Leroy42 wrote: » That certainly appears to be the game plan. TM and her team seem to be of the view that when push comes to shove people will accept this deal as the alternatives (No deal, no Brexit) are simply unacceptable. But they have completely failed to sell the deal. It is very much "this is it, take it or leave it". Which of itself is fine, but they are not articulating why "leave it" is such a poor option. Recall that throughout this TM has continued to state that "No deal is better than a bad deal", but seemingly that was all nonsense as No deal is actually terrible and no body could ever vote for it, although if it happens it won't be that bad at all and WTO is great. It is this constant lack of detail and continual contradictions that has so many in the UK with diverse opinions as to what to do. I have said it before, TM needs to stand up in the HoC, or address the nation, and explain in clear terms, why No Deal is simply not an option. She needs to explain that No PM could ever countenance the negative effects of such a gamble, that peoples very lives would be at stake. She must already believe this otherwise she would not be pushing this deal as the only option.
Leroy42 wrote: » But what alternatives did she have? Without regulatory alignment then Hard border, something the likes of ERG, Davis etc are totally against. The deal she has got is pragmatic, although it is clearly worse than the EU membership they currently have. But that is not TM's fault, that is the fault of the UK voter who opted for it.
The problems with the UK goals, is that they are both contradictory and almost designed to set up against the EU. You cannot expect to take on a competitor in terms of less regulations and at the same time expect the other side to accept you new view of regulations.
So it is not whether or not TM delivered on the hopes and wishes, but in what way has she actually given in to the EU?
Leroy42 wrote: » But what alternatives did she have? Without regulatory alignment then Hard border, something the likes of ERG, Davis etc are totally against. The deal she has got is pragmatic, although it is clearly worse than the EU membership they currently have. But that is not TM's fault, that is the fault of the UK voter who opted for it. The problems with the UK goals, is that they are both contradictory and almost designed to set up against the EU. You cannot expect to take on a competitor in terms of less regulations and at the same time expect the other side to accept you new view of regulations. So it is not whether or not TM delivered on the hopes and wishes, but in what way has she actually given in to the EU?
Strazdas wrote: » Problem with the "deal" is that even if it is ratified by the Parliament, it will lead to years of arguments in the UK. If they were unhappy with EU membership, they are going to be ten times as unhappy with this deal ('they' being the real problem here of course).
Podge_irl wrote: » There was no mechanism for leaving the EU until the Lisbon Treaty.
Where is the consensus/legal opinion that the backstop can not be withdrawn from even if the Withdrawal Agreement itself is cancelled coming from anyway? Would seem slightly bizarre to me.
Leroy42 wrote: » This is very true, but hardly the EU' fault. This is a direct consequence of the UK not really knowing what it wants, what was available or even what it actually had. The very fact that this deal is worse than EU membership, yet the response is "just do a hard brexit" tells you all you need to know. They had a feeling that something wasn't working. Haven looked at the alternatives it seems that the current situation isn't actually all that bad, but hey no turning back now I suppose.
Bit cynical wrote: » My understanding is that once the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, negotiations start on the future relationship. If these don't conclude in a way that satisfactory to either side that an open border can be sustained, then the backstop icome into force and remains in force until such time that an agreement can be reached that it is not necessary. The problem is this: how can the UK satisfy the EU that border infrastructure will never be needed? The most they can do is demonstrate is that it is not needed at that particular point in time. The EU, knowing this, can then reasonably argue for the continued need for the backstop. If the backstop is an insurance policy, then it is one that is needed forever. I think we on this forum sometimes make the mistake of thinking that because we really really want the backstop (and it is indeed great for us) that it is also reasonable for the UK. But that is not necessarily the case. When the basis of it was agreed the December before last there was a triumphalist mood in Ireland over what it appeared we had got past the British. We thought we had got one over on them. This is changing now that it looks like the UK parliament may reject the deal and Ireland will be worse off. In fairness, some posters on here did point out the dangers around the time of the December Joint Report.
Leroy42 wrote: » But the EU didn't have to move. the UK are leaving with the rest of the EU staying as it was. Why would the EU make any changes? That simply makes no sense.
What I haven't heard anywhere is what specifically would people change in the TM deal that would likely meet the requirements of the EU?
The EU requirements have been set out from the very start, and they have given in quite a lot during the negotiations (UK wide CU, transition period and extension etc). The problem is that the UK have wanted a totally new agreement on the basis, it would appear, that the UK is special and as such should be treated special.
No problem with that aim of course, but what has TM's deal shown that the UK (through TM) given in on? Each part of the deal is aimed at getting something else. So UK wide CU is aimed at maintaining trade. Should that not have been considered? Backstop is aimed at preserving the GFA and the stability of NI, is that not something that should be there?
