OV9

Broccers wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:57 pm His speech was good tho - cant fault that.

I hear Hitler was quite the orator.

We’ll be having the exact same discussions in x years time if we delay it. It’s like being set homework over the summer holiday - if you have 6 weeks to do it, you’ll still be starting it the Sunday night before you go back.

Even I'm wishing it was all over and I almost don't care how it ends even if we end up eating rats and powdered eggs. Just make it stop.

I can’t see that the EU would change their offer significantly enough for everyone to agree

We seem to want the Moon, with an attached stick

They have no real benefit to offering us that

Can’t we all just pretend this didn’t happen?

Where's Bobby Ewing in the shower when you need him?

There was an old geezer on QT last night (for the 2 minutes I could cope watching its pro Labourness) who addressed the border issues on tariffs. Each lorry has a consignment already agreed and paid tax when its shipped - its just a simple change to the percentage which would avoid any queues at ports etc. The same is true with Ni/Ire but of course its easier to make a big fuss and build a wall.

I too am bored of the whole thing - what is the next fear we have to endure in the media? Its all doom and fvcking gloom and has been for years.

Broccers wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:37 am Each lorry has a consignment already agreed and paid tax when its shipped - its just a simple change to the percentage which would avoid any queues at ports etc. The same is true with Ni/Ire but of course its easier to make a big fuss and build a wall.

Yep, there's definitely no way that will be abused.

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:50 am

Broccers wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:37 am Each lorry has a consignment already agreed and paid tax when its shipped - its just a simple change to the percentage which would avoid any queues at ports etc. The same is true with Ni/Ire but of course its easier to make a big fuss and build a wall.

Yep, there's definitely no way that will be abused.

I like your positivity that it isnt now

Broccers wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:51 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:50 am

Broccers wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:37 am Each lorry has a consignment already agreed and paid tax when its shipped - its just a simple change to the percentage which would avoid any queues at ports etc. The same is true with Ni/Ire but of course its easier to make a big fuss and build a wall.

Yep, there's definitely no way that will be abused.

I like your positivity that it isnt now

It's hard to abuse when there's no tax or tariffs to pay...

You're right. None of the borders in Europe get abused right now.

Richard wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:24 am I can’t see that the EU would change their offer significantly enough for everyone to agree

We seem to want the Moon, with an attached stick

They have no real benefit to offering us that

Can’t we all just pretend this didn’t happen?

No we don't.

I was reading an interesting piece last night which was drawing from a joint paper published by the Ifo Institute and several European Universities. It was calling for an end to the stupid dogma of the EU and its 4 Freedoms. Long and the short is that there are plenty of sensible solutions that make all parties happy, but they propose a "concentric rings" approach to EU membership, that's inclusive rather than exclusive and seeks to allow more freedom for each nation to cherry pick.

They're also really rather unhappy with the EU's approach as they feel it's likely to tip Germany over the edge, and believe the EU is just as culpable as TM for getting us to where we are now.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:34 am

Richard wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:24 am I can’t see that the EU would change their offer significantly enough for everyone to agree

We seem to want the Moon, with an attached stick

They have no real benefit to offering us that

Can’t we all just pretend this didn’t happen?

No we don't.

I was reading an interesting piece last night which was drawing from a joint paper published by the Ifo Institute and several European Universities. It was calling for an end to the stupid dogma of the EU and its 4 Freedoms. Long and the short is that there are plenty of sensible solutions that make all parties happy, but they propose a "concentric rings" approach to EU membership, that's inclusive rather than exclusive and seeks to allow more freedom for each nation to cherry pick.

They're also really rather unhappy with the EU's approach as they feel it's likely to tip Germany over the edge, and believe the EU is just as culpable as TM for getting us to where we are now.

Irrespective of whether that makes sense or not, they would be mad to reopen negotiations and then use that as a lever to fundamentally change everything because of Brexit, assuming they're even interested in doing that. It would undermine the whole system and effectively let the threat of Britain leaving dictate what the remaining 27 can and can't do.

If they want to change the EU after Brexit then that's a different matter and could be done on the basis of trying to improve it to avoid further breakup. But doing it after an agreement has been reached because one party didn't have the necessary support and thinks they can get a second chance, would be folly. The implications would reach far beyond this farce.

You should have a read of it. It's actually incredibly pragmatic and sensible. Hence why the EU (under its current toxic control) would never entertain the idea.

And an agreement hasn't been reached - any proposed deal would always have had to make it through Parliament following the case brought by Gina Miller. That hasn't happened so there never was an agreement.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:11 pm You should have a read of it. It's actually incredibly pragmatic and sensible. Hence why the EU (under its current toxic control) would never entertain the idea.

And an agreement hasn't been reached - any proposed deal would always have had to make it through Parliament following the case brought by Gina Miller. That hasn't happened so there never was an agreement.

I'm not doubting the article or the proposal contained within. But, as I understand it, whether parliament has given their support to the deal is irrelevant. They have agreed terms with TM and from their perspective that concludes the negotiations. And even if that isn't the case, they can't change the deal terms just because TM can't control the MPs.

DeskJockey wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:34 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:11 pm You should have a read of it. It's actually incredibly pragmatic and sensible. Hence why the EU (under its current toxic control) would never entertain the idea.

And an agreement hasn't been reached - any proposed deal would always have had to make it through Parliament following the case brought by Gina Miller. That hasn't happened so there never was an agreement.

And even if that isn't the case, they can't change the deal terms just because TM can't control the MPs.

Why not? Dogma?

They knew all along that any proposed agreement would need to be ratified by UK Parliament, and the risks associated with that.

DeskJockey wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:34 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:11 pm You should have a read of it. It's actually incredibly pragmatic and sensible. Hence why the EU (under its current toxic control) would never entertain the idea.

And an agreement hasn't been reached - any proposed deal would always have had to make it through Parliament following the case brought by Gina Miller. That hasn't happened so there never was an agreement.

I'm not doubting the article or the proposal contained within. But, as I understand it, whether parliament has given their support to the deal is irrelevant. They have agreed terms with TM and from their perspective that concludes the negotiations. And even if that isn't the case, they can't change the deal terms just because TM can't control the MPs.

That's nonsense I'm afraid - negotiations are not over until both side ratify the proposed agreement - that includes Westminster on our side and the European parliament on theirs. International treaty negotiations frequently go back to the drawing board when they've failed to be ratified by member state parliaments. How do you think the various "opt-outs" from treaty obligations came about (p.s. it is not just the UK that has them)? They were negotiated concessions to get a deal across the line.

If you try and look at it from an impartial point of view, the position the commission are taking is going to be in large part because rowing back from their impracticable solution is going to look like a climb down and to use your terminology they "can't control" the EU 27 or the parliament and force them to ratify if they think they've given up too much (which is all relative give their 'backstop' is the moon on a stick from a international treaty perspective (one way control, potentially forever) so anything less watertight obviously isn't as good and runs the risk of them losing face).

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:48 pm

DeskJockey wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:34 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:11 pm You should have a read of it. It's actually incredibly pragmatic and sensible. Hence why the EU (under its current toxic control) would never entertain the idea.

And an agreement hasn't been reached - any proposed deal would always have had to make it through Parliament following the case brought by Gina Miller. That hasn't happened so there never was an agreement.

And even if that isn't the case, they can't change the deal terms just because TM can't control the MPs.

Why not? Dogma?

They knew all along that any proposed agreement would need to be ratified by UK Parliament, and the risks associated with that.

That's Theresa May's job, not theirs. Theirs is to negotiate the deal with TM.

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:50 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:48 pm

DeskJockey wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:34 pm

And even if that isn't the case, they can't change the deal terms just because TM can't control the MPs.

Why not? Dogma?

They knew all along that any proposed agreement would need to be ratified by UK Parliament, and the risks associated with that.

That's Theresa May's job, not theirs. Theirs is to negotiate the deal with TM.

Its also their responsibility as negotiators to get to a point where a deal can be concluded and that certainly includes ratification by the UK. If they can't make concessions to secure that, then that is also failure from their perspective. In reality, it has been shown that we're willing to swallow an awful deal if the backstop (totally unreasonably from an international treaty perspective to have no exit mechanism) is amended. That isn't intransigence on the part of Westminster to be fair.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:48 pm

DeskJockey wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:34 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:11 pm You should have a read of it. It's actually incredibly pragmatic and sensible. Hence why the EU (under its current toxic control) would never entertain the idea.

And an agreement hasn't been reached - any proposed deal would always have had to make it through Parliament following the case brought by Gina Miller. That hasn't happened so there never was an agreement.

And even if that isn't the case, they can't change the deal terms just because TM can't control the MPs.

Why not? Dogma?

They knew all along that any proposed agreement would need to be ratified by UK Parliament, and the risks associated with that.

No. Because of the way TM has gone about it. She should have had approval before sitting down to negotiate. Whether it was a "we'll go with whatever" or a set of specifics, it has been done backwards.

It is like going out to an Italian restaurant sending someone in to negotiate with the chef and then rejecting the offer of pasta and pizza because you want a curry.

GG. wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:52 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:50 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:48 pm

Why not? Dogma?

They knew all along that any proposed agreement would need to be ratified by UK Parliament, and the risks associated with that.

That's Theresa May's job, not theirs. Theirs is to negotiate the deal with TM.

Its also their responsibility as negotiators to get to a point where a deal can be concluded and that certainly includes ratification by the UK. If they can't make concessions to secure that, then that is also failure from their perspective. In reality, it has been shown that we're willing to swallow an awful deal if the backstop (totally unreasonably from an international treaty perspective to have no exit mechanism) is amended. That isn't intransigence on the part of Westminster to be fair.

They reached a deal with those they were negotiating with. Unfortunately, those they were negotiating with didn't reach a deal with the people who cold ratify it.