of the EU/NI border. What has been agreed and signed off by the EU27 and the UK government in respect of the NI/EU border was not the EUs preferred solution - the EU accommodated what the UK wished. To enable the EU to make that accommodation the UK proposed the backstop. And on the basis of the backstop being in place the UK's preferred position was accepted by the EU.

Just a thought... if the EU's preferred option wasn't the backstop why won't they drop it?

 

[Foxholer]

...

So seems like we will be leaving with no deal, which is what was overwhelming voted for in parliament.

Er...Yvette Cooper's Private Member's amendment, that was passed (with a majority of 1), in spite of/against Labour Whip, was purely and simply a device to avoid a 'No Deal'

That suggests that any 'overwhelming majority' would actually be AGAINST No Deal!

 

[Hobbit]

Er...Yvette Cooper's Private Member's amendment, that was passed (with a majority of 1), in spite of/against Labour Whip, was purely and simply a device to avoid a 'No Deal'

That suggests that any 'overwhelming majority' would actually be AGAINST No Deal!

Its a tough one. The MP's and the govt don't want No Deal but have also consigned May's deal to the bin, and the EU have said there's only one deal on the table, which they don't want to renegotiate.

A bit of brinksmanship? Who blinks first?

 

[clubchamp98]

Well given how opaque our government was on what was being discussed, we actually have very little idea what the EU conceded.

What we do know is that they conceded in respect of the EU/NI border. What has been agreed and signed off by the EU27 and the UK government in respect of the NI/EU border was not the EUs preferred solution - the EU accommodated what the UK wished. To enable the EU to make that accommodation the UK proposed the backstop. And on the basis of the backstop being in place the UK's preferred position was accepted by the EU.

Yes I see your point .
But we spent the first two years with a remainer in charge who never really wanted to leave and had no intention of no deal.
If a leaver was in charge for that time an extension would not have been nessesary, as the terms being negotiated would have looked different.
We are where we are now ,but if that wasn’t the preffered outcome for the EU why won’t they renegotiate anything?

 

[SocketRocket]

Well given how opaque our government was on what was being discussed, we actually have very little idea what the EU conceded.

What we do know is that they conceded in respect of the EU/NI border. What has been agreed and signed off by the EU27 and the UK government in respect of the NI/EU border was not the EUs preferred solution - the EU accommodated what the UK wished. To enable the EU to make that accommodation the UK proposed the backstop. And on the basis of the backstop being in place the UK's preferred position was accepted by the EU.

Thats not what happened.
The EU proposed the backstop but it was only to keep Northern Ireland in the Customs Union etc, producing a border down the Irish Sea. May said this was unacceptable and in its place suggested the backstop included all of the UK.
This is not the same as the UK initiating the concept of a backstop.

 

[Fade and Die]

Er...Yvette Cooper's Private Member's amendment, that was passed (with a majority of 1), in spite of/against Labour Whip, was purely and simply a device to avoid a 'No Deal'

That suggests that any 'overwhelming majority' would actually be AGAINST No Deal!

Er...The Commons voted overwhelmingly for No Deal when they triggered Article 50 seventeen months ago....Article 50 states that we leave in 2 years with or WITHOUT an agreement.

Now pay attention it is not rocket science...

Mrs May came back with a “deal” which Parliament rightfully rejected on no less than THREE occasions, leaving No Deal as the default option BY LAW.

Poor old Big Brain Remain MPs... Seems they didn’t know what they were voting for when they voted to trigger Article 50. That’s irony for you.😂😂😂

 

[Foxholer]

Er...The Commons voted overwhelmingly for No Deal when they triggered Article 50 seventeen months ago...
...

Twaddle!

Voting to invoke A50 did/does not mean voting for No Deal...simply accepting that that could result!

Article 50 states that we leave in 2 years with or WITHOUT an agreement.

And you've even got that wrong too!


Btw. There's no need to convince me about No Deal! I believe that's going to be the result - and is likely, given all that's happened since the referendum, that it's the best/only way to proceed - though almost certainly not the best result for UK!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Just a thought... if the EU's preferred option wasn't the backstop why won't they drop it?

As I understand it the EU's preferred solution was trade control down the Irish Sea - not on the EU/NI border. The backstop only came along as the UK did not want trade control done that way - UK wanted it on the EU/NI border and came up with the backstop to enable the EU to accept the UK preference.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yes I see your point .
But we spent the first two years with a remainer in charge who never really wanted to leave and had no intention of no deal.
If a leaver was in charge for that time an extension would not have been nessesary, as the terms being negotiated would have looked different.
We are where we are now ,but if that wasn’t the preffered outcome for the EU why won’t they renegotiate anything?

That 'remainer' somehow got a leave deal agreed - one that that Remainer probably realised was the only deal possible given the red lines she had laid down and felt she had to stick to given internal UK political pressure on her and er party. I cannot see a Leaver NOT setting down the same red Lines so cannot see why things would have been much, if any, different. The EU will negotiate around the framework agreement, The withdrawal agreement only covers EU/NI border control; citizens rights; and the payment.

 

[clubchamp98]

That 'remainer' somehow got a leave deal agreed - one that that Remainer probably realised was the only deal possible given the red lines she had laid down and felt she had to stick to given internal UK political pressure on her and er party. I cannot see a Leaver NOT setting down the same red Lines so cannot see why things would have been much, if any, different. The EU will negotiate around the framework agreement, The withdrawal agreement only covers EU/NI border control; citizens rights; and the payment.

Really ?
We have had a leaver as PM for a couple of weeks and things seem very different to me.