EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Barnier has reiterated that the UK will be able to unilaterally exit any customs arrangement with the EU. Just leave NI within the customs union, as required by the GFA (a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI). May can't go with that because she's beholden to the DUP. How is this the fault of the EU? She had a Commons majority when she invoked article 50, which started all this. Remember the UK is the active actor in all of this. The EU didn't push for all this; the UK did. And now the Leavers are blaming the EU because the EU aren't yielding on absolutely everything. Even though the EU have already gone out of their way to help the UK in a number of areas. Which they didn't have to, and which no one else is doing. Not even our supposed friends the Americans.

I've accepted that we will leave with no deal, courtesy of the Brexiters who will continue with their dogma and continue to blame the EU for all the ills of the world. I just wish that Brexiters will take responsibility for what will transpire. I just wanted tomorrow to be reasonably like today. But Brexiters want revolution without any clue as to what will happen next, as long as they can blame someone.

Some more Brexit revelations. After the assassination of the Remain-campaigning MP Jo Cox, the Remain and Leave campaigns agreed on a truce for a few days, in which neither side campaigned. Except for some elements of the Leave camp, who saw this as an opportunity to push their message with no opposition. There are some real scum among the Brexit camp.

---

So, instead of selling NI down the river with a hard border on land you propose a hard border in the Irish Sea.

In reality, either outcome betrays someone.

Meanwhile, we finally have some indications on the "Technical solution" to the problem:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506139

Quote:

---

Lars Karlsson, a former director at the World Customs Organisation, said all the separate elements which made up the proposal had been tested "somewhere in the world, just not in one single border".


The border in Northern Ireland would be "the first and a leading example in the world of this kind," he added.


However, the committee urged the UK and EU negotiators to agree on a definition of a hard border by 12 March.


"Mistrust over the backstop protocol has been heightened by lack of clarity on what exactly constitutes a 'hard border'," said chairman Andrew Murrison.


"My committee is calling for clarification of the term in a legally explicit way to ensure both parties share the same understanding of how the backstop can be avoided."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

So, instead of selling NI down the river with a hard border on land you propose a hard border in the Irish Sea.

In reality, either outcome betrays someone.

Meanwhile, we finally have some indications on the "Technical solution" to the problem:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506139

---

Quote:

---

Lars Karlsson, a former director at the World Customs Organisation, said all the separate elements which made up the proposal had been tested "somewhere in the world, just not in one single border".

---

All IT solutions consist of elements that have been tested somewhere in the world, just not in a single solution in that particular context. And thus IT solutions fail and overrun their budgets on a grand scale. Does anyone have a list of these elements of the NI-RoI border tech solution that Brexiteers love to cite, complete with their contexts? NB. I have experience of implementing IT solutions, from design through to execution and maintenance. Even with the small scale projects I've worked on, that paragraph above rings alarm bells for its insouciance.

And BTW, when you talk of betrayal, remember that Brexiteers initiated this. The EU didn't push the UK into this problem. Remainers didn't push the UK into this problem. Leavers like yourself did. And if you don't like taking responsibility, then blame the leaders whose BS you continue to push like above. Under 3 weeks until no deal.

More on Lars Karlsson, the expert quoted in PFH's article, on this subject.

Quote:

---

Former Swedish customs official Lars Karlsson presented a 46-page report to the European Parliament last year showing how technological solutions could maintain as open an Irish Border as possible and remove the need for a backstop.

Mr Karlsson appeared before the Northern Ireland Public Affairs Committee in Westminster today, initially saying he had visited and "studied the border".

But after questioning by Lady Sylvia Hermon, Mr Karlsson admitted:

- That he had only visited the Irish border once, two years ago,

- That he had not been along the entire border, and

- That he was there in a different capacity not related to the report anyway.

Lady Hermon asked: "So when you said you'd been there and studied it, you've not been along the entire border?"

To which Mr Karlsson replied: "No.

"I have not been there in relation to this specific issue, no."