Podge_irl wrote: » Ultimately, a proper FTA and the backstop are going to be mutually exclusive scenarios. The UK will retain the right, as any country has, to simply cancel the FTA whenever they want. But again, it will come with the attendant consequences. Also, neither the EU nor Ireland specifically actually care whether the backstop is reasonable for the UK. Honouring your international commitments is the price of continuing to do business with a rule-based supranational organisation.
Bit cynical wrote: » Of course, they don't have to move but they had the option of moving but did not. Had they moved, then it may have been possible for an agreement to be reached that would have been satisfactory to both sides.
Bit cynical wrote: » Well Mr Corbyin believes that he can negotiate a deal where the UK is in a customs union with the EU but has some say in the rules and regulations governing it. This seems reasonable. It would suit us better in Ireland than no deal. But reasonable and acceptable to the EU are not the same thing.
Bit cynical wrote: » He also would not enter into an agreement with no objective exit criteria on the border with the North.
Bit cynical wrote: » Again, it seems reasonable. A country leaving the EU leaves a border behind with the remaining EU countries. To say that a country leaving the EU should never, regardlesss of developments, introduce border infrastructure seems unreasonable. But again, reasonableness and acceptable to the EU are not the same thing.
Bit cynical wrote: » But the two things you mention just happen to have the effect of prolonging and deepening the relationship between the EU and the UK, both of which are contentious to MPs wishing to increase the distance as quickly as possible.
Bit cynical wrote: » But the general idea of negotiations is that both sides move seeking common ground. Setting out requirements and red lines at the start and sticking to them is good only if those things are genuinely necesssary for the continued operation of the EU. If they are not then it is just intransigence, which is fine if the goal is sticking it to the UK but otherwise not.The two are related. The backstop is there because the EU insisted on it even though the EU can function without it. Because the orignal NI backstop would have required a sea border, the UK asked for the customs union to be extended to the rest of the UK. The DUP objected to customs control between NI and the rest of the UK but I don't think May or Corbyn or whoever else might take over would have wanted it anyway.
Bit cynical wrote: » But I don't think the backstop in the first place is something that the UK would ever have wanted at the outset. Voluntary maintainance of an open border along the same lines as the CTA would have been preferable. Sure it would not have been a formal international treaty but then neither is the Common Travel Area which has existed from before EU membership of both countries. This is also important to the stability of the North but has no international legal status.
Bit cynical wrote: » This of course assumes that there will be a no deal Brexit. If that is not the case, then the EU strategy will have been the correct one for Ireland.
J Mysterio wrote: » Really, all this nonsense that has infected the thread the last couple of days points to a lack of any news to discuss in terms of the furthering of the negotiations. It's seemingly just what May wants... Count the clock down, increase uncertainty and concern... Bounce Westminster into the deal to avoid chaos.
Bit cynical wrote: » In fairness, she hasn't been saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" recently. She was saying that during negotiations because she had to say it. Had she not, she would be in an even weaker position now as she would have had to give away more and therefore even less likely to get it through Parliament. Now that the deal is done and there is no further negotiating, she is saying take this deal or face a "no deal" brexit. This makes sense: make the choice as stark as possible. Varadkar is backing her up on this saying that the choice is between "no-deal and a cliff edge" brexit.
Bit cynical wrote: Well Mr Corbyin believes that he can negotiate a deal where the UK is in a customs union with the EU but has some say in the rules and regulations governing it. This seems reasonable. It would suit us better in Ireland than no deal. But reasonable and acceptable to the EU are not the same thing.
Strazdas wrote: » The problem with the Brexiteers and the Leave voters is that they don't know what they want. The only thing they can agree on is that they hate the EU but they haven't the faintest clue how to make the UK work outside the union. You could never describe them as pragmatists or realists. They are chasing an ideological fantasy.
cryptocurrency wrote: » Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.
Bit cynical wrote: » Mr Corbyin believes that he can negotiate a deal where the UK is in a customs union with the EU but has some say in the rules and regulations governing it.
