OV9

All they would have been able to give her mandate for was a broad approach. To use your analogy, that's like agreeing to go to an Italian restaurant and having the consensus of your friends to go there and then they do as per the Venetians and charge the unwitting tourist £1,000 for the meal (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 72426.html). Even if you agree the terms and scope of what you're aiming for, if there's a 'deal-breaker' in the small print, it still isn't going to get you across the line.

I do agree with you though in that May's negotiations had a fatal flaw - it was partly that she didn't agree a scope (i.e. Canada +) but more seriously that she didn't essentially torpedo the withdrawal agreement after the post Chequers response had made clear it wasn't going to be passed by parliament and start renegotiating it much earlier, or, if that wasn't an option, properly prepped for no-deal.

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:01 pm

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

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

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.

So just like the European Constitution treaty which was agreed by representatives acting as the EU27 but then was rejected in 2005 by voters in France and the Netherlands...

This happens - it isn't some sort of never before seen situation. It is inflexibility to renegotiate and adapt that kills it. Funnily enough the EU put their heads together and came back with the Lisbon treaty which was then ratified.

That's a completely different situation. That's something they needed unanimity from all member states for, which they eventually got. They already have unanimity from the 27 states they need to ratify the agreement on their side.

None of that has any bearing on the fact that they can continue negotiations, and that it absolutely would be in their better interests to do so. It's only pig-headedness that's stopping them.

At the moment. It's apparent there's growing unrest in Germany at the idea of a No Deal exit, and Macron's treading a fine line.

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:13 pm That's a completely different situation. That's something they needed unanimity from all member states for, which they eventually got. They already have unanimity from the 27 states they need to ratify the agreement on their side.

You are correct. This is a much easier situation to get to agreement on given they don't need to ratify in member state parliaments. As a result the commission should instigate the process of finding a solution and getting agreement in the council and then the parliament, rather than briefing them all to trot out silly choreographed lines such as "tell us what you want???".

But the backstop, which is the real sticking point, was May's idea. She asked for it, she got it, the EU27 agreed to it. Any other solution on the table violates the EU's red lines. They won't support a hard border. They won't support an open border without a customs agreement. Until May comes up with something else, what is there to negotiate?

The UK wide backstop was May's request to avoid the Northern Ireland only backstop which the EU were insisting on. She didn't come up with the idea from the start - it was a modification and a development of the EU's red line.

The negotiated position is clearly some form of time limit on the back stop or a unilateral right to exit. The EU had two years of security under Article 50 so it seems logical to replicate that time period. The EU still has a mighty big stick at the end of that period as if we don't conclude a trade deal or agree to extend the backstop or put in place some other alternative arrangement, they kick us out and treaty us as a third country - essentially the same "hard brexit" we're looking at now but in 4 years time. If they can't get the EU27 to agree to that then its a pretty sad indictment of the persuasive powers of the Commission.

As Sabine Weyand noted, the (potentially forever until we agree to no-divergence in a trade deal to let us out) backstop is really about retaining control, not just avoiding a hard border ("They must align their rules but the EU will retain all the controls"). They want no risk that the UK can diverge and gain competitive advantage. Its not quite so easy to justify when you realise those are the hard political facts behind it - precious little to do with protecting Irish interests.

I’ll tell you what I like about Brexit, I like it how so many people are suggesting that we just need to negotiate a better deal. Such and such person/party would have got us a good deal... etc

Richard wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:49 pm I’ll tell you what I like about Brexit, I like it how so many people are suggesting that we just need to negotiate a better deal. Such and such person/party would have got us a good deal... etc

For info here's the Ifo Institute press release - the article I was reading was behind a paywall and goes into a lot more detail regarding the considered implications of a No Deal Brexit for Germany, and the rest of the EU27, and the potential that the UK has to massively screw them over in the short term if we No Deal. I don't think our politicians will hold firm, but it was interesting to read the thinking from the German side.

"The ifo Institute has called for renegotiations of the Brexit Agreement. "This must be done to prevent the deal from failing. The deal also has to be acceptable to the UK," notes ifo expert Gabriel Felbermayr. "In this respect, the EU Commission's statement that the current situation is "the best deal and the only possible deal" is not correct," adds the Director of the ifo Center for International Economics. "ifo Institute figures show that a hard Brexit would prove costly for both sides, even if the economic losses for Britain and Northern Ireland will be higher than those of the other 27 EU members."

Brexit diminishes the value of EU membership for its other members, warns Felbermayr. This loss exceeds the sums reported so far. The United Kingdom is the second largest economic power in the EU. Its membership of the European Customs Union considerably increases the EU's negotiating power in international negotiations with China and the USA, for example. "According to a study conducted by ifo with the University of Keio in Tokyo, for instance, the EU-Japan agreement without Britain is worth 13 percent less to Japan than with it," notes Felbermayr. Brexit is also upsetting the delicate balance of power between EU member states. Germany is losing an important free trade ally. Supporters of a protectionist trade policy, on the other hand, will be strengthened by Brexit.

"From a German and a European perspective it would be advisable to offer Britain a political say in the common trade policy. This could be combined with a right to vote on the relevant bodies of the Council and the EU Parliament. A major stumbling block for opponents of the agreement in Britain’s House of Commons relates to the form taken by the transitional customs union. Britain would have to follow European trade policy, but would have no claim to reciprocity through third parties. This kind of solution may also be of interest to other countries, like Turkey, which wishes to participate in the Customs Union, but neither wants, nor can expect political integration."

I’d wager the Venn diagram showing the relationship between the first group and the second would be a circle.

Just to pick up one of the side topics in this shit show, the use of term “snowflake” by leavers has resulted in some very hilarious responses. Facebook has been a great platform for this because the responders have been able to gleam more information to formulate a response than normal by looking at profile pictures to gauge things like age. One of the best I saw

Brexiteer: stop moaning. We had the vote and leave means leave. We won’t have another vote (couldn’t spell a word as long or as complex as ‘referendum’...) and I’m sick of hearing about all the offence this is causing you fucking snow flakes. We fought two world wars and that wasn’t for these idiots to get upset about every little thing. Just get over yourselves. Fucking snow flakes. (I’ve taken the liberty to insert full stops so it is easier to read)

Responder: says Dave, who’s from the era that was so offended by a black person they enforced separate rules for these people

Orange Cola wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:12 am Just to pick up one of the side topics in this shit show, the use of term “snowflake” by leavers has resulted in some very hilarious responses. Facebook has been a great platform for this because the responders have been able to gleam more information to formulate a response than normal by looking at profile pictures to gauge things like age. One of the best I saw

Brexiteer: stop moaning. We had the vote and leave means leave. We won’t have another vote (couldn’t spell a word as long or as complex as ‘referendum’...) and I’m sick of hearing about all the offence this is causing you fucking snow flakes. We fought two world wars and that wasn’t for these idiots to get upset about every little thing. Just get over yourselves. Fucking snow flakes. (I’ve taken the liberty to insert full stops so it is easier to read)

Responder: says Dave, who’s from the era that was so offended by a black person they enforced separate rules for these people

I think you mean glean not gleam but do carry on with your point about thick leavers, spelling and punctuation

I have tried to avoid hearing May speak because she irritates me now. But I happened to catch her on the news last night, telling everyone about the backstop again - undoing the work of Parliament from last week. Now I'm not sure I agree with the soundbites from some MPs that the backstop replacement has to be entirely new, not just a tweaked version of the one in the rejected draft Withdrawal Agreement; but whatever she actually comes back to the House with, she's got to get it voted through so it's their opinion, not mine, which matters.

Anyway, there seems to be a fair bit of discussion about the backstop and why Ireland cares so much. As should we. Here's a really good thread on Twitter (you'll need to click through to see all of it, the auto-embedding doesn't show the whole thing):

And there was me thinking all of that was pretty obvious.

There's plenty which is obvious to anybody who bothers to consider it. It would be good if the Government and Parliament paid heed to such things.

Old Tusk

Broccers wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:47 pm Old Tusk

I assume you're referring to this:



I think he's bang on the money.

No it was after he finished and finding the whole thing a joke.

We will see what tomorrow brings.

He’s not holding back, is he?