---

Ouch. My prediction: take the estimated time and cost of the solution, at least triple the cost and time, and you might have something that might be able to limp along with numerous holes and patches. A more realistic estimate is at least 5x both. An equally realistic estimate is 5x both and it still doesn't work. Based on previous government experience with tech solutions.

Well that ended nicely... I'm being sarcastic of course. Another defeat.

the sausage machine grinds exceeding slow of late.

16 days until no deal. Are you happy with this Brexit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

All IT solutions consist of elements that have been tested somewhere in the world, just not in a single solution in that particular context. And thus IT solutions fail and overrun their budgets on a grand scale. Does anyone have a list of these elements of the NI-RoI border tech solution that Brexiteers love to cite, complete with their contexts? NB. I have experience of implementing IT solutions, from design through to execution and maintenance. Even with the small scale projects I've worked on, that paragraph above rings alarm bells for its insouciance.

And BTW, when you talk of betrayal, remember that Brexiteers initiated this. The EU didn't push the UK into this problem. Remainers didn't push the UK into this problem. Leavers like yourself did. And if you don't like taking responsibility, then blame the leaders whose BS you continue to push like above. Under 3 weeks until no deal.

More on Lars Karlsson, the expert quoted in PFH's article, on this subject.

Ouch. My prediction: take the estimated time and cost of the solution, at least triple the cost and time, and you might have something that might be able to limp along with numerous holes and patches. A more realistic estimate is at least 5x both. An equally realistic estimate is 5x both and it still doesn't work. Based on previous government experience with tech solutions.

---

Apparently the IT solution dealing with EU residents can't cope with multiple names, eg. maiden names and married names. This is a problem that just needs translation from paper to code, without any complications with geography, real time interactions with people, people intentionally evading or sabotaging it, etc. It's also a problem that has been solved all over the web wherever IDs are involved. Yet Brexiteers expect people to believe that a solution that has never been implemented as a whole or on that scale will suddenly work satisfactorily. And in case people have missed it, the IRA are sending bombs around again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

16 days until no deal. Are you happy with this Brexit?

---

I have faith in the process, even if the result isn't precisely what I want.
The salient point is:that continued membership is no longer tenable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I have faith in the process, even if the result isn't precisely what I want.
The salient point is:that continued membership is no longer tenable.

---

In other words, you would be happy with no deal when it comes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Apparently the IT solution dealing with EU residents can't cope with multiple names, eg. maiden names and married names. This is a problem that just needs translation from paper to code, without any complications with geography, real time interactions with people, people intentionally evading or sabotaging it, etc. It's also a problem that has been solved all over the web wherever IDs are involved. Yet Brexiteers expect people to believe that a solution that has never been implemented as a whole or on that scale will suddenly work satisfactorily. And in case people have missed it, the IRA are sending bombs around again.

---

I am always impressed about your ability to know what everyone else is thinking that disagrees with you thinks, and view future predictions are accurate when they are negative and always wrong when positive.

The IRA are sending bombs. So... we should stop Brexit because of the IRA? Sort of capitulating to Terrorism.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I am always impressed about your ability to know what everyone else is thinking that disagrees with you thinks, and view future predictions are accurate when they are negative and always wrong when positive.

The IRA are sending bombs. So... we should stop Brexit because of the IRA? Sort of capitulating to Terrorism.

~:smoking:

---

I'd like to know how the planned tech solution for the border will work, given that they can't even get an IT solution to deal with multiple names. The latter is entirely a paper to code problem, without any other obstacles, easily scaleable, yet they can't even do that. The expert cited in PFH's article says that the planned solution will work, even though he's never visited the area to scout the issues, nor have the individual components ever been put together or on such a scale. And on top of that, despite your attempt to paint it as a giving in to terrorists issue, you have people actively evading, subverting or sabotaging it. Even if there aren't bombs, you'll still have smugglers. Are you going to depict that as giving in to terrorists too? BTW, I'm not making this up. I'm just stating what used to happen, just as with the IRA, and as the IRA are showing, what will happen again.

