Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

swampgas

Bambi wrote: »

You wonder if these companies kept their powder dry up to now in the hope that there might be some clarity about a deal and now are all going to jump ship at once.

A lot of companies work quarter to quarter.

Next quarter (Quarter 1 2019) is the last one before Brexit.

If the current uncertainty continues into the new year I wouldn't be surprised to see panic set in, and large numbers of contingency plans activated.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No Brexit deal, no transition without Irish backstop - Barnier

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1NB229?__twitter_impression=true

It's good that he is holding firm. There were accusations in the Dail today from SF and FF that the Taoiseach is wavering on the backstop, but they're nearly forgetting that Barnier is the chief negotiator, not Varadkar.....he has no more input into the talks than Merkel, Macron or anyone else.

megatron989

Have to say that I'm very impressed with Barnier, how he keeps his cool is beyond me. How many times can he enter a room and say the same thing again and again only for the other side to simply ignore him and continue with their own version of reality.

I'd likely have been sacked for assault or locked up for pulling my own hair out. He seems to keep his cool no matter what.

Faugheen

Strazdas wrote: »

It's good that he is holding firm. There were accusations in the Dail today from SF and FF that the Taoiseach is wavering on the backstop, but they're nearly forgetting that Barnier is the chief negotiator, not Varadkar.....he has no more input into the talks than Merkel, Macron or anyone else.

That annoyed me today. Two differing statements were released but yet instead of questioning Theresa May they go after Varadkar and accuse him of all sorts.

I’m no Leo fan, but him and Coveney have been excellent with this in the sense that they have not budged on what they wanted.

But no, FF and SF take May’s word for it.

listermint

Faugheen wrote: »

That annoyed me today. Two differing statements were released but yet instead of questioning Theresa May they go after Varadkar and accuse him of all sorts.

I’m no Leo fan, but him and Coveney have been excellent with this in the sense that they have not budged on what they wanted.

But no, FF and SF take May’s word for it.

Well did Leo not say he would be open to discussing a review of the backstop. I think he did say that, a planned review of it.

So i think they were querying that .


tbf

Faugheen

listermint wrote: »

Well did Leo not say he would be open to discussing a review of the backstop. I think he did say that, a planned review of it.

So i think they were querying that .


tbf

Yeah, providing that anything that could potentially replace the backstop would not lead to a hard border, which is what he’s said since day one.

Dyr

Faugheen wrote: »

That annoyed me today. Two differing statements were released but yet instead of questioning Theresa May they go after Varadkar and accuse him of all sorts.

I’m no Leo fan, but him and Coveney have been excellent with this in the sense that they have not budged on what they wanted.

But no, FF and SF take May’s word for it.

In fairness It was Varadker who was making statements that sounded like he was going fudge the backstop. Barnier is being more clear on it than him

Considering FGs leaders previous form on the north and the UK (Fitzgerald, that eejit Bruton, Kenny) Coveney and Varadker are doing fine. Never thought I'd see the day a FG foreign minister talked about wanting a United Ireland sooner rather than later

An Ciarraioch

listermint wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

That annoyed me today. Two differing statements were released but yet instead of questioning Theresa May they go after Varadkar and accuse him of all sorts.

I’m no Leo fan, but him and Coveney have been excellent with this in the sense that they have not budged on what they wanted.

But no, FF and SF take May’s word for it.

Well did Leo not say he would be open to discussing a review of the backstop. I think he did say that, a planned review of it.

So i think they were querying that .


tbf

The UK won't sign up if it's officially described as permanent, but the review could only result in deactivation if a better agreement than the backstop were to be reached, and to keep the Border soft, that would require the whole UK to adhere to the Single Market. Given that's unlikely to happen, the review would conclude that the backstop would still be required.

listermint

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The UK won't sign up if it's officially described as permanent, but the review could only result in deactivation if a better agreement than the backstop were to be reached, and to keep the Border soft, that would require the whole UK to adhere to the Single Market. Given that's unlikely to happen, the review would conclude that the backstop would still be required.

Im not arguing with what we now know, I was saying that is not what Leo qualified at the time. Now i know its twitter etc, but it was unclear. So i wouldnt go after other people for seeking clarifications as to what he meant.


(was my point)

judeboy101

A review opens up a possibility, and there should be no "possibilities" when it comes to the border. Give the British an inch of wriggle room and they will work miracles.

An Ciarraioch

Tony Connelly on the review mechanism:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1059839897853399041.html

prawnsambo

What I find funny about all this wriggling around the backstop and reviews and every whole thing is that a backstop is only necessary if other mechanisms fail. So when the UK say that they want a time-limited backstop or a review process or some other cobbled together mechanism to end it, what they're really saying is that they know they can't come up with a workable alternative and don't want any kind of backstop at all. Because the backstop is actually going to be the status quo immediately.

listermint

prawnsambo wrote: »

What I find funny about all this wriggling around the backstop and reviews and every whole thing is that a backstop is only necessary if other mechanisms fail. So when the UK say that they want a time-limited backstop or a review process or some other cobbled together mechanism to end it, what they're really saying is that they know they can't come up with a workable alternative and don't want any kind of backstop at all. Because the backstop is actually going to be the status quo immediately.

Whats being said is there are forces within the negotiations that actually want hard brexit come what may.

