Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady · 30-07-2019 05:12PM

Dymo wrote: »

Maybe I read it wrong somewhere, but isn't the lower figure (£33 Billion) because the UK haven't left yet and have been making payments all the time which has been reducing the burden they owed?

Yes, normal contributions up until end of 2020 I think were included in the figure.

BobbyBobberson · 30-07-2019 05:13PM

trellheim wrote: »

I'm in USA cant access Paddy Power - blocked

What are they quoting for no-deal odds at the moment ?

Will check in a min but I can tell you off the top of my head that fuel is 5/1 to be rationed first. Saw it on twitter the other day.

Edit: 6/4 for a no deal in 2019.

BobbyBobberson · 30-07-2019 05:13PM

Everyone knows the border issue here but some great examples in this thread

https://twitter.com/marksugruek/status/1155957402312663041

Professor Moriarty · 30-07-2019 05:16PM

trellheim wrote: »

I'm in USA cant access Paddy Power - blocked

What are they quoting for no-deal odds at the moment ?

Matchbook are offering 10/9 - lowest odds available.

brickster69 · 30-07-2019 05:20PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is true but the only deal that will be struck between the UK and the EU is the WA.
The EU ***WILL NOT*** shaft Ireland. If they did then the EU is over.

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The WA is toast, accept that or do nothing about it. Personally i think it is best for both sides to declare that no agreement can be found and start to get things in place to prevent as much damage as possible for everyone.

It's pretty sensible when you think about it !

PeadarCo · 30-07-2019 05:26PM

brickster69 wrote:

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The problem is that is irrelevant to the EU. Grand you can have a no deal brexit. But a no deal brexit just increases the EUs bargaining power compared to the UK. The UK can accept that agreement or face the prospect of bargaining from a worse position(look at the movement in sterling with just an increased risk of a no deal never mind an actual no deal situation) and potentially end up having to accept an agreement that is worse for UK than the current withdrawal agreement.

Seth Brundle · 30-07-2019 05:30PM

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The WA is toast, accept that or do nothing about it. Personally i think it is best for both sides to declare that no agreement can be found and start to get things in place to prevent as much damage as possible for everyone.

It's pretty sensible when you think about it !

I disagree.
Whilst Westminster rejected the agreement on a number of occasions, not once have they decided what they do want.
The EU have a workable solution on the table. This was formulated in conjunction with the UK government (including current cabinet members).
Don't forget that many members including the PM himself voted in favour of the WA.

As the UK don't really know what they want it would be unfair for the EU to toss the WA away. The UK doesn't really want a no-deal scenario (despite all the bluster) as it would be incredibly damaging to them. The current bravado is simply down to the Tories looking to woo back voters that moved over to the Brexit party.

As for it being sensible, there is absolutely nothing sensible about a no-deal Brexit. Nothing!

VinLieger · 30-07-2019 05:30PM

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The WA is toast, accept that or do nothing about it. Personally i think it is best for both sides to declare that no agreement can be found and start to get things in place to prevent as much damage as possible for everyone.

It's pretty sensible when you think about it !

Fair enough lets just imagine the conversation when the UK asks the EU for a trade deal.

UK: Can we have a trade deal please?

EU: Sure thing, first thing on the agenda for discussion will be the 33 billion you owe and the 2nd thing is the Irish border

Uk:..........

BobbyBobberson · 30-07-2019 05:37PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough lets just imagine the conversation when the UK asks the EU for a trade deal.

UK: Can we have a trade deal please?

EU: Sure thing, first thing on the agenda for discussion will be the 33 billion you owe and the 2nd thing is the Irish border

Uk:..........

Exactly. The WA may never be touched again but the three main issues at its heart need to be dealt with.

LordBasil · 30-07-2019 05:42PM

It looks like Leo Varadkar is being lined up as the Brexit 'Bogeyman' by the Tories and Brexiteer UK Press because he's not backing down over the backstop. A handy fall guy to blame for No Deal....

BobbyBobberson · 30-07-2019 05:47PM

LordBasil wrote: »

It looks like Leo Varadkar is being lined up as the Brexit 'Bogeyman' by the Tories and Brexiteer UK Press because he's not backing down over the backstop. A handy fall guy to blame for No Deal....

And the rhetoric is only going to get worse and worse as times goes by and we move closer to a No Deal. I can see it getting seriously nasty.

Bit cynical · 30-07-2019 05:56PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I disagree.
Whilst Westminster rejected the agreement on a number of occasions, not once have they decided what they do want.
The EU have a workable solution on the table. This was formulated in conjunction with the UK government (including current cabinet members).
Don't forget that many members including the PM himself voted in favour of the WA.