The current position on customs in the event of no deal is no tariffs to be imposed. I've described elsewhere what effect this will have on UK agriculture. And no tariffs to be enforced means no leverage for trade deals either. Enlighten me if I'm wrong on this.

You said they had no idea of a solution.

They at least have a plan - so you were wrong about that.

Further, you keep blaming Leavers for this but it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided the vote was all about immigration (what Cameron told the other EU leaders) and it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided that "Brexit means Brexit".

Further, it is the EU that wasted time by refusing to engage in any negotiations on our future trade relationship until the Backstop, the Money, and Citizen's Rights were settled.

On that final topic, it was the UK (under pressure from the British people) that offered unilateral guarantees for EU citizen's rights that were rejected by the EU.

Most people who voted Leave would probably be happy with "Norway Plus" but May won't ask for it, the EU won't offer it and so we're left with a bad Withdrawal Agreement.

Once we're trapped in the Backstop we only have three ways out.

1. Break it and accept having to pay billions in compensation.

2 Rejoin the EU.

3. Accept whatever Trade Deal the EU offers.

Macron has already said that if Britain wants access to EU Markets it must give EU trawlers access to British Waters, something Norway doesn't have to put up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

You said they had no idea of a solution.

They at least have a plan - so you were wrong about that.

Further, you keep blaming Leavers for this but it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided the vote was all about immigration (what Cameron told the other EU leaders) and it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided that "Brexit means Brexit".

Further, it is the EU that wasted time by refusing to engage in any negotiations on our future trade relationship until the Backstop, the Money, and Citizen's Rights were settled.

On that final topic, it was the UK (under pressure from the British people) that offered unilateral guarantees for EU citizen's rights that were rejected by the EU.

Most people who voted Leave would probably be happy with "Norway Plus" but May won't ask for it, the EU won't offer it and so we're left with a bad Withdrawal Agreement.

Once we're trapped in the Backstop we only have three ways out.

1. Break it and accept having to pay billions in compensation.

2 Rejoin the EU.

3. Accept whatever Trade Deal the EU offers.

Macron has already said that if Britain wants access to EU Markets it must give EU trawlers access to British Waters, something Norway doesn't have to put up with.

---

How is it a plan when it is completely unrealistic? I can propose to solve the border problem by stationing 300,000 troops and electrified fences on the border to prevent unauthorised access. That's just as much a plan as the one you cite, and just as realistic.

And in the next few paragraphs you continue to lay responsibility for no deal on everyone but people who voted to Leave. Anyway, there will be no danger of being trapped in the back stop, or having to accept whatever trade deal the EU offers. The government is planning to enforce no tariff regime. That means, by WTO rules (I await the Brexiteers' next tantrum to call for Leaving the WTO), there will be no tariffs enforced on anyone, whether EU or non-EU. That means there won't be any trade deals full stop, as other countries already have all they want without having to offer us anything in return. Anything they want to export to us will be free from tariffs, while anything we want to export to them can have anything they want added on top (the US added 292% in the Bombardier case). How do you think UK farmers will fare?

"Trapped in the customs union", you complain. How does it compare with government plans for no tariffs come no deal on 29th March? What are the minuses of the former? What are the minuses of the latter? And no unicornery about the virtues of fantasy agreements, as the EU has already stated, negotiations are over; they've done all they can to back the UK government, but the latter has no mandate to keep its end of the bargain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How is it a plan when it is completely unrealistic? I can propose to solve the border problem by stationing 300,000 troops and electrified fences on the border to prevent unauthorised access. That's just as much a plan as the one you cite, and just as realistic.

And in the next few paragraphs you continue to lay responsibility for no deal on everyone but people who voted to Leave. Anyway, there will be no danger of being trapped in the back stop, or having to accept whatever trade deal the EU offers. The government is planning to enforce no tariff regime. That means, by WTO rules (I await the Brexiteers' next tantrum to call for Leaving the WTO), there will be no tariffs enforced on anyone, whether EU or non-EU. That means there won't be any trade deals full stop, as other countries already have all they want without having to offer us anything in return. Anything they want to export to us will be free from tariffs, while anything we want to export to them can have anything they want added on top (the US added 292% in the Bombardier case). How do you think UK farmers will fare?

"Trapped in the customs union", you complain. How does it compare with government plans for no tariffs come no deal on 29th March? What are the minuses of the former? What are the minuses of the latter? And no unicornery about the virtues of fantasy agreements, as the EU has already stated, negotiations are over; they've done all they can to back the UK government, but the latter has no mandate to keep its end of the bargain.

---

I voted to exit the EU - that's it. The current debacle has been engineered by a two Remain-backing Prime Ministers and a Remain-Backing Opposition, and the EU.

Have people from the Leave camp had an influence? Yes. Has it been a good influence? Not especially.

Even so, it remains the fact that there is a Remain-Backing majority AND a soft-Brexit Majority in both Houses.

To Engineer a No-Deal Brexit out of that is an exercise is utter incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I voted to exit the EU - that's it. The current debacle has been engineered by a two Remain-backing Prime Ministers and a Remain-Backing Opposition, and the EU.

---

That sounds like the Dolchstoßlegende.

"We could have won the war if it hadn't been for traitors and these constant attempts of our enemies to win. I find it morally wrong that the enemy fights back! Why can't they roll over like the peasant barbarians our Empire slaughtered for the Colonies?! It's our birth right to rule over them while claiming that we stand for sovereignty! Everything but the acceptance of all our demands is soooo unfair! ~:mecry:"

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That sounds like the Dolchstoßlegende.

"We could have won the war if it hadn't been for traitors and these constant attempts of our enemies to win. I find it morally wrong that the enemy fights back! Why can't they roll over like the peasant barbarians our Empire slaughtered for the Colonies?! It's our birth right to rule over them while claiming that we stand for sovereignty! Everything but the acceptance of all our demands is soooo unfair! ~:mecry:"

:laugh4:

---

But the EU isn't even the European Economic Area, which nobody voted to leave - ever.

So if we don't leave that, and we have a Customs Union...

The EU is not at fault for May's "Red Lines" but in bears a certain amount of the responsibility for souring negotiations, particularly in making the money a key point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

But the EU isn't even the European Economic Area, which nobody voted to leave - ever.

So if we don't leave that, and we have a Customs Union...

The EU is not at fault for May's "Red Lines" but in bears a certain amount of the responsibility for souring negotiations, particularly in making the money a key point.

---

Blaming everyone except Brexiteers again. The EU has been consistent throughout all this. The deal that May has as of now was on the table from the start, as per the graph of ready solutions the EU set out. It's been the UK, including Leavers like Davis (surely you're not claiming he was a Remainer) who said to the UK press that promises made to the EU were not binding. It is this two facedness from the UK government that has soured negotiations. Although, in the end, it was Leave's lack of a manifesto that has ultimately made the EU tire of negotiations. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is. Leave promised all sorts without being held to any one of these scenarios, and thus far no single Leave solution has a Parliamentary mandate. Except no deal, which will still be the default as of 29th March.

Now Farage is lobbying foreign governments to interfere in the UK's government. Hope you're happy with your sovereignty loving bedfellows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That sounds like the Dolchstoßlegende.

"We could have won the war if it hadn't been for traitors and these constant attempts of our enemies to win. I find it morally wrong that the enemy fights back! Why can't they roll over like the peasant barbarians our Empire slaughtered for the Colonies?! It's our birth right to rule over them while claiming that we stand for sovereignty! Everything but the acceptance of all our demands is soooo unfair! ~:mecry:"

:laugh4:

---

4th Feb 2018

Quote:

---

“[Civil servants] look at the evidence and we go where it is,” he said. “Of course if you are selling snake oil, you don’t like the idea of experts testing your products.

