EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

Furunculus addressed this a couple of pages back - and I addressed this a few years ago. The EU stipulated this provision only ever apply to the UK, that no other country could have it. Anti-Federalists want a "two speed Europe", what the EU was offering was special status for Britain which would have led to us either leaving eventually or having to give up that status.

Why? We accept what we want, while other countries accept what they want. Why is this an issue for the UK? Denmark doesn't have the euro because it doesn't want it. Other countries can have opt outs too if that's what they want. But they don't because they don't. Why is this an issue for the UK? Why is this such an issue that you're prepared to ruin the UK, literally destroy the UK because of this theoretical issue where it's none of our business?

What are the practical benefits of Brexit? Can Brexit fulfil its practical promises?

350 million per week for the NHS. Promised by Boris Johnson, said by Leave's director Dominic Cummings to be the most effective message of the campaign, without which Leave would not have won. Now Boris Johnson is PM with Dominic Cummings as his chief of staff, and as PM he has reiterated this as a promise to be kept. Now show me the plans for how this is to be done.

[Pannonian]

We've all been pointing this out for years.

The exemption from ever-closer-union failed in finding a tactical compromise that had no bearing on the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

To give an example of what this problem looks like in practice:



In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.

Nice extrapolation of the theoretical to imagine the possible. Can we work with the concrete now?

Leave promised 350 million per week more for the NHS from the savings from Brexit. According to Leave's director, Leave would not have been won without this, and this was the single most effective message in the campaign. The bloke who promised this is now PM, and as PM has recognised this to be a promise. The director of Leave is now his chief of staff. Can you show me the plans for keeping this promise? Unlike your post, there is nothing theoretical about this. I can show you concrete evidence of the promise, the people making this promise whilst campaigning for Leave, and the now PM confirming this as a promise. All I say is, show me the plans.

Edit: Can you tell me who Openeurope are? Is this another of your thinktanks?

[Furunculus]

"nice thing you have there. here is an entirely separate and unrelated thing i want to divert you to instead..."

**in case you notice that i haven't discussed the actual merits of your thing, we'll finish up by impugning the possible motivations behind your thing**

smashing!

[Pannonian]

These are not unreasonable points on the face of it. However, I think it's much more likely we won't agree a food deal with the US - they're unlikely to reciprocate and allow our unpasteurised cheese and yogurt.

The Tories are currently finding that they cannot agree a deal with the EU, despite again giving ground - no longer asking for an exit mechanism, now asking for arbitration on the exit. The EU says they need to come up with something else reasonable.

I.E., roll over and take the deal, the only thing the EU ever considers reasonable (ask the Greeks).

So, if May can't get her Brexit deal through Parliament do you really think she or another Tory can get a US Trade deal with a side of chlorinated chicken through Parliament?

They cannot - not only will rural Tories not vote for it, nor will Urban Tories who shop at Waitrose (rural Tories probably have a butcher on retainer).

May is not in control, the ERG is not in control (and may not even survive Brexit). This is not Tony Blair's Parliament, it is restive and anything but pliable.

Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, said scrapping the protections was “vital for giving us the freedom and flexibility to strike new trade deals and become more competitive”.

A cabinet source also told The Sun newspaper: “The level-playing-field promise has to go, and Boris is very clear about this.

“It would seriously restrict our ability to deregulate and do trade deals with other countries.”

Brexit: Boris Johnson moves to scrap environment safeguards to get deal with Trump, 4th October 2019

So much for that. BTW, when you say "roll over and take the deal", did you mean from the Americans?

[Furunculus]

Brexit: Boris Johnson moves to scrap environment safeguards to get deal with Trump, 4th October 2019

So much for that. BTW, when you say "roll over and take the deal", did you mean from the Americans?

Philip is talking about sanitary/phytosanitary standards, i.e. agrifoods.
You're quoting Truss who is talking about flanking policies, i.e. employment/social/environment.
Level playing field provisions are entirely separate and removed from when chlorine washed chicken ends up on a dinner plate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Haven't read the full text of the EU treaties, so I will defer to Rory as to whether or no the EU can further penalize the UK following the reversal of Brexit and return to full EU status.

Perhaps, as he suggests, the power of the example of the failure itself will suit their purpose sufficiently.

But...

Could they force the adoption of the Euro? Can they minimize UK influence in EU courts, legislative assemblies by functional marginalization through rules/by laws and the like?

[Pannonian]

Haven't read the full text of the EU treaties, so I will defer to Rory as to whether or no the EU can further penalize the UK following the reversal of Brexit and return to full EU status.