As the UK don't really know what they want it would be unfair for the EU to toss the WA away. The UK doesn't really want a no-deal scenario (despite all the bluster) as it would be incredibly damaging to them. The current bravado is simply down to the Tories looking to woo back voters that moved over to the Brexit party.

As for it being sensible, there is absolutely nothing sensible about a no-deal Brexit. Nothing!

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

Itssoeasy · 30-07-2019 05:58PM

It’s not often I’d agree with Michael Martin but what in the name of jaysus was Timmy Dooley up to earlier ? I know TDs are on holidays but what the hell made him tweet that ? It was more DUP than FF.

Laois_Man · 30-07-2019 06:01PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

The deadlock in Parliament may be different come October 31st! If there isn't an election before it, there will be one soon after! Johnson's barking is a sure sign he knows it too!

brickster69 · 30-07-2019 06:02PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is that is irrelevant to the EU. Grand you can have a no deal brexit. But a no deal brexit just increases the EUs bargaining power compared to the UK. The UK can accept that agreement or face the prospect of bargaining from a worse position(look at the movement in sterling with just an increased risk of a no deal never mind an actual no deal situation) and potentially end up having to accept an agreement that is worse for UK than the current withdrawal agreement.

So the UK has rejected the WA and the EU say it will not negotiate it. So now the EU have to accept the UK is leaving on WTA terms and both sides end the negotiations. That needs to happen first before even thinking about what happens afterwards.

brickster69 · 30-07-2019 06:04PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

Of course, it is reality.

A Dub in Glasgo · 30-07-2019 06:05PM

The Times has the following article this evening and the Brexiteers are all over the comments section slating Ireland / Varadkar / EU*

*take your pick

mobil gas near me

A Dub in Glasgo · 30-07-2019 06:06PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

The WA is not toast as it is the only deal on the table

Christy42 · 30-07-2019 06:10PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

The UK is free to remove some of its earlier redlines. Then new things could be discussed. Or they could move the backstop to NI only. Or they could come up with a realistic solution for the border themselves.

brickster69 · 30-07-2019 06:11PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The WA is not toast as it is the only deal on the table

You see, this is my point. It was dead 6 months ago and people still think it is alive. even the Eu won't accept it is dead.

It is Dead, finished, Kaput, Finito, Morte ! Accept it and move on.

ShooterSF · 30-07-2019 06:14PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The WA is not toast as it is the only deal on the table

The only way I can see it rising from the dead is if the EU make it clear there will be no further extension. But I don't feel they will take that gamble.

ambro25 · 30-07-2019 06:17PM

brickster69 wrote: »

So the UK has rejected the WA and the EU say it will not negotiate it. So now the EU have to accept the UK is leaving on WTA terms and both sides end the negotiations. That needs to happen first before even thinking about what happens afterwards.

The EU doesn't have to "accept" anything, and couldn't possibly virtue-signal better at the geopolitical level, than to leave the negotiating door open right until 31 October (which I'm highly confident that it will, regardless of the UK's rhetoric and posturing).

The choices and eventual outcome, on 31st October or beyond, are all of the UK's own, sovereign making: the ball has been in the UK court ever since November 2018 or thereabouts, to ratify the agreement negotiated in good faith and at arms' length by the 2 parties.

If the UK, with next to no bargaining power in the balance, wants a change, any change, it has to bring something new to the table, of sufficient interest to the EU27 for engaging negotiating resources afresh.

If the UK won't, it is for the UK, and all who sail on her, to accept that it is wilfully exiting the EU without an agreement.

The EU has had its contingency plans in place since before 29 March 2019, and you can rest assured that the extra 7 months to end October haven't been wasted by anyone else than the UK.

Johnson and the UK are learning their place in our brave new world. Long overdue, and long may it continue.

isohon · 30-07-2019 06:24PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

The only way I can see it rising from the dead is if the EU make it clear there will be no further extension. But I don't feel they will take that gamble.

They have made explicitly clear that without any substantive change, or the acceptance of the WA as agreed by the last UK government, the exit date will not be extended again.

There was very substantial opposition to offering it in the first place. There will be no possibility of it in the absence of either of the above conditions on 31 October.

If anything, we may see a communique from the Commission to the effect 'regretfully as the newly appointed UK PM has made it his determination not to honor the faithful covenant entered into by his elected predecessor, and does not intend to utilize the extension for the purpose it was granted, we advise all Member States to prepare for the departure of the UK by 06 August'

Roger_007 · 30-07-2019 06:25PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough lets just imagine the conversation when the UK asks the EU for a trade deal.

UK: Can we have a trade deal please?

EU: Sure thing, first thing on the agenda for discussion will be the 33 billion you owe and the 2nd thing is the Irish border

Uk:..........

This sums up the essence of the problem very well. The EU negotiators know that Boris is bluffing with his no deal rhetoric. How do they know?, because he has told us so. He has said that the chances of the UK exiting the EU without a deal are a million to one, (i.e. no chance).
So, what Boris has done so far is back himself into a corner with his absolute deadline date of 31st Oct. The EU has no such absolute deadline.
Boris absolutely needs a deal and he absolutely needs it within 3 months. The EU have him over a barrel because they can justifiably say that if Boris wants to ditch the current WA proposal and start again, then it will take a considerable length of time to put a new deal together.
There is no way that a new deal could be finalised before the deadline even supposing the EU want to negotiate it at all.
So, if Boris wants to exit the EU on 31st Oct it will have to be with no deal. If he misses the deadline, then he is toast.

PeadarCo · 30-07-2019 06:35PM

brickster69 wrote:

So the UK has rejected the WA and the EU say it will not negotiate it. So now the EU have to accept the UK is leaving on WTA terms and both sides end the negotiations. That needs to happen first before even thinking about what happens afterwards.

The issue is the UK needs a deal with the EU full stop. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

If they leave on WTA they suddenly face a massive hit to over half their trade. Remember they lose access to all trade agreements that they have through the EU. The only way they get them back is rejoin the EU. Never the fact that the UK says they won't errect a border with Ireland basically means even for the EU there is no real need to be do a trade deal as the EU will have free untarriffed unregulated access to the UK. And that's the EU nevermind other economy's.

So we know what is going to happen in a no deal. The UK will need a trade deal with the EU and continue negotiations. Every other country who might want a trade deal with the UK will want to know the details of the UKs trade agreement with its biggest trade partner.

What the UK has to understand this is not a negotiation of equals. The UK is a medium sized country dealing with an economic superpower. It will be even worse when the UK sits down with other superpowers such as USA, China India etc. The EU unlike them will lose something in a no deal situation. However the WA may be the best agreement the UK can get.

fash · 30-07-2019 06:40PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is that is irrelevant to the EU. Grand you can have a no deal brexit. But a no deal brexit just increases the EUs bargaining power compared to the UK. The UK can accept that agreement or face the prospect of bargaining from a worse position(look at the movement in sterling with just an increased risk of a no deal never mind an actual no deal situation) and potentially end up having to accept an agreement that is worse for UK than the current withdrawal agreement.

The reason the WA was rejected is because 35% is the parliament want to remain and another 35% want a labour brexit. When they realise neither of those is likely, they'll be happy with the WA.

First Up · 30-07-2019 06:47PM

Christy42 wrote:

The UK is free to remove some of its earlier redlines. Then new things could be discussed. Or they could move the backstop to NI only. Or they could come up with a realistic solution for the border themselves.

Correct. The backstop is not an end in itself; if the UK has another way to achieve a borderless Ireland they are welcome to say what it is.

But they better hurry.

Joe_ Public · 30-07-2019 06:49PM

Good point made by somebody on one of the tv channels this morning, forget which one, but saying about no deal that people who "just want this thing done" somehow imagine that they get no deal on 1 November and its all sorted. But that's only the beginning of the story of years of, at best, uncertainty, and, at worst, total chaos. Not that that will be spelled out in the £100m information leaflet campaign, of course!

isohon · 30-07-2019 06:55PM

brickster69 wrote: »

I can't, it is a little out of my control. But i'm quite sure life will go on.

So in otherwords, in the sangria stained breath of a pensioner from Slough sitting on an beach-chair on the Costa 'ger it dun Boris'.

BluePlanet · 30-07-2019 06:55PM

It's pretty clear that BoJo didn't even read the text of the last extension..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-extension-text/text-eu-agreement-to-extend-brexit-idUSKCN1RN01E

4. The European Council reiterates that there can be no opening of the Withdrawal Agreement, and that any unilateral commitment, statement or other act should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement and must not hamper its implementation.

5. The European Council stresses that such an extension cannot be used to start negotiations on the future relationship. However, if the position of the United Kingdom were to evolve, the European Council is prepared to reconsider the Political Declaration on the future relationship in accordance with the positions and principles stated in its guidelines and statements, including as regards the territorial scope of the future relationship.

The entire thrust of BoJo and the Tories is either admitting they aren't reading anything or that agreements they sign don't actually mean what they say.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments