Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Hurrache wrote: »

So Leadsom's plan is to come up with a new plan, and then go directly to the 'key heads' of the EU. Ok so.

I'm really finding it difficult to ascertain whether these people are (a) liars, knowing full well what they're saying can't be done (b) delusional, genuinely believing that they can somehow do something that hasn't been able to be done in the past (how?) (c) reckless (read: stupid), just saying what they think will get them nominated as leader and then they'll figure out how to do what they promised when they're in No.10?

Oddly, I think the preferable position is (b) here and that they're just delusional. Otherwise, you'd have to seriously question the logic of wanting to win just to say you were PM for a few weeks.

There's absolutely no question in my mind from watching this Conservative leadership challenge that a General Election is needed ASAP and that the UK will need a lengthy extension to Art. 50. Whether or not we should give it to them is another question altogether.

So how come a German Government official hasn't come out yet and said Jeremy Hunt's claims that Germany want the WA renegotiated (or are open to it) is nonsense?

Enzokk wrote: »

It is a combination of all three. Did you hear what Leadsom wants? She wants to negotiate a temporary FTA for a managed no-deal. WTF is a temporary free trade agreement? I am losing my mind here.

Maybe you can have some (a) + (b) or (b) + (c) but I'd be very worried for the world if genuinely the future PM of the UK was all three!

Seriously though, I think Leadsom's comments show her to be delusional. As you point out, what she's saying is total nonsense and either she knows it (and she's a liar) or she doesn't (and she's delusional).

Silent Running wrote: »

Because it isn't nonsense. If the UK drop all the red lines, anything's possible.

Except it's not nonsense. The EU is open to compromise to implement the WA, but not renegotiation (including Germany) - that compromise must not undermine the EU rules (so that rules out effectively isolating Ireland from the single market) and the UK won't accept the idea of the Irish Sea checks because the DUP won't agree to it and would bring down the government.

So... what else is there to discuss?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Maybe you can have some (a) + (b) or (b) + (c) but I'd be very worried for the world if genuinely the future PM of the UK was all three!

Seriously though, I think Leadsom's comments show her to be delusional. As you point out, what she's saying is total nonsense and either she knows it (and she's a liar) or she doesn't (and she's delusional).

Well, we know most of them are liars. We know Johnson is, we know Leadsom is and we know McVey is. We know Gove is and I think Hunt is as he misuses statistics too much to not know it is a lie.

We know those that think the deal can be renegotiated are delusional as it will not happen. Even if they want to go for a BRINO deal, the EU will still have the UK sign up to the WA to guarantee the border, citizenship rights and the divorce payment in case a new government tears up the plans. I believe all of them think they can go to the EU and get a new deal, so we know most of them fall in category (a) and (b).

Then we go into the reckless category, as per your definition. They know the deal will not be renegotiated and they are lying to the people to tell them they can get that achieved if they were in charge. So they are just saying what they think will get them elected, so that fits with your definition where most of them fits into (a) and (b) and (c).

I am not sure about Stewart and think he is the exception that proves the rule. Mark Harper sounds like May v2, he just said he will leave without a deal but prefers to leave with her deal. I am having flashbacks to a May speech.

Silent Running wrote: »

Surely if the new PM came to the EU and proposed a new agreement that accepted the ECJ, free movement, single market, customs union, etc. In other words BRINO, the Eu would be very happy to facilitate this, and negotiate a new agreement.

I know it's highly unlikely to happen, but it's not impossible. Anything's possible if the UK get really desperate.

Play this out, PM Johnson goes to the EU with what you propose. The EU changes the WA that doesn't secure an open border, doesn't assert the obligations the UK signed up to and citizens rights are left to the future relationship. The UK agrees to this and we go to the negotiations on the future relationship after the UK has left, 1 November 2019.

PM Johnson, in a stunning move states that the UK will not accept the jurisdiction of ECJ rulings, they will not be participating in the single market nor will they be part of the customs union as they want their own trade deals.

How do we, the EU, ensure the UK pays their liabilities, ensure the rights of our citizens in the UK and ensure there is no border?

The WA is there to stay, no matter what relationship the new PM proposes as the WA is there to protect the EU. Without it the EU has nothing.

Laois_Man wrote: »

That is not a denial of Jeremy Hunts claim that their position has changed. It's from 4 and a half months ago!

What do you think has changed in 4 months that would make them do a 180, particularly when they're not speaking on behalf of the rest of the EU?

I don't think German officials care much for what random conservative MPs say in order to try get themselves elected leader of a dysfunctional party.

Nody wrote: »

If EU (and it's member countries) are expected to deny every time UK (or it's "newspapers") make yet another false claim about the negotiation and Brexit they would need to hire multiple full time staff in each country and EU to deal with it. Brexit will be expensive enough without wasting that money on top of it all and simply ignore anything coming out of UK that's not confirmed by EU rather than the other way around.

Nonsense. It wouldn't cost a thing to deny it.

Hurrache wrote: »

What do you think has changed in 4 months that would make them do a 180, particularly when they're not speaking on behalf of the rest of the EU?

I don't think German officials care much for what random conservative MPs say in order to try get themselves elected leader of a dysfunctional party.

That's exactly the point, I don't believe anything has changes. But I want to see them called out as the liars that they are. Germany should care if they are being dishonestly used to assist in the election of a dishonest British PM that they will soon have to work with!

Leroy42 wrote: »

Pretty unequivocal, perfectly in line with all the previous statements from the EU including that they stated, and TM agreed, at the time of the last extension that the WA would not be reopened.

But of course that will make no difference to any of the contenders in the UK. Leadsom, for example, has been in cabinet throughout and so has already been deeply involved in the discussions that lead to the acceptance of the WA.

And even if their belief that the EU will reopen were to be correct, what do they propose the UK will give up in exchange? Because otherwise there is simply no reason to reopen a deal already done.

They can't reopen the deal. It's an existential matter for the EU. If they back down to the likes of Boris or Raab, then the likes of Orban and Salvini will immediately be knocking on the door.

Sam Russell wrote: »

As has been obvious for quite a time, the UK have to choose one of three options:

1: Revoke Art 50 and remain in the EU.

2: Accept the already agreed WA. They could look to agree a new political declaration, but that would only be window dressing.

3: Leave without a deal, and face economic hardship and chaos.

This has not changed, and the fact that the current HoC has rejected the WA with a historical vote against it, and has changed the law to prevent a crash-out before the EP elections, and is likely to do more of the same, it looks like the first option is the only one left.

So, to change the options, only a GE or a second referendum will be the outcome, and a second referendum can only produce a similar result as not enough people appear to have changed the views.

I expect a long extension in October, and a GE before year end followed by revoke.

Disagree - option 2 is not window dressing , its a good WA and the Pol dec has been repeatedly stated as up for discussion by all concerned ( as a strong basis for proceeding to future trade talks etc )

trellheim wrote: »

its a good WA

It's as good as the UK can possibly get, yet they still hate it.


They just have to join the dots and work out that there is no good Brexit.