RobMc59 wrote: » That is not the case,not every leave voter hates the EU or is uninformed-there are people who are rational but voted to leave and stick by that and they are the most worrying to those of us who hope the country will come to it`s senses and send the hard core brexiteers packing- they do tend to be older but not all odd balls which makes a potential 2nd vote result scary and genuinely unpredictable.
http://www.eureferendum.com/ wrote: The information comes via the Financial Times, a beguilingly simple claim that Ministers believe that under a no-deal Brexit, the Dover corridor (port and tunnel) could run at just 12-25 percent of normal capacity for up to six months. This, in itself, does not tell us very much, but once we look at some relevant figures on trade an alarming picture starts to emerge. We start with the latest estimates for trade (in goods) with continental Europe which passes through the corridor. In 2017, this was valued at approximately £220 billion (allowing for currency conversions) - the split roughly £120 billion to the port and £100 billion to the tunnel. And with total trade in goods with the EU recorded at £422.6 billion, this means the proportion of trade with Europe handled by the corridor worked out at about 52 percent by value. If we then take the Minister's worst case scenario for the corridor running at 12 percent capacity for six months, trade levels drop from the expected £110 billion in the period to a mere £13 billion, representing a loss of throughput of just short of £100 billion – roughly equivalent to twice the value of the six-monthly traffic through the Tunnel. This, then, is the crunch. The purpose of the £107 million ferry contract, of which Seaborne is part, is route substitution. But when we look at the figures, we see the scale of the problem. Ministers are faced with a need to provide capacity equivalent to twice the throughput of the Tunnel. Yet the entire (shipping) capacity bought by the contract is only about five percent of the corridor throughput. If we do the assessment a different way, in terms of vehicles handled, a similar position emerges. Dover Port claimed to have handled 2,601,162 lorries in 2017. The Tunnel handled 1,637,280, making a combined total of 4,238,442 lorry movements in the year.Worked out on a weekly basis, movements are running at 81,500. If we lose 88 percent of that traffic, the corridor will end up moving less than ten thousand vehicles a week (in both directions). That leaves more than 70,000 to find, while the combined capacity bought by Mr Grayling's £107 million is 3,700 movements a week.
Bit cynical wrote: » Leroy42 wrote: » But what alternatives did she have? Without regulatory alignment then Hard border, something the likes of ERG, Davis etc are totally against. The deal she has got is pragmatic, although it is clearly worse than the EU membership they currently have. But that is not TM's fault, that is the fault of the UK voter who opted for it. The point isn't so much that the deal is worse than EU membership, it is that, from the point of view of UK MPs, the May deal may be worse than no deal. The debate between continued EU membership and some sort of brexit is long over. The only debate now is what sort of brexit: May's deal or no deal. If there were no requirement that it pass in the HoC, then the EU negotiated brilliantly. But none of it is any good if it does not pass. The problems with the UK goals, is that they are both contradictory and almost designed to set up against the EU. You cannot expect to take on a competitor in terms of less regulations and at the same time expect the other side to accept you new view of regulations. What the UK appear to have wanted initially was a close trading relationship with the EU somewhere between a Canada style trade deal and a customs union but not either of those exclusivly. This would have allowed external trade deals to be made but also allowed a relatively open border in Ireland. It is, of course, the right of the EU to refuse this, but not in itself contradictory. I would say that it was a good starting point for negotiations rather than what transpired. So it is not whether or not TM delivered on the hopes and wishes, but in what way has she actually given in to the EU? Well certainly it seems to me that she moved in the directon of the EU. I don't think the EU did much moving. Again, all this would be great for Ireland but for the fact that it has to be ratified in the UK parliament. Was it anti-Brexit types that pushed for the parlimentary vote? I don't know. Maybe Corbyn will step in at the last minute and try for a vote of no confidence. I'm not familiar with the rules or the parliamentary arithmetic involved. He's claiming he can stop the deal AND avoid a no deal Brexit.
Christy42 wrote: » The UK wanted all the parts it liked without any requirements. It was offered a Canada style deal or a customs union and threw a strop when it didn't get what it wanted. Certainly small details could have been negotiated but the idea of paying the price for the cheap item and getting the expensive item is off the radar for most shops selling you things. Honestly this is all coming from the point that EU should have done something because the UK was never reasonable enough to compromise. May moved in the direction of the EU because her initial stance was ridiculous. If you try and meet half way then the most ridiculous starting position wins. The Canada deal and all the others offered are already negotiated stances that involve the EU giving ground and receiving things in return as a result of past negotiations (for instance with Canada). Asking it to give further ground is ridiculous. Why should they be more willing to give the UK a better deal than Canada?
cryptocurrency wrote: » Because it's a much bigger economy, player and on their doorstep....
road_high wrote: » You’d almost think that exact same argument would resonate with those in the UK pushing for no deal?
cryptocurrency wrote: » Not apples with apples. The UK is a long-established and powerful economy that will be there long after the EU. You'd say they may know a good bit that you don't. Storm clouds gathering for the EU and the Euro, buckle up.
road_high wrote: » Yea. So you keep saying. Yawn zzzzz