Perhaps, as he suggests, the power of the example of the failure itself will suit their purpose sufficiently.

But...

Could they force the adoption of the Euro? Can they minimize UK influence in EU courts, legislative assemblies by functional marginalization through rules/by laws and the like?

Could they force the adoption of the Euro?

The UK, even now, and by extension in the future if we reverse this decision (since there is a guarantee that a reversal would return us to the position we were in before the referendum), is specifically exempt from the Euro. Denmark has also not adopted the Euro.

Can they minimize UK influence in EU courts, legislative assemblies by functional marginalization through rules/by laws and the like?

The UK already has disproportionate influence in EU assemblies, while the ECJ rules in favour of the UK in 90%+ (95% IIRC) of cases involving the UK. Reflect on this fact: English is the working language of the EU.

[Pannonian]

What do Leavers make of this? It's from the official Leave campaigners.

Angela Merkel's demand that Britain leaves Northern Ireland to rot inside the Customs Union is reprehensible and shows the true colours of our supposed "European allies".

Enough of this nonsense, we walk away as an independent, self-governing nation in three weeks' time!

We didn't win two world wars to be pushed around by a Kraut. Leave.eu

[Greyblades]

Boris offered a pretty good compromise and the EU rejected it, presenting no reasonable alternative or compromise of thier own. That it was merkel who personally rejected him is iceing to the cake; puts a german face to the EU's intransigence and plays on Britains historical opposition to a german dominated continent.

I saw this as pretty inevitable, what with parliament and the benn act are still trying to take no deal off the table. The EU wants a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, why should they accept any compromise when it costs them nothing to refuse everything not 100% thier way?

'Course this assumes that no deal is actually off the table which is in question for the next few weeks. Guess that doesnt matter too much for them; after all if things go wrong its not the germans who are poised to suffer all too much.

I still wonder how the irish feel about the EU gambling with thier economy.

[Pannonian]

Boris offered a pretty good compromise and the EU rejected it, presenting no reasonable alternative or compromise of thier own. That it was merkel who personally rejected him is iceing to the cake; puts a german face to the EU's intransigence and plays on Britains historical opposition to a german dominated continent.

I saw this as pretty inevitable, what with parliament and the benn act are still trying to take no deal off the table. The EU wants a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, why should they accept any compromise when it costs them nothing to refuse everything not 100% thier way?

'Course this assumes that no deal is actually off the table which is in question for the next few weeks. Guess that doesnt matter too much for them; after all if things go wrong its not the germans who are poised to suffer all too much.

I still wonder how the irish feel about the EU gambling with thier economy.

Where was the compromise? How does it fit within EU rules?

And as for your trying to blame the EU on Ireland's behalf, here's a missive from 10 Downing Street. The source is officially unnamed, but everyone's familiar enough with the game to know it's Dominic Cummings.

‘The negotiations will probably end this week. Varadkar doesn’t want to negotiate. Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold. Varadkar has also gone back on his commitments — he said if we moved on manufactured goods then he would also move but instead he just attacked us publicly. It’s clear he wants to gamble on a second referendum and that he’s encouraging Barnier to stick to the line that the UK cannot leave the EU without leaving Northern Ireland behind.

There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate. Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded. As things stand, Dublin will do nothing, hoping we offer more, then at the end of this week they may say ‘OK, let’s do a Northern Ireland only backstop with a time limit’, which is what various players have been hinting at, then we’ll say No, and that will probably be the end.

Varadkar thinks that either there will be a referendum or we win a majority but we will just put this offer back on the table so he thinks he can’t lose by refusing to compromise now. Given his assumptions, Varadkar’s behaviour is arguably rational but his assumptions are, I think, false. Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here.

If this deal dies in the next few days, then it won’t be revived. To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’. They thought that if May went then Brexit would get softer. It seems few have learned from this mistake. They think we’re bluffing and there’s nothing we can do about that, not least given the way May and Hammond constantly talked tough then folded.

So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.

We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.

We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless. They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.

‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.

Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies.’

So Downing Street is already inclined to direct the blame at the Irish.

[Pannonian]

If anyone tries to pretend that Johnson has been offering a reasonable compromise and deal, here's an analysis of the situation. Dated 25th July, in the early days of Johnson's premiership.

The plan is not what some might expect. He is more interested in power than in Brexit. His aim (so I argue here) is to fight, and win, a GE, and to obtain a mandate for the next five years. 2/

The way he approaches Brexit should not be seen as cakeist and naive. In policy terms it is: but the thing is that his Brexit plan is not intended to succeed. Instead, it is only intended to create the narrative around which a GE can be won. 3/

First, he will go 'our EU friends', appealing to their economic self-interest, demanding things he knows he cannot get. He will present himself as a 'can-do dealer'... whose plan has only been thwarted by intransigence in Brussels. 4/

Watch for the sharp shift in tone (which will come when the time is judged to be right). Erstwhile friends in the EU will become public enemy number one. The UK will be strong and confident. In extremis, we go it alone, and leave without a deal. 5/

But the plan is not to leave without a deal in October. That, as he knows, would cause huge disruption, and would not augur well for him as PM. The plan is to be ready to leave... but then to be thwarted by public enemy number two, the remainer Parliament. 6/

He will provoke the moderate Tories. He probably knows that they require quite a lot of provoking. He will not seek to undermine the confidence of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems. But he will starve the Brexit Party of political space. 7/

He wants to be able to fight a general election, as the man who is standing up for the British people; against the twin evils of the EU and the remain establishment. Vote Leave (and Dom Cummings) have, remember, done this unexpectedly successfully once before. 8/

To win, he needs to neuter the Brexit Party (I suspect that the jury is out on whether to offer some sort of pact or to opt for a more aggressive strategy), and bank on the fact that the 'remain' opposition will remain disunited. 9/

All this points, as I said a couple of days ago, to an Autumn general election. It is consistent with the UK's inability to concretise Brexit - both his 'new deal' and his 'no deal' will remain stubbornly undefined until after the GE. https://twitter.com/syrpis/status/1153789780980670468 … 10/

Posted on 25th July. Johnson's actions since, and the narrative posted by Brexiteers, fits this to a tee. And we have BS about how Johnson's reasonable compromise has been rejected by the EU. That's part 4. We have the anger against Parliament for thwarting the will of the people, how they will get theirs come All Hallows Eve. That's part 6. The sharp shift in tone has happened in the last couple of days. That's part 5.

[InsaneApache]

On the Kraut thing. It's taken nearly as long to leave the EU as it did to beat the Kaiser.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If anyone tries to pretend that Johnson has been offering a reasonable compromise and deal, here's an analysis of the situation. Dated 25th July, in the early days of Johnson's premiership.



Posted on 25th July. Johnson's actions since, and the narrative posted by Brexiteers, fits this to a tee. And we have BS about how Johnson's reasonable compromise has been rejected by the EU. That's part 4. We have the anger against Parliament for thwarting the will of the people, how they will get theirs come All Hallows Eve. That's part 6. The sharp shift in tone has happened in the last couple of days. That's part 5.

The thing is, most of these moves were inevitable given the situation Johnson inherited. With an obstructive and ideologically driven Labour Party just as interested in electoral success and just as uncaring of the country as a whole an election was inevitable. The EU's "negotiating" position throughout has been to reject what the UK offers without offering counters or setting out its own position in detail - meaning the UK is left to offer, and offer, and offer until it offers one the EU like.

It's like offering a girl flowers - she won't tell you which ones she likes, you just have to keep guessing until you get it right.

In any case, the level of cynicism you display must also be applied to the EU - in which case we should conclude they are interested in only three options:

1. UK crashes out unexpectedly, ruins economy.

2. UK leaves with deal permanently tied to EU, economy stagnates.

3. UK does not leave, economy flourishes.

Any mutually advantageous deal is not advantageous to the EU Project.

[Montmorency]

The thing is, most of these moves were inevitable given the situation Johnson inherited. With an obstructive and ideologically driven Labour Party just as interested in electoral success and just as uncaring of the country as a whole an election was inevitable. The EU's "negotiating" position throughout has been to reject what the UK offers without offering counters or setting out its own position in detail - meaning the UK is left to offer, and offer, and offer until it offers one the EU like.

It's like offering a girl flowers - she won't tell you which ones she likes, you just have to keep guessing until you get it right.

Hasn't Ireland and the EU been very clear, since 2017, that they reject any new customs infrastructure or checks within the Irish island?

Whatever you think of it, that's the Irish (and EU) position, and I can't say the British government negotiates in good faith if its proposals consistently contradict this criterion. These outcomes are predictable, it's kayfabe.

[Pannonian]

The thing is, most of these moves were inevitable given the situation Johnson inherited. With an obstructive and ideologically driven Labour Party just as interested in electoral success and just as uncaring of the country as a whole an election was inevitable. The EU's "negotiating" position throughout has been to reject what the UK offers without offering counters or setting out its own position in detail - meaning the UK is left to offer, and offer, and offer until it offers one the EU like.

It's like offering a girl flowers - she won't tell you which ones she likes, you just have to keep guessing until you get it right.

In any case, the level of cynicism you display must also be applied to the EU - in which case we should conclude they are interested in only three options:

1. UK crashes out unexpectedly, ruins economy.

2. UK leaves with deal permanently tied to EU, economy stagnates.

3. UK does not leave, economy flourishes.

Any mutually advantageous deal is not advantageous to the EU Project.

How does your mutually advantageous deal appear? Have you looked at the amount of red tape necessary for life outside the EU? Even if it's spun as advantageous by a national government, have a look at the detail on the ground. I posted a video earlier in the thread of a Leaver going through a typical transit process. The crew made some preparations for him, and there wasn't a particularly long queue (in fact it was shorter in duration than normal), but the additional amount of work involved made him rethink his ideas on what his touted WTO conditions involves. And I've also posted an account by a truck driver on what travel from-to the EU involves for your working driver, related from much greater experience than the previous Leaver. This account was cited in the Parliamentary study of Leaving preparations.

How far have you looked into the theoretical advantageous/disadvantageous deals you're talking about? Have you looked at the process beyond the deal, which after all only covers the leaving agreement and the immediate aftermath. The EU already went way beyond what the existing rules specify, in going out of their way to accommodate these working drivers, and extending various other inter-state agreements. But AFAIK you've not acknowledged any of that.

The stated aim of Leavers is to end up with WTO conditions. The NFU have already said that these conditions will make their farmers uncompetitive unless the government makes up the difference, and the government have already said that not only will they not do that, they will even abandon tariffs on imports, which will eliminate their domestic market as well. That's just one part of the post-Leave economy, which has nothing to do with EU agreements (it's based on WTO rules), and doesn't even look at related issues. Look at Leave policy and the details of its implementation. Stop blaming the EU for everything.

[Pannonian]

Hasn't Ireland and the EU been very clear, since 2017, that they reject any new customs infrastructure or checks within the Irish island?

Whatever you think of it, that's the Irish (and EU) position, and I can't say the British government negotiates in good faith if its proposals consistently contradict this criterion. These outcomes are predictable, it's kayfabe.

The GFA agreed that there should be a joint-UK-RoI-agreed system of government for NI. Autonomy for NI and free travel and a shared economy in the British Isles solved a wide range of problems that a border formerly posed. The UK wants to break this unilaterally and pretend it's all the RoI's fault, blaming the RoI/EU for intransigence when it's the UK's desire for unilateral action that has raised all these problems that hadn't previously existed (not recently anyway). The DUP is the only party in NI that does not recognise these problems. Leavers don't care about these problems, as their universal answer is to blame someone else for the problems they're causing (cf. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson/Dominic Cummings on this subject).

[Furunculus]

Hasn't Ireland and the EU been very clear, since 2017, that they reject any new customs infrastructure or checks within the Irish island?

Whatever you think of it, that's the Irish (and EU) position, and I can't say the British government negotiates in good faith if its proposals consistently contradict this criterion. These outcomes are predictable, it's kayfabe.

i reject the notion of paying my mortgage on the 10th of the month, that doesn't seem to slow down my lender.

the maximalist interpretation of no hard border (which requires full regulatory adherence and acustoms unions) is a position that may caved too from our weaker negotiating position - and then only as in the backstop with no promise that would continue into a FTA. it is a position rejected by boris as untennable due it failing to pass the commons three times.

[Idaho]

Look at Leave policy and the details of its implementation. Stop blaming the EU for everything.

The brexiteer mindset can't see anything other than British glory or EU blame. It's beyond ideological and straying well into religious fervour.

A sensible case for leaving could and can be made. But it would really require a practical timeline of 10 years and would inevitably require concessions to the EU in exchange for access to their markets. But this is so unthinkable to the flag wavers that they are forced to grasp other narratives that claim that leaving is "easy" and therefore any ill effects from crashing out is the EU "punishing" the UK.

It's tragi-comic. It's not for the EU or Ireland to compromise their treaties, integrity or cohesiveness to make brexit work! We've made our bed and now we are going to lie in it, all the while blaming everyone else for state we've forced on ourselves.

[rory_20_uk]

The brexiteer mindset can't see anything other than British glory or EU blame. It's beyond ideological and straying well into religious fervour.

A sensible case for leaving could and can be made. But it would really require a practical timeline of 10 years and would inevitably require concessions to the EU in exchange for access to their markets. But this is so unthinkable to the flag wavers that they are forced to grasp other narratives that claim that leaving is "easy" and therefore any ill effects from crashing out is the EU "punishing" the UK.

It's tragi-comic. It's not for the EU or Ireland to compromise their treaties, integrity or cohesiveness to make brexit work! We've made our bed and now we are going to lie in it, all the while blaming everyone else for state we've forced on ourselves.

Another Remainer with the ability to read minds! Always useful. Religious fervour? Yes that is tragi-comic. That you're blind to the irony.

Given that we have had about 40 years of integration - with little to no input from the people - two years was always going to be too short. But then the EU never really thought anyone would be leaving. If the EU had offered a 10 year transition period I imagine they would have mentioned this at some point.

I think you'll find leavers here want to leave. And I for one have been saying we'd be leaving with no deal because the EU would not jeopardise its integrity - other countries might like free trade without overheads.

[Idaho]

Another Remainer with the ability to read minds! Always useful. Religious fervour? Yes that is tragi-comic. That you're blind to the irony.

Given that we have had about 40 years of integration - with little to no input from the people - two years was always going to be too short. But then the EU never really thought anyone would be leaving. If the EU had offered a 10 year transition period I imagine they would have mentioned this at some point.

I think you'll find leavers here want to leave. And I for one have been saying we'd be leaving with no deal because the EU would not jeopardise its integrity - other countries might like free trade without overheads.

I'm not, strictly speaking, a remainer. I have always been very sceptical of the EU. However I'm not a swivel eyed loon so don't have a belief that jutting my chin out, braying over the top of any reason and waving a flag, amounts to an actual practical way to make all of the detailed adjustments and compromises that are the essence of international agreement.

Leave is leave is leave and you demand that we leave. Yes I've heard the rhetoric. But none of that amounts to a reasonable plan. And that's why I characterise it as religious. Are there remainers with a similar religious faith in the EU? Of course. But you are breaking away from traditional conservative values. That change should only happen for very good reasons and should be done carefully.

We're heading for a car crash which will be the responsibility of the hard brexiteers. But they will find 101 others to blame.

[Montmorency]

i reject the notion of paying my mortgage on the 10th of the month, that doesn't seem to slow down my lender.

the maximalist interpretation of no hard border (which requires full regulatory adherence and acustoms unions) is a position that may caved too from our weaker negotiating position - and then only as in the backstop with no promise that would continue into a FTA. it is a position rejected by boris as untennable due it failing to pass the commons three times.

Again, the obvious circumvention for this obstacle would be to commit to a full custom union in the first place.

Here's the EU's latest:

Boris Johnson has been issued with an ultimatum by EU leaders ahead of crucial Brexit talks with Ireland’s prime minister Leo Varadkar: accept that Northern Ireland can remain in the EU customs union or there will be no withdrawal agreement.

The EU gave you a roadmap with multiple possible pathways long ago, as referenced by Pannonian and the CGP Grey dude Rory loves. What Leave Edit: Labour should have done is seized on that to pick a reasonable arrangement, any arrangement really, and campaigned on both sides of the issue. It could have been everything centrists claim to love, simultaneously offering a referendum against the LibDem extreme of outright Article 50 revocation and an EU-approved prefabricated (outline of a) Deal against the Cons extreme of Hard Brexit/backstop/magical thinking.

[Pannonian]

I'm not, strictly speaking, a remainer. I have always been very sceptical of the EU. However I'm not a swivel eyed loon so don't have a belief that jutting my chin out, braying over the top of any reason and waving a flag, amounts to an actual practical way to make all of the detailed adjustments and compromises that are the essence of international agreement.

Leave is leave is leave and you demand that we leave. Yes I've heard the rhetoric. But none of that amounts to a reasonable plan. And that's why I characterise it as religious. Are there remainers with a similar religious faith in the EU? Of course. But you are breaking away from traditional conservative values. That change should only happen for very good reasons and should be done carefully.

We're heading for a car crash which will be the responsibility of the hard brexiteers. But they will find 101 others to blame.

Remainers have a plan. A detailed plan. An extremely detailed plan with definitions, plans, costings, physical and human infrastructure, training, and everything else. With working examples and everything. Everything that the most meticulous engineer could want in a plan, Remainers can provide.

All I ask of Leavers is to provide a modicum of a plan. I'm not asking for anywhere near as detailed a plan as Remainers can provide. Just something that can pass the first stage of any business management's scrutiny. In most businesses, if the project manager offered something akin to what the Leavers have shown so far, they would be fired for extreme incompetence and the management would rethink whatever it was that led them to appoint said incompetent in the first place, possibly with the MD who appointed him getting fired as well.

[rory_20_uk]

Remainers have a plan. A detailed plan. An extremely detailed plan with definitions, plans, costings, physical and human infrastructure, training, and everything else. With working examples and everything. Everything that the most meticulous engineer could want in a plan, Remainers can provide.

All I ask of Leavers is to provide a modicum of a plan. I'm not asking for anywhere near as detailed a plan as Remainers can provide. Just something that can pass the first stage of any business management's scrutiny. In most businesses, if the project manager offered something akin to what the Leavers have shown so far, they would be fired for extreme incompetence and the management would rethink whatever it was that led them to appoint said incompetent in the first place, possibly with the MD who appointed him getting fired as well.

Aha! Precognition! Great idea!!

In that case we're truly sorted - these people could play the stockmarket and make a killing in a day or so. Perhaps with their skills we'd even manage to pay for all of Corbyn's plans.

A couple of things:

There was no plan shared with the UK populace over the plans for increased integration - the Euro and ECB and indeed ECJ were not a glimmer on the horizon to start with.

If a Project Manager was asked to come up with a plan, if they followed PRINCE2 principles they would of course put the uncertainties into the plan. Sacking someone for not knowing the future requires a complete lack of understanding. Perhaps someone in the Clergy.

[Pannonian]

Again, the obvious circumvention for this obstacle would be to commit to a full custom union in the first place.

Here's the EU's latest:

The EU gave you a roadmap with multiple possible pathways long ago, as referenced by Pannonian and the CGP Grey dude Rory loves. What Leave Edit: Labour should have done is seized on that to pick a reasonable arrangement, any arrangement really, and campaigned on both sides of the issue. It could have been everything centrists claim to love, simultaneously offering a referendum against the LibDem extreme of outright Article 50 revocation and an EU-approved prefabricated (outline of a) Deal against the Cons extreme of Hard Brexit/backstop/magical thinking.

Farage talked of a Norway-style relationship during the campaign. That's membership of the single market, with one's own control of customs arrangements. If customs arrangements are problematic on the NI/RoI border, then add customs union to the single market membership. That's within the EU's map of possible solutions given to us at the start of all this (back in late 2016, can't remember if it was before or after May became PM). The EU have given us a range of solutions to choose from. If the Brexiteers were going to keep the promises they made during the campaign, the plans are there for them to leave.

[Pannonian]

Aha! Precognition! Great idea!!

In that case we're truly sorted - these people could play the stockmarket and make a killing in a day or so. Perhaps with their skills we'd even manage to pay for all of Corbyn's plans.

A couple of things:

There was no plan shared with the UK populace over the plans for increased integration - the Euro and ECB and indeed ECJ were not a glimmer on the horizon to start with.

If a Project Manager was asked to come up with a plan, if they followed PRINCE2 principles they would of course put the uncertainties into the plan. Sacking someone for not knowing the future requires a complete lack of understanding. Perhaps someone in the Clergy.

Fantastic strawman you've built there. Are you planning on burning it on 5th November?

[rory_20_uk]

Fantastic strawman you've built there. Are you planning on burning it on 5th November?

Are you saying you can predict the future?

[Idaho]

If a Project Manager was asked to come up with a plan, if they followed PRINCE2 principles they would of course put the uncertainties into the plan. lack of understanding.

No one uses prince anymore. It's a system designed on the basis of precognition!

[rory_20_uk]

No one uses prince anymore. It's a system designed on the basis of precognition!

It is based on back covering and having an audit trail from the top to the bottom. Ergo it is never used since the top management always like a level of plausible deniability.

[Furunculus]

It's is a good system if youre operating a complex project in a known environment. No one ever does it properly, but it often adds enough structure to manage a project with some rigour.

Less so if you are operating with poor knowledge of what the end goal looks like. For that there is dsdm agile. A better way of doing things, as usually a project is introduced to transition to a new method/thing.

I'm a qualified practitioner of both, and also have training in scrum.

Possible exception might be iso13485 for medical devices where the aim is not continuous improvement (as per 2001), but continual verification and validation that tye product continues to be made via the approved process.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, word is Johnson has agreed there can be no customs border in Ireland.

Now it's for the EU to move and agree this is ultimately up to the NI Assembly.