“And I think that’s what we’ve got, this backlash against evidence and experts is because they know where the experts will go.”

Responding to claims officials distorted their analysis, the former civil servant told ITV’s Peston On Sunday show: “I think that’s completely crazy. The truth is civil servants operate by the civil service code. The values are honesty, objectivity, integrity, impartiality.

“Their job is to look at the evidence and present it as best they can, analyse the uncertainties ... but that’s what they do, they’re objective and impartial.

“And I think what you find is that tends to get accepted very nicely when it agrees with someone’s prior beliefs, but actually, when someone doesn’t like the answer, quite often they decide to shoot the messenger.”

---

Quote:

---

“‘Dolchstoss’ means ‘stab in the back’,” Lord Turnbull told the Observer. “After the first world war there was an armistice, but the German army was then treated as the losers. Then, at the start of the Nazi era, the ‘stab-in-the back’ theme developed.

“It argued that ‘our great army was never defeated, but it was stabbed in the back by the civilians, liberals, communists, socialists and Jews’. This is what I think these critics are trying to do. They are losing the argument in the sense that they are unable to make their extravagant promises stack up, and so they turn and say: ‘Things would be OK if the civil service weren’t obstructing us.’”

---

PFH has come up with another iteration of this, blaming Remainers for Brexit not proceeding well. The fact is, as the civil servant pointed out, Leave won by promising stuff that wasn't achievable. The main Leavers steered clear of the problem when the time came to replace Cameron. And now they're at it again, arguing that it's the Remainers who are sabotaging Brexit. It's never their fault or responsibility. It's always someone else's fault, even when we voted for the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Blaming everyone except Brexiteers again. The EU has been consistent throughout all this. The deal that May has as of now was on the table from the start, as per the graph of ready solutions the EU set out. It's been the UK, including Leavers like Davis (surely you're not claiming he was a Remainer) who said to the UK press that promises made to the EU were not binding. It is this two facedness from the UK government that has soured negotiations. Although, in the end, it was Leave's lack of a manifesto that has ultimately made the EU tire of negotiations. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is. Leave promised all sorts without being held to any one of these scenarios, and thus far no single Leave solution has a Parliamentary mandate. Except no deal, which will still be the default as of 29th March.

Now Farage is lobbying foreign governments to interfere in the UK's government. Hope you're happy with your sovereignty loving bedfellows.

---

Again there's this "except Brexiteers" rhetoric.

No, not "except" simply "not only."

Remain defined what the Leave voted meant and Remain defined what holding to that vote meant - not Leave.

Further, not every Leave voter is a "Brexiteer" in much the same way that not every Remain voter is a "Remainiac".

You keep referencing this thing David Davis said but you haven't specified when and you apparently just expect me to be able to find the quote? If this is a major plank of your argument can I have an actual quote to analyse and comment on, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In other words, you would be happy with no deal when it comes.

---

I chose to support May's deal, despite having the same reservations expressed in Cox's advice.
I still supported May's deal when May improved the offer, despite my continuing reservations.
I will support it again, when it comes back again for the third time.
I support it recognising the compact that it will be a shallow-end social democracy, despite my own preferences to aim for a mid-atlantic Oz/Ca market economy.
But will I cry if blind idiocy in refusing to allow Cox to overturn his Dec advice leads to no deal? No. Oz/Ca may well be the consequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Again there's this "except Brexiteers" rhetoric.

No, not "except" simply "not only."

Remain defined what the Leave voted meant and Remain defined what holding to that vote meant - not Leave.

Further, not every Leave voter is a "Brexiteer" in much the same way that not every Remain voter is a "Remainiac".

You keep referencing this thing David Davis said but you haven't specified when and you apparently just expect me to be able to find the quote? If this is a major plank of your argument can I have an actual quote to analyse and comment on, please?

---

Here's Davis "clarifying" what he said.

This was May's first deadline to allow talks to move on. She managed to get concessions with assurances on her side, which the EU negotiators took on trust. Davis then undermined them with the above. After this, the EU 27 no longer took anything from the UK on trust, requiring everything to be legally actionable.

Quote:

---

Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, told German media he was “taken aback” that the language May had used in Brussels “differed somewhat” to what the prime minister had said in London since her return, referring in particular to the suggestion that Britain would only pay the final bill to the EU once a trade agreement had been reached. “She needs to be taking the same line in Brussels as in London,” he said.

An EU official said the guidelines for talks on future relations that had been drafted were already “Davis-proofed”, and it was clear what the consequences were if commitments were not respected.

The circulated draft includes the demand that “negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible”.

---

Also, does your assertion that Remain defined what Leave meant mean that Leave's concrete promises, such as the 350m per week for the NHS, will be kept? Or can you clarify how Remain defined what Leave meant by this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...g?imwidth=1240

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Here's Davis "clarifying" what he said.

This was May's first deadline to allow talks to move on. She managed to get concessions with assurances on her side, which the EU negotiators took on trust. Davis then undermined them with the above. After this, the EU 27 no longer took anything from the UK on trust, requiring everything to be legally actionable.

---

THAT is your smoking gun - David Davis saying that as the "Interim Agreement" was not a treaty there might still be some wiggle room?

Not exactly a storm in a Teacup but it's not the great "betrayal" you're making it out to be, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Also, does your assertion that Remain defined what Leave meant mean that Leave's concrete promises, such as the 350m per week for the NHS, will be kept? Or can you clarify how Remain defined what Leave meant by this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...g?imwidth=1240

---

I believe they meant that the Rebate was calculated in Brussels and we were obliged to pay what the EU asked even if money wasn't going to Brussels and then actually being rebated.

Really, though, it was a hyperbolic slogan which, even if the figure had been accurate, never should have been made.

The idea we would suddenly spend all the money we send to the EU on the NHS is absurd and the people who championed it were absurd and I said so at the time.

No, the Remainers said that the vote WASN'T about money, but about immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

No, the Remainers said that the vote WASN'T about money, but about immigration.

---

Like I said, the other day I saw a poster giving government advice on what to do if you're planning on driving in the EU after 29th March. On it someone put a sticker saying "Ban Islam".

Are you still disclaiming responsibility for what happens after we leave the EU? After all, you voted for it. I voted against it. You keep arguing for it, even after seeing how it's been implemented. I've been arguing against it throughout.

Just waiting for May to revoke article 50, dissolve government and step down then watch the Union burn as she says in parliament "You do it" as it erupts into riots in the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Just waiting for May to revoke article 50, dissolve government and step down then watch the Union burn as she says in parliament "You do it" as it erupts into riots in the street.

---

Parliament votes to extend exit deadline, May's cabinet rebels.

One funny tweet (from March 12):

Quote:

---

What should happen next:

• Quietly revoke Article 50
• Tell Brexiters we left with no deal
• Send them blue passport covers
• Give them special long queues at airports/ports
• Charge them for roaming calls/data
• Give them food and medicine ration books
• Get on with life

---

Quote on May's Deal from Cornwall Tory MP:

Quote:

---

This is a turd of a deal, which has now been taken away and polished, and is now a polished turd. But it might be the best turd that we’ve got.

---

So... guys... like, make up your minds please? Leave, stay, do a backstop, do a air flip, jump up and down, do another Royal Wedding... just do something!

*Does the Hockey Cokey*

I can do you a bacon buttie if you like, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

*Does the Hockey Cokey*

I can do you a bacon buttie if you like, too?

---

If I saw those phrases on someone's search engine history, I would be scandalized.

So the Speaker said "No" to a third attempt at Theresa May's deal and sources suggest another extension would only be approved in event of a Second Referendum.

Up for Marshmallows at Westminister?

Well, according to Erskine May he didn't really have much choice. It would have been partial of him not to.

So, either the deal gets dropped or a rider on a Referendum gets added.