They dont care,

Why they want it, well thats up for interpretation. Some of it is obviously because some stand to benefit from it financially. Others its jingoism. But if i was a betting man its Money / Power that is core to those that want clear hard brexit. hence all the pretend fudging

prawnsambo

listermint wrote: »

Whats being said is there are forces within the negotiations that actually want hard brexit come what may.

They dont care,

Why they want it, well thats up for interpretation. Some of it is obviously because some stand to benefit from it financially. Others its jingoism. But if i was a betting man its Money / Power that is core to those that want clear hard brexit. hence all the pretend fudging

Indeed. They can't have their bonfire of regulations if they end up tied into those regulations indefinitely.

An Ciarraioch

megatron989 wrote: »

Have to say that I'm very impressed with Barnier, how he keeps his cool is beyond me. How many times can he enter a room and say the same thing again and again only for the other side to simply ignore him and continue with their own version of reality.

I'd likely have been sacked for assault or locked up for pulling my own hair out. He seems to keep his cool no matter what.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1059847187952254977

charlie14

Faugheen wrote: »

That annoyed me today. Two differing statements were released but yet instead of questioning Theresa May they go after Varadkar and accuse him of all sorts.

I’m no Leo fan, but him and Coveney have been excellent with this in the sense that they have not budged on what they wanted.

But no, FF and SF take May’s word for it.

In fairness it wasn`t just FF and SF that were questioning what is going on.
The Irish Independent today were, surprisingly to me, doing a bit of questioning too on the subject as well as some editorial wrist slapping.

RobMc59

Is Leo Varadkar deputy negotiator for the EU as I was under the impression Barnier was the only one?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

What I find funny about all this wriggling around the backstop and reviews and every whole thing is that a backstop is only necessary if other mechanisms fail. So when the UK say that they want a time-limited backstop or a review process or some other cobbled together mechanism to end it, what they're really saying is that they know they can't come up with a workable alternative and don't want any kind of backstop at all. Because the backstop is actually going to be the status quo immediately.

It's very tongue in cheek, but encapsulates what I was saying above, but a lot more pithily and amusingly.



Backstop explained

EdgeCase

RobMc59 wrote: »

Is Leo Varadkar deputy negotiator for the EU as I was under the impression Barnier was the only one?

He's simply stating Ireland's position and we have a big, heavy, well-polished veto sitting on the table if anyone says otherwise.

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Is Leo Varadkar deputy negotiator for the EU as I was under the impression Barnier was the only one?

Not sure what your point is here. Every time there's a fart in the wind from London, Varadker or Coveney or both are asked what they think/say/interpret from it. Either by the press, in the Dail etc. Repeat ad nasueum.

Kermit.de.frog

No we don't have a veto.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No we don't have a veto.

It's a qualified majority vote in the council of ministers. 55% of states representing 65% of the EU population afaik.

EdgeCase

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's a qualified majority vote in the council of ministers. 55% of states representing 65% of the EU population afaik.

That's actually still unclear as technically speaking, it requires a new deal with the UK which is basically like all other EU trade deals. That would potentially require unanimity in a Council vote.

There are areas where QMV does not apply namely: tax, foreign policy, defence and social security.

judeboy101

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's a qualified majority vote in the council of ministers. 55% of states representing 65% of the EU population afaik.

We had a veto last dec/jan and we didn't use it. The whole process should have stopped then.

charlie14

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not sure what your point is here. Every time there's a fart in the wind from London, Varadker or Coveney or both are asked what they think/say/interpret from it. Either by the press, in the Dail etc. Repeat ad nasueum.

I can see where the temptation is to reply to some of the ridiculous questions they are asked, but if memory serves me correct was it not just a matter of a few weeks ago when diplomats and government ministers were told that if attempts were made to them to engage on anything to do with Brexit by their British counterparts the stock answer was to be along the lines "Take it up with the EU. They represent us on any and all issues in relation to Brexit" ?

prawnsambo

EdgeCase wrote: »

That's actually still unclear as technically speaking, it requires a new deal with the UK which is basically like all other EU trade deals. That would potentially require unanimity in a Council vote.

There are areas where QMV does not apply namely: tax, foreign policy, defence and social security.

Yes, but this is only on the A50 withdrawal. I know it's confusing, the UK have contrived to confuse themselves so much that it's spreading. The 'deal' part or more accurately the framework for a future relationship is pretty much a political statement of intent and not binding. Hence the insistence on specific terms on the NI border. The only veto we will have (in the near future) is on extending the A50 period, if that's requested.

prawnsambo

charlie14 wrote: »

I can see where the temptation is to reply to some of the ridiculous questions they are asked, but if memory serves me correct was it not just a matter of a few weeks ago when diplomats and government ministers were told that if attempts were made to them to engage on anything to do with Brexit by their British counterparts the stock answer was to be along the lines "Take it up with the EU. They represent us on any and all issues in relation to Brexit" ?

That was in relation to the UK trying to do end-runs (yet again) around Barnier. So no talking to Ministers or other bilateral type arrangements.

prawnsambo

judeboy101 wrote: »

We had a veto last dec/jan and we didn't use it. The whole process should have stopped then.

Not sure what you're referencing here. Veto on what precisely?

A Dub in Glasgo

Ireland does not have a veto on the Withdrawal Agreement so it is possible that the EU agree to something that Ireland does not and passes - very unlikely but possible

Ireland has a veto on any future trading relationship

An Ciarraioch

Hmmm...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-46109889?__twitter_